NBA Live 13 a $20 Digital Release This October?

[Boilerbuzz]

Quote: Originally Posted by fluent2332

Responses in bold.

Let's be honest here - do you think that the original plan was to ship a game with only $20 worth of content in it? I'm betting they got to a point and had to scrap many features to ship in time. That's unfinished. Now, if you can convince anybody that this is the future of the franchise (as a $20 download franchise), then we can call it finished.

So, after 15 years of Live you weren't tired of it. After 3 years of 2K you're tired of it. Let's not even mention the game has continued to grow and made changes where warranted. It's not that you don't defend it SOMETIMES. It's that all you can do is defend Live and any POSSIBLE issues in it are completely ignored. It just seems that come hell or high water, you're going to be "happy" with Live - sight unseen. You don't see a problem with that? Anyway. There's no point in continuing the discussion with you. You're set on your position and it really doesn't matter. It's your opinion and your dollar.

[Boilerbuzz]

Quote: Originally Posted by fluent2332

I think that would have been awesome if Sony stayed in it. Just think, we could have had 3 options for a basketball game, each with their own take on the sport. That would have been great. For now though, I'm happy with 2 options. It's better than only having 1.

Better for who? 3 devs on a smaller market leads to each of them barely making enough money to reinvest into the products. Leading to slower growth. 2 is great. 1 sucks. But 3 is not much better than 1.

[Pared]

Quote: Originally Posted by 23

This ain't competition its butt rape Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

You're being a little ridiculous now, 23. C'mon.

They've offered a product. If it sucks, it sucks and you don't buy it. It's no different than when Sony offered something and you guys wouldn't support it.

But you're saying you want a product to support and then you contradict yourself saying they didn't do enough to win your support.

So they fold up shop next year and then you will complain there is no competition.

In what way does this logic work?

I understand guys being pissed; But they didn't offer the title in its state at $60 because they KNOW it's not worth $60. Some don't think it is worth $20. Ok, but again... I point back to my first argument and that is you can't expect competition to stick around and "compete" if you don't help invest.

And I'm not saying you should spend money on terrible games. I'm simply pointing out that it can't get better if you're not willing to try it. It's the same problem that we had when Live '10 had the worst sales of any Live game in the past 3/4 releases despite being the best title they had put out.

[Boilerbuzz]

Quote: Originally Posted by jwtucker710

Fact is, basketball video games, in stats have shown, generally don't sell that well.

Where in the WORLD do you get your "facts"? The basketball market if 4 million people on average. Peaking at 6 million for NBA 2K11. What are you talking about?

[Drewski]

Going forward I don't know that EA will be able to compete with 2K. EA will need to put together a phenomenal game and be outright with what the game entails. What Live had going for it was namesake, but how much water does that Live name hold anymore? Unless 2k has a huge debacle they're in position to dominate the genre for a very long time. Not sure EA will continue throwing money at a wall.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

[23]

Quote: Originally Posted by Pared

You're being a little ridiculous now, 23. C'mon. They've offered a product. If it sucks, it sucks and you don't buy it. It's no different than when Sony offered something and you guys wouldn't support it. But you're saying you want a product to support and then you contradict yourself saying they didn't do enough to win your support. So they fold up shop next year and then you will complain there is no competition. In what way does this logic work? I understand guys being pissed; But they didn't offer the title in its state at $60 because they KNOW it's not worth $60. Some don't think it is worth $20. Ok, but again... I point back to my first argument and that is you can't expect competition to stick around and "compete" if you don't help invest. And I'm not saying you should spend money on terrible games. I'm simply pointing out that it can't get better if you're not willing to try it. It's the same problem that we had when Live '10 had the worst sales of any Live game in the past 3/4 releases despite being the best title they had put out.

No I'm not ridiculous here. This series took about 5 steps backwards and freaking ignored everything everybody ever asked for including you even though you told them face to face now they want to charge and claim its for the exact same input

Not only are they continually lying but they've managed to screw up their series and making you pay for it

Live 10 only sold bad because the series sucked for too many years and lost alot of fans. It probably reviewed the best they've had this gen.... they're too freaking unstable to be competition, changing teams and changing companies and changing strategies far too often to do anything productive

I haven't decided on this game yet though and havent said anything because I don't know if it looks like that video but I won't be an early adoptor because if that's what it looks like its not worth 20 bucks to me.......they could've upgraded live 10 and sold that instead of putting out a game more inferior to something made in 2009

Yes I want competition but that doesn't mean I'm shelling out a decade worth of money because somebody can't get their crap together
I'm a customer and indonstill like quality stuff...its not my fault don't look my way



Prove me wrong ...please do, im askijg for it and I'll buy but don't try to lie and then throw flaming doo doo on me and expect me to say thanks

Smh

Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk

[Boilerbuzz]

Quote: Originally Posted by Pared

But you're saying you want a product to support and then you contradict yourself saying they didn't do enough to win your support. So they fold up shop next year and then you will complain there is no competition. In what way does this logic work? I understand guys being pissed; But they didn't offer the title in its state at $60 because they KNOW it's not worth $60. Some don't think it is worth $20. Ok, but again... I point back to my first argument and that is you can't expect competition to stick around and "compete" if you don't help invest.

DING!!! Exactly right. This was my point with NHL 2K. The consumer let that title down. It went through EXACTLY what Live is going through now. But they at least shipped a competent title in those years and people abandoned it as it tried to reinvent itself. Of COURSE EA's title was better. It's codebase was stable and the team was stable. Realizing that the hockey market is TINY, it's understandable what happened; but the attitude around it wasn't as forgiving as it could have been. Sad. I feel the NHL gameplay has stagnated big time since NHL 2K went away. But this is the wrong forum to go further than that. I was just noting the parallel.

[Boilerbuzz]

Quote: Originally Posted by Drewski

Going forward I don't know that EA will be able to compete with 2K. EA will need to put together a phenomenal game and be outright with what the game entails. What Live had going for it was namesake, but how much water does that Live name hold anymore? Unless 2k has a huge debacle they're in position to dominate the genre for a very long time. Not sure EA will continue throwing money at a wall. Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

The market just MAY be big enough to support an EA title as long as you have enough folks there wanting a "change of pace" or are just the dreaded "fanboy". Again, we'll see.