NBA Live 15 News Post

NBA Live 15 - 20 Things You Need To Know About the Game

11:45 AM - August 7, 2014 by 22cedric

GameInformer has just posted 20 things about NBA Live 15 you need to know. It includes quite a few details about presentation, gameplay and game modes.

We have posted a few interesting details below, but make sure you read the entire article here.

The commentary team of Mike Breen and Jeff Van Gundy returns. Given last year’s wooden performances, this year EA’s focus is on getting more banter injected in the proceedings. The two are spending more time recording side by side, and like NBA 2K, that dialogue between the two can be interrupted when something significant happens on the court.
The developers have completely overhauled the passing game and added more control back from Live 10, which to many was the last decent basketball effort from EA.
EA is placing a big emphasis on transitional animations to make the action look more believable. This obviously includes getting rid of instances where players take shots with their backs to the basket, a particularly egregious animation foul that occurred last year.
Fans of the EASBL will have to wait another year before the mode returns. EA wants to wait until the head-to-head online competitions, general gameplay, and visuals are up to par before investing in online team play.

Game: NBA Live 15Reader Score: 6/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS4 / Xbox OneVotes for game: 13 - View All

NBA Live 15 Videos

Member Comments

# 61 23 @ 08/09/14 02:50 PM

Would it be your business if you were banned for trolling and posting off topic?

# 62 Rockie_Fresh88 @ 08/09/14 03:06 PM

23 that's overkill .Won't stop me from buying nba live . They admitted the game was poor. Sean was pretty raw about what to expect this year as well in terms of modes. I understand the disappointment but it is what it is.

I'm glad gameplay and visuals was a big focus . No improvements to dynasty just means I will buy the other game .

# 63 jyoung @ 08/09/14 03:06 PM

All the way up to the day of its release, NBA Live 14 was marketed as an "amazing" and "revolutionary" basketball game.

EA only started backing off their unrealistically lofty view of NBA Live 14 once all of the negative feedback started coming in from people who had actually played the final product.

EA At E3:

"Powered by the EA SPORTS IGNITE engine, NBA LIVE 14 will deliver the ultimate on-the-court control. Utilizing its new BounceTek technology, NBA LIVE 14 will introduce a revolutionary new physics-based dribbling system."

In reality:

BounceTek looked awkward and controlled clunkily due to poor animation blending. Ball warping and "yo-yo dribbling" were also still in the game, despite EA's claims that Live 14 would be "releasing the ball to physics." The game even had trouble consistently detecting when the ball was being dribbled on the out-of-bounds line.

EA At E3:

"NBA LIVE players will evolve throughout the season with updates from every NBA game within one hour of a game’s final buzzer. Gamers will now have a new experience every time they pick-up the controller."

In reality:

Only 16 of the 30 NBA teams and 32 of the 428 players had been updated at all as of February 24, 2014. Ratings were barely being adjusted, and injuries and trades weren't being processed until weeks after they happened in real life. Many players were wearing the wrong accessories, and some even had the wrong skin color (Nate Wolters).

EA at E3:

"I can't reveal our entire feature set, or show you just how good 5-on-5 gameplay is starting to play and just how amazing our visuals are coming together this early in the summer. But that will come."

In reality:

The visuals were the worst of any retail game on the PS4, and the gameplay was full of bugs and exploits. The online play was also the worst of any game on the PS4, with lag that even the Dreamcast's 56K modem would be ashamed of.

# 64 The 24th Letter @ 08/09/14 03:06 PM

The statement doesn't make sense anyway, lol

# 65 Rockie_Fresh88 @ 08/09/14 03:18 PM

Hopefully the team can add something to dynasty via patch like trading future picks .

Wonder what parts of dynasty mode will carry to other modes .

# 66 23 @ 08/09/14 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mars5541


	23 that's overkill .Won't stop me from buying nba live . They admitted the game was poor. Sean was pretty raw about what to expect this year as well in terms of modes. I understand the disappointment but it is what it is. I'm glad gameplay and visuals was a big focus . No improvements to dynasty just means I will buy the other game .

No its not overkill. Be glad I let you know because its already been said that the hammer is coming down on the foolishness sooner than you think.

# 67 The 24th Letter @ 08/09/14 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jyoung


	All the way up to the day of its release, NBA Live 14 was marketed as an "amazing" and "revolutionary" basketball game. EA only started backing off their unrealistically lofty view of NBA Live 14 once all of the negative feedback started coming in from people who had actually played the final product..

Bingo...if this was supposed to preparation for a poor showing it completely went over my head.

# 68 aholbert32 @ 08/09/14 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMH


	I don't have an issue with it being called a poor product. I never said that. I have an issue with people that are acting as if the product was marketed as anything but. sent from my mobile device

Huh? It was totally marketed as a revolutionary game. JYoung listed the E3 comments and there was no "this is Year 1 and we know we wont have the best game" talk.

**** the Live website says this:

Players perform more like their real-life counterparts than ever before, informed by 70+ stats and tendencies, updated not monthly, weekly or daily, but within 1-hr of every NBA game. With fresh content and challenges on a daily basis, NBA LIVE 14 delivers the pulse of the NBA…24/7/365..

And we know that didnt happen. **** even if you want to give them a pass on not being a complete or solid video game, how can you give them a pass for not coming through on promised features?

Look I was the first one on OS who had the game and I bought it expecting the game to be subpar especially when EA didnt release many videos before release. I took one for the team and was eager to play another NBA game.

Also, having a demo doesnt excuse releasing a subpar game especially when EA promised patches to greatly improve the game and only one came. Finally, I'm not saying that anyone cant be happy or encouraged about the game. I just question anyone using the words of a Live dev as reason to get excited when they openly admit releasing a subpar game and not living up to promises they made last year.

Now if I see gameplay videos that show the improvements, I can completely see the excitement.

# 69 Rockie_Fresh88 @ 08/09/14 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jyoung


	All the way up to the day of its release, NBA Live 14 was marketed as an "amazing" and "revolutionary" basketball game. EA only started backing off their unrealistically lofty view of NBA Live 14 once all of the negative feedback started coming in from people who had actually played the final product. EA At E3: "Powered by the EA SPORTS IGNITE engine, NBA LIVE 14 will deliver the ultimate on-the-court control. Utilizing its new BounceTek technology, NBA LIVE 14 will introduce a revolutionary new physics-based dribbling system." In reality: BounceTek looked awkward and controlled clunkily due to poor animation blending. Ball warping and "yo-yo dribbling" were also still in the game, despite EA's claims that Live 14 would be "releasing the ball to physics." The game even had trouble consistently detecting when the ball was being dribbled on the out-of-bounds line. EA At E3: "NBA LIVE players will evolve throughout the season with updates from every NBA game within one hour of a game’s final buzzer. Gamers will now have a new experience every time they pick-up the controller." In reality: Only 16 of the 30 NBA teams and 32 of the 428 players had been updated at all as of February 24, 2014. Ratings were barely being adjusted, and injuries and trades weren't being processed until weeks after they happened in real life. Many players were wearing the wrong accessories, and some even had the wrong skin color (Nate Wolters). EA at E3: "I can't reveal our entire feature set, or show you just how good 5-on-5 gameplay is starting to play and just how amazing our visuals are coming together this early in the summer. But that will come." In reality: The visuals were the worst of any retail game on the PS4, and the gameplay was full of bugs and exploits. The online play was also the worst of any game on the PS4, with lag that even the Dreamcast's 56K modem would be ashamed of.

Lmaoo yeah that's some overhyping . I still enjoyed it but then again I didn't pay 60$ for it either .

# 70 aholbert32 @ 08/09/14 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Live2K


	Lol what company markets their product with bad info? Did 2k tell gamers that VC sucks and game modes don't work? EA was very clear in that they wanted people to play the game first. That this was a foundation with a commitment going forward. Apparently there was such a demand that they released the game.

That doesn't even address the point people are making. U don't have to market the bad things about ur game. U should be truthful about what ur game is and what u plan to do. The game wasn't revolutionary and the bouncetek tech was buggy. They didn't provide any of the promised updates they said they would.

# 71 The 24th Letter @ 08/09/14 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Live2K


	Lol what company markets their product with bad info? Did 2k tell gamers that VC sucks and game modes don't work? EA was very clear in that they wanted people to play the game first. That this was a foundation with a commitment going forward. Apparently there was such a demand that they released the game.

Let's not side step now, lol....The point of any of that being brought up was to disprove the idea that the NBA Live team promoted the game as a product that wasn't ready....they didn't...

# 72 23 @ 08/09/14 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aholbert32


	Huh? It was totally marketed as a revolutionary game. JYoung listed the E3 comments and there was no "this is Year 1 and we know we wont have the best game" talk. ** the Live website says this: Players perform more like their real-life counterparts than ever before, informed by 70+ stats and tendencies, updated not monthly, weekly or daily, but within 1-hr of every NBA game. With fresh content and challenges on a daily basis, NBA LIVE 14 delivers the pulse of the NBA…24/7/365.. And we know that didnt happen. ** even if you want to give them a pass on not being a complete or solid video game, how can you give them a pass for not coming through on promised features? Look I was the first one on OS who had the game and I bought it expecting the game to be subpar especially when EA didnt release many videos before release. I took one for the team and was eager to play another NBA game. Also, having a demo doesnt excuse releasing a subpar game especially when EA promised patches to greatly improve the game and only one came. Finally, I'm not saying that anyone cant be happy or encouraged about the game. I just question anyone using the words of a Live dev as reason to get excited when they openly admit releasing a subpar game and not living up to promises they made last year. Now if I see gameplay videos that show the improvements, I can completely see the excitement.

I totally forgot about that.. here is the thread just in case.

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...g-1am-est.html

It just makes me think how exciting that time was because the new systems had just released and we were actually able to stream games almost immediately.

# 73 CMH @ 08/09/14 08:38 PM

Yes, the game was marketed to the masses in press releases as a revolutionary game. I don't think any of us would have expected any different.

I should have been clearer in saying that the team that came to us on the forums knew there were issues and spoke about wanting to improve the product. There were interviews where the Live producers stated they knew they were not NBA 2K and did not expect to be NBA 2K in their first year.

Is that contradictory to the press releases? Of course. And my point is that if you read the press releases and expected the game to be revolutionary, you have yourself to blame because the producers stated they weren't there yet.

You guys have short memories is all this really is. But to come back with press releases like you expected the marketers to flat out say "This game sucks so don't buy it," is flat out ridiculous.

What I've learned is one simple thing: there's no adult conversation to be had here about Live because the immediate reaction is to slam it. And that's fine but I know the cards are stacked against someone like me trying to actually take the unbiased approach. I played both titles and thought both had their strengths and weaknesses. I also returned both titles rather quickly after purchase for the weaknesses.

The major difference here is I speak from a position in the middle while most of you guys speak from a position of dubiousness. That's fine, but I can't have a conversation with you guys if that's going to be the case.

# 74 The 24th Letter @ 08/09/14 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMH


	Yes, the game was marketed to the masses in press releases as a revolutionary game. I don't think any of us would have expected any different. I should have been clearer in saying that the team that came to us on the forums knew there were issues and spoke about wanting to improve the product. There were interviews where the Live producers stated they knew they were not NBA 2K and did not expect to be NBA 2K in their first year. Is that contradictory to the press releases? Of course. And my point is that if you read the press releases and expected the game to be revolutionary, you have yourself to blame because the producers stated they weren't there yet. You guys have short memories is all this really is. But to come back with press releases like you expected the marketers to flat out say "This game sucks so don't buy it," is flat out ridiculous. What I've learned is one simple thing: there's no adult conversation to be had here about Live because the immediate reaction is to slam it. And that's fine but I know the cards are stacked against someone like me trying to actually take the unbiased approach. I played both titles and thought both had their strengths and weaknesses. I also returned both titles rather quickly after purchase for the weaknesses. The major difference here is I speak from a position in the middle while most of you guys speak from a position of dubiousness. That's fine, but I can't have a conversation with you guys if that's going to be the case.

Jyoung. who posted the press releases, was frequent in this forum all year sharing his experiences in UT and other modes...

I've contributed to the video/ picture thread and played frequently up until the news that there was no patch to approach gameplay,,,

It's the same story with a lot of us..

So you can take the "oh, you guys just want to bash Live" stance if you want, but fact is, we played the game longer than yourself being that you returned it quickly..

The game had some things going for it...which I am sure is the reason air of us...("bashers" I guess?) played it as long as we did. Just not going to turn a blind eye of the obvious...and not sure why anyone unbiased would.

All good though...

# 75 aholbert32 @ 08/09/14 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMH


	Yes, the game was marketed to the masses in press releases as a revolutionary game. I don't think any of us would have expected any different. I should have been clearer in saying that the team that came to us on the forums knew there were issues and spoke about wanting to improve the product. There were interviews where the Live producers stated they knew they were not NBA 2K and did not expect to be NBA 2K in their first year. Is that contradictory to the press releases? Of course. And my point is that if you read the press releases and expected the game to be revolutionary, you have yourself to blame because the producers stated they weren't there yet. You guys have short memories is all this really is. But to come back with press releases like you expected the marketers to flat out say "This game sucks so don't buy it," is flat out ridiculous. What I've learned is one simple thing: there's no adult conversation to be had here about Live because the immediate reaction is to slam it. And that's fine but I know the cards are stacked against someone like me trying to actually take the unbiased approach. I played both titles and thought both had their strengths and weaknesses. I also returned both titles rather quickly after purchase for the weaknesses. The major difference here is I speak from a position in the middle while most of you guys speak from a position of dubiousness. That's fine, but I can't have a conversation with you guys if that's going to be the case.

Thats offensive and a huge assumption. A bias accusation doesnt even make sense. We are quoting back what devs said. This is what they said at E3. Those werent all press release lines. How is it showing bias by quoting what a Live dev said?

Speaking personally, my track record shows that I'm not biased. I bought Live before anyone else did and I held onto it longer than I shouldve. Even rented it again after seeing guys like WTF rave about how much the game improved. I just didnt enjoy the game. On the flip side, I was one of the first guys bashing 2k for its crappy GM mode, the lack of dynasty options, overuse of VC and how buggy the game was.

I like competition but I call it like I see it. Neither game made me happy last year and I havent seen any gameplay videos from either game so I cant speak to that. What I have is one game showing me improvements to features I care about and another one saying that they arent adding anything to Dynasty mode. What the Live devs have said is that they greatly improved the gameplay......but with Gameplay its show dont tell.

Finally, this has been a very "adult" conversation. People like 24th and JYoung have supported every argument they've made. Just because people dont agree with you doesnt mean they are biased.

# 76 WTF @ 08/09/14 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aholbert32


	Thats offensive and a huge assumption. A bias accusation doesnt even make sense. We are quoting back what devs said. This is what they said at E3. Those werent all press release lines. How is it showing bias by quoting what a Live dev said? Speaking personally, my track record shows that I'm not biased. I bought Live before anyone else did and I held onto it longer than I shouldve. Even rented it again after seeing guys like WTF rave about how much the game improved. I just didnt enjoy the game. On the flip side, I was one of the first guys bashing 2k for its crappy GM mode, the lack of dynasty options, overuse of VC and how buggy the game was. I like competition but I call it like I see it. Neither game made me happy last year and I havent seen any gameplay videos from either game so I cant speak to that. What I have is one game showing me improvements to features I care about and another one saying that they arent adding anything to Dynasty mode. What the Live devs have said is that they greatly improved the gameplay......but with Gameplay its show dont tell. Finally, this has been a very "adult" conversation. People like 24th and JYoung have supported every argument they've made. Just because people dont agree with you doesnt mean they are biased.

And I still enjoy the heck out of it.

My opinion doesn't mirror a lot of others, yours included aholbert. Regardless though, I saw enough in the AI department that kept me coming back all year long. I blasted the game after playing the demo initially. I deleted it after a day or two, as it was just a flat out awful game.

I saw a lot of the other title that killed the experience for me. Granted, I'm growing tired of the game style that 2k has, and enjoy more control. Once the first small patch released, I tried the demo again, went into it with an open mind, and trying to learn how to play the game. It's Live, but it's not "Live" like we all remember it. After learning how the players move, the dribbles that are at my disposal, I started putting together some really nice offense.

Defense came much harder, and still does to this day. However, I do have the ability to make a multitude of defensive adjustments and strategize against the CPU. I can choose around 10-12 different defensive adjustments per player. Set my matchups. Set my team philosophy (zone, man, full court) and then have a "pressure shooters", "pack paint" key on superstar, etc. Those are the things that I love in my game. My last game, I was able to force the computer to shoot a ton of mid range shots.

If I get relaxed, the CPU makes a good 12-0 run that is believable. I'll make big runs myself that are believable.

It's not without fault by any means. But if they tweak some things that I didn't like last year, add in a ton of animations, and make the game overall more smooth, I'll be another happy camper.

There have been several posters in here that have posted nothing but "The Live team needs to bring it this year, or else it'll probably be the last year" bs. All season long.

But for me, the things I listed above are what make or break a game for me. Luckily I didn't have a ton of the glitches that 24th and jyoung saw more often. I saw one end of game glitch where they held it at the end of a competitive game. I saw the 3 in the key several times a game, but it just didn't bother me as much as it bothered others. The continuous pump fake in the post, I've saw a handful of times. The round the world dribbling around the defender I haven't saw. The bulldozing over a player with no call, I've seen quite a bit.

Overall though, I was able to play extremely competitive games, that felt like I either won or lost. I didn't feel cheated, and I lost a ton of games.

Overall, I'm pretty excited about this years title. I can see a reason for a pessimistic approach for others though.

# 77 Rockie_Fresh88 @ 08/09/14 11:19 PM

Yeah I understand the pessimistic approach too. Probably no editing options , no dynasty improvements , not to mention live 14 felt like a Beta lol . And we really don't know if the gameplay improvements are marketing talk or not.

# 78 mrclutch @ 08/09/14 11:56 PM

I hope they really did completely redo the passing. It got a little better after the patch but that was what made the game just unplayable for me after awhile.

With the Demo and EA Access at least we won't have a blind purchase.

# 79 Haval93 @ 08/10/14 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrclutch


	I hope they really did completely redo the passing. It got a little better after the patch but that was what made the game just unplayable for me after awhile. With the Demo and EA Access at least we won't have a blind purchase.

The passing game should be much improved if they went back to Live 10 controls. It seems that Live 15 is using Live 10's control scheme. Maybe they will bring back the shooting controls of Live 10 and other things like the size-up dribbling feature.

# 80 aholbert32 @ 08/10/14 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mars5541


	Yeah I understand the pessimistic approach too. Probably no editing options , no dynasty improvements , not to mention live 14 felt like a Beta lol . And we really don't know if the gameplay improvements are marketing talk or not.

I just want to see it. Thats all. If they show me videos and I see gameplay improvements, I will be happy. Its not likely that I will buy Live because of all of the dynasty/franchise improvements the other game made and because I dont need both games but I would love to see Live step up the competition.

« Previous 1 2 345 Next »

More Links

NBA Live 15 - 20 Things You Need To Know About the Game