Yearly release

[johnmangala]

Quote: Originally Posted by Trillz

Football/Soccer is a much more popular game then UFC.

Exactly. People didn't stop buying Fifa games because they are annual releases.

Can't say people will stop buying UFC games if they were annual without some actual evidence.

[Dave_S]

Quote: Originally Posted by johnmangala

Exactly. People didn't stop buying Fifa games because they are annual releases. Can't say people will stop buying UFC games if they were annual without some actual evidence.

UFC team seams to try and make significant changes to core gameplay every time. (The actual fighting) Do the big budget EA games do that, I thought the actual playing was fairly similar year to year?

[kehlis]

Quote: Originally Posted by johnmangala

Exactly. People didn't stop buying Fifa games because they are annual releases. Can't say people will stop buying UFC games if they were annual without some actual evidence.

Here's what you're missing about that though.

Sales and a quality game don't always go hand in hand. You're asking for an 8 month dev cycle which means you would be getting a touched up game with a few new features each year.

Like he mentioned, FIFA sells because it's the most popular sport worldwide, not necessarily because it's consistently an amazing video game. If you go to the FIFA forum you will find plenty hardcore soccer (football) fans who haven't been happy with the game for years and would love to only have a release every other year.

Hardcore fans such as yourselves would in most liklihood not benefit from an annual game on an 8 month dev cycle.

Like I said in my first post on the matter, most fans who care first and foremost about how the sport is actually portrayed in the game (realism) would LOVE a two year cycle as opposed to an annual.

We can't use sales numbers as a representative factor to how realistic the game is or how well it plays.

[kehlis]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dave_S

UFC team seams to try and make significant changes to core gameplay every time. (The actual fighting) Do the big budget EA games do that, I thought the actual playing was fairly similar year to year?

Correct, with only 8 months they don't have much time to make too many changes to the core of the game in addition to all the other things they have to change and update.

[Reinfarcements]

I generally prefer the idea of 2-year cycles, but honestly that depends on what Devs are willing/can put in major updates.

For me, with the exclusion of any form of Finish the Fight, plus the more repetitive KO animations, I just can't seem to enjoy KOs that much in this iteration of the game.

So in this case, if the Devs eventually patch in a new KO system that in some way shape or form make KOs more enjoyable for me, that is awesome.

If they don't, I'm stuck not enjoying KOs (sort of a big part of the game) for the next TWO YEARS? If thats the case, you can't blame one for thinking a yearly release might be kinda cool, because there is a bigger chance things they don't like (like KOs) could be changed.

Not saying I'd vote for a yearly cycle, all I'm saying is two years is a long time to be unsatisfied with something, so I kinda get where that point of view is coming from.

(Btw still crossing my fingers for additions to the KO system in UFC 3)

[mannyonelover]

Will be lucky to see a fourth game.... anytime soon, Mark my words!!!!
And if so , The apple don’t fall too far from the tree!..


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[johnmangala]

Quote: Originally Posted by Reinfarcements

I generally prefer the idea of 2-year cycles, but honestly that depends on what Devs are willing/can put in major updates. For me, with the exclusion of any form of Finish the Fight, plus the more repetitive KO animations, I just can seem to enjoy KOs that much in this iteration of the game. So in this case, if the Devs eventually patch in a new KO system that in some way shape or form make KOs more enjoyable for me, that is awesome. If they don't, I'm stuck not enjoying KOs (sort of a big part of the game) for the next TWO YEARS? If thats the case, you can't blame one for thinking a yearly release might be kinda cool, because there is a bigger chance things they don't like (like KOs) could be changed. Not saying I'd vote for a yearly cycle, all I'm saying is two years is a long time to be unsatisfied with something, so I kinda get where that point of view is coming from. (Btw still crossing my fingers for additions to the KO system in UFC 3)

Pretty much. I am not for or against a yearly release, just interested in how it may differ from 2 year releases. Which ever works best I am for. From the looks of it most people are alright with the 2 year cycle as they feel more may get done.

Quote: Originally Posted by kehlis

Correct, with only 8 months they don't have much time to make too many changes to the core of the game in addition to all the other things they have to change and update.

Quote: Originally Posted by kehlis

Here's what you're missing about that though. Sales and a quality game don't always go hand in hand. You're asking for an 8 month dev cycle which means you would be getting a touched up game with a few new features each year. Like he mentioned, FIFA sells because it's the most popular sport worldwide, not necessarily because it's consistently an amazing video game. If you go to the FIFA forum you will find plenty hardcore soccer (football) fans who haven't been happy with the game for years and would love to only have a release every other year. Hardcore fans such as yourselves would in most liklihood not benefit from an annual game on an 8 month dev cycle. Like I said in my first post on the matter, most fans who care first and foremost about how the sport is actually portrayed in the game (realism) would LOVE a two year cycle as opposed to an annual. We can't use sales numbers as a representative factor to how realistic the game is or how well it plays.

I am not for a yearly release until the foundation is in place like games like fifa etc.

Once it's in place, a yearly release will mostly be polishing, and tuning. Which should be the focus as opposed to striking or grappling alternating focuses, which leaves the other feeling dated.

2 years working on striking left the grappling feeling like a separate game. Now another 2 years and the focus will probably be grappling, so then striking will feel dated like it was in UFC 2 when grappling was the focus.

I would like to see a more streamlined focus which seamlessly integrates both.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dave_S

UFC team seams to try and make significant changes to core gameplay every time. (The actual fighting) Do the big budget EA games do that, I thought the actual playing was fairly similar year to year?

More or less. There aren't many overhauls with games like that since the engine is already in place and people like it. They just incrementally improve it year over year. They focus on the entire game, so it's not like with EA UFC where striking or grappling takes priority leaving the other feeling dated.

[godway]

Also, yearly releases make more sense for football, baseball, hockey, etc because those sports operate under a seasonal structure. UFC does not, it's year-round. There's no need to plan releases to coincide with a season starting.