Two Year Development Cycle

[therockstar2005]

Seeing as how there's already an MLB 2k10 wishlist, I'm going try with something else. I continue to hear rumbles of "I wish there were a two year development cycle" for sports games, and I honestly couldn't agree more.

Despite the AI aggression and suspect fielding, I am still really enjoying this game, and I think part of it is that I didn't play 2k8, or 2k7, or even 2k6. I haven't been "used" to this next-gen baseball yet, so for me a lot of this stuff I'm seeing is fresh. It makes me wonder, if these games were not put out every year, maybe 1) the devs would have more time to put features into a game and refine it, and 2) we might appreciate the games more.

So I wonder what people think. A two year dev cycle might make the games better, it might not, but I think at least people should be looking at it. If they just released a roster update for the start of the next season I know I'd be satisfied. Hell, I'd probably be willing to PAY for said roster update (if is isn't $60, like it is now for some games :wink. I think the main thing keeping publishers from releasing a game every other year is the financial investment, but if people were willing to pay less for just a roster update that wouldn't require the time to put into a whole new game for the off year, wouldn't that model then work? I'd like to find out.

[boomhauertjs]

Re: Two Year Development Cycle

It would be nice to get free roster updates, but it's probably not realistic. I would hope they would include the next year's schedule as part of the roster update.

[Blzer]

Re: Two Year Development Cycle

Definitely the first choice. I only wish every company did this. Benefits everyone (except maybe the company).

[adayinthelife]

Re: Two Year Development Cycle

I'd be willing to pay for roster updates or some kind of DLC package assuming they included things like changes to logos, uniforms, new stadiums/arenas and such if there were any.

I would think the company could still profit roughly around the same amount if they charged say $20 for it since the production costs on doing a DLC like this would be significantly lower than a full game. First of all they wouldn't require a huge team to put it together and secondly digital distribution would save a bunch as well. They could still do things like make new cover art and such and just post it as a pdf file much like they did with the revamped Madden 09 cover.

[mattstl77]

Re: Two Year Development Cycle

I chose the option with free updates. I think we pay too much for a game for it not to be updated for two years.
I would be willing to bend if the game is phenomenal, but if it is subpar I would think twice before I buy a roster update.

[Blzer]

Re: Two Year Development Cycle

I chose the option with free updates. I think we pay too much for a game for it not to be updated for two years.
I would be willing to bend if the game is phenomenal, but if it is subpar I would think twice before I buy a roster update.

I guess I personally don't mind either way because I'll be in the middle of a franchise, not updating rosters. But I'd rather help the company before hurt them.

[Trevytrev11]

Re: Two Year Development Cycle

I would go for number 1 in a heart beat.

I would think to do this, they would have to up the price of the first game and make up some if not most of the rest on the roster update. They don't have to make all of it up because they are going to save a lot of money on marketing (one campaign vs. two) printing, shipping, etc.

The real people that feel punished by the short cycle are us, the hard core sim guys who want everything to be as real as possible. The casual fans aren't too concerned, so they don't feel the constraints of the 1 year cycle.

So say they need to make 80% (roughly $100 instead of $120). Would people be willing to pay $75-$80 for the base game and $20-$25 for roster updates? Again, we would, but what about the casual guys?

Also, they would have to be able to update things like new stadiums, new uniforms and new stances and pictures as people aren't going to want to play with a team in their old stadium or uni's when the real team is in new ones.

[larma]

Re: Two Year Development Cycle

Sure it would do wonders for the game but it's never gonna happen. As long as the game sells well they'll keep pushing out a new version every year regardless of how complete the game is.

[therockstar2005]

Re: Two Year Development Cycle

See, but I actually wonder about the business model. I wonder how much money EA and 2k have to invest into producing a game each year. Maybe I'm underestimating it, but I'm willing to bet there's some price point that would validate this idea and make it profitable.

Otherwise, hell, maybe profitability shouldn't be the ultimate goal for video game companies...or for life.