Re: Why did 2k drop gameplay support for next gen?

[XxGamerXx]

Re: Why did 2k drop gameplay support for next gen?

Can you guys let me know if you played last gen and next gen versions and which is better.

I started playing next gen on my series x and it looks amazing

Last gen version I play on pc which I can run at 4k max at 160fps....

Even at 4k max at 160fps it does not look as nice as the series x because we know pc did not get next gen version

But playing last gen at 4k 160fps and switching to series x at 4k 60fps with cutscenes and after play animations at 30fps is hard to get use to

but it looks so good in terms of player models and it feels like the physics are better.

What you guys say?

[canes21]

Re: Why did 2k drop gameplay support for next gen?

And if digital photography was profitable Kodak would have went that direction. If video streaming were profitable then Blockbuster would have went that direction.

Those companies paid millions of dollars on research and still made the wrong decision. Companies are paying tons of money daily and end up making the wrong decision.

We aren't even saying it is the bonafide right decision, we would just like to see it be given a chance because 2k/Take-Two is one of the groups out there with the resources to afford to give it a try and the potential reward could completely change the sports genre moving forward.

You've continued to move the goalposts throughout the whole conversation. It confuses me as to why you're so against the idea and are acting like 2k is omniscient and is making the right decision every time they make any decision.

The other parts of your post really aren't worth replying to, so I'm just sticking with the development side of the discussion.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[tru11]

Why did 2k drop gameplay support for next gen?

Dude dont put words in my mouth.
Never said they where omniscient and mistake free.
Far from it tbh.
I also have no stake in 2K so they can do whatever they want.

You are right though as companies make wrong decisions all time even when having waste millions of dollars on research.

Yet here you guys are arguing that 2K should take a chance because you guys think/believe/feel/imagine that it might work.

You know what , im aboard.

Let 2K do something just because you guys think/believe/feel/imagine it might work.

Who knows it might actually do.
And if not 2K has enough money anyways.

Sounds like a great idea [emoji1474]









Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[ksuttonjr76]

Re: Why did 2k drop gameplay support for next gen?

Dude gaming can be seen as an addiction and a social problem.

Their are gaming rehabilitation centers for that reason.

So yes there are people that believe that their is something mentally/socially wrong with gamers.

Their are cases of people playing non stop and then dropping death.

Their are cases of people streaming themself in first person and shooting down people like they are playing CS:go.

In asian countries gaming is a serious social problem as people apparently locked themselves up in their room to play videos gaming for years only leaving it to eat breaking all contact with the world outside the game



Seriously stop living under a rock....

As for this thread.

2K is a billion dollar company.
They can research if a business model is more profitable or not.
So no need to imagine anything or to wonder about stuff.

If a 2 year cycle with 2 teams was more profitable they would know and would have implemented it already.
Its a businessmodel that has been around for years.



Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

You must be talking about gameroholics (if that's even a word)? Duh! You can take ANYTHING to an extreme. Duh! Merely being a "gamer" is NOT a negative connotation. It's what you are.

You're trying way too hard to prove someone wrong or prove you're "smart" on this topic.

[ksuttonjr76]

Re: Why did 2k drop gameplay support for next gen?

Dude dont put words in my mouth.
Never said they where omniscient and mistake free.
Far from it tbh.
I also have no stake in 2K so they can do whatever they want.

You are right though as companies make wrong decisions all time even when having waste millions of dollars on research.

Yet here you guys are arguing that 2K should take a chance because you guys think/believe/feel/imagine that it might work.

You know what , im aboard.

Let 2K do something just because you guys think/believe/feel/imagine it might work.

Who knows it might actually do.
And if not 2K has enough money anyways.

Sounds like a great idea [emoji1474]









Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

Where's the harm in TRYING? I'm really arguing for trying something different where they're not stuck to this yearly cycle and producing basically a "bad" game that needs seven or eight patches every year to get it "right". As a result of working on patches, they're losing time on the development of the next game. Maybe we're just saying that it's just time to recognize that the game is "too large" where a yearly cycle is no longer the ideal environment for the game to evolve beyond what it is.

Is that really that hard of a concept to grasp?

[ksuttonjr76]

Re: Why did 2k drop gameplay support for next gen?

Can you guys let me know if you played last gen and next gen versions and which is better.



I started playing next gen on my series x and it looks amazing



Last gen version I play on pc which I can run at 4k max at 160fps....



Even at 4k max at 160fps it does not look as nice as the series x because we know pc did not get next gen version



But playing last gen at 4k 160fps and switching to series x at 4k 60fps with cutscenes and after play animations at 30fps is hard to get use to



but it looks so good in terms of player models and it feels like the physics are better.



What you guys say?

I was playing both both versions for a little bit, but then I settled back on the next gen version due to the graphics and the overall enhancements to some animations.

For the record, I think the current gen is more of a completed game than the next-gen.

[tru11]

Why did 2k drop gameplay support for next gen?

Where's the harm in TRYING? I'm really arguing for trying something different where they're not stuck to this yearly cycle and producing basically a "bad" game that needs seven or eight patches every year to get it "right". As a result of working on patches, they're losing time on the development of the next game. Maybe we're just saying that it's just time to recognize that the game is "too large" where a yearly cycle is no longer the ideal environment for the game to evolve beyond what it is.

Is that really that hard of a concept to grasp?

Its not a new concept dude.
Its an actual business model already being used in practice by other companies.
Its been around for years!!!
The pro and the cons are already known.
Odds are most companies have already researched it, to see if its more a more profitable business model that their current one.

What i find hard to grasp is that you guys actually want a billion dollar company to discard all that and just take a chance on changing business models because you guys BELIEVE/FEEL/THINk/ASSUME that something MIGHT work.

Its says alot you guys cant even think of the potential harm doing something like that might cause.
Not to mention everything that comes with making such a huge change....

But like i said im aboard.

Sounds like a great idea [emoji1474]






Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[Walt Frazier]

Re: Why did 2k drop gameplay support for next gen?

Just played the game first time in a week...

Me Suns v CPU Clippers...HOF...

And with a simple pick and roll, I got to the hoop unguarded ten times straight with Chris Paul.

Honestly, it is a joke that the have not even bothered to address the PnR.

Really poor. Whatever 'goodwill' they had re their history of gameplay patches has gone. This game was abandoned, there is nothing else to debate at this point. The PnR express lane is farcical...

[ksuttonjr76]

Re: Why did 2k drop gameplay support for next gen?

Its not a new concept dude.
Its an actual business model already being used in practice by other companies.
Its been around for years!!!
The pro and the cons are already known.
Odds are most companies have already researched it, to see if its more a more profitable business model that their current one.

What i find hard to grasp is that you guys actually want a billion dollar company to discard all that and just take a chance on changing business models because you guys BELIEVE/FEEL/THINk/ASSUME that something MIGHT work.

Its says alot you guys cant even think of the potential harm doing something like that might cause.
Not to mention everything that comes with making such a huge change....

But like i said im aboard.

Sounds like a great idea [emoji1474]






Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

Clearly, I know it's been around for years, because my first comment on this topic literally referenced Activision...clearly, it works for Activision, because they're able to release a yearly COD which each game having a 3 year development cycles...clearly, Take 2 know they need more developers, hence the purchase of a new studio which torpedoes your early argument concern of "double the cost"....clearly, I stated a long time ago that it was pure speculation whether they stick with the yearly cycle or maybe shift to a 2 year cycle...

For whatever reason, you took upon yourself to "prove" that a 2 year cycle was a stupid idea, and Take 2 has already decided against it. Also, you implied early that these developers "love" working long hours at the expense of family, because more money is always good. After all your goalpost moving, you want to sarcastically act like it's a good idea. You do all that yapping to prove what? To try to convince us that change is never good? At the end of day, your perspective was "If it ain't broke, why try to fix it?", which implies that you don't see a problem with how the game is released every year.

Well, some of us do see a problem....

[simbayless]

Re: Why did 2k drop gameplay support for next gen?

I use to fear the cpu back then and it was fun but now they play like dead brain robots ps2ish

[Junior Moe]

Re: Why did 2k drop gameplay support for next gen?

I may be missing something but I just don't see what the benefit of moving off the current yearly cycle is. I mean, in theory, a two year cycle would lead to a more polished game. 2K is selling extremely well, 2K20 sold 14 million copies, so there clearly is a demand from the gamers to purchase the product. I haven't seen any official numbers for 2K21 but I imagine its somewhere around that number between the two gens.



Would whatever improvements to the game they make result in that game selling 28 million copies? Would that game still not have some issues we cant stand? I don't think so. I say that as someone who is on his 3rd "real" MyNBA because of bug crashes. It's ridiculous! The pic and roll D is bad. I want the game as polished as possible. I personally feel like 2K is too ambitious and that a longer cycle would only result in them cramming more in the game. I'd love for 2K to say that we haven't added any new features for 2K22, but we spent the whole cycle ironing out bugs and on gameplay.



Also, whats the difference between just skipping a year buying the game and the studio releasing every two years? I personally enjoy buying the new sport games at the start of the real life seasons, respectively. And I also enjoy whatever new gameplay tweaks that have been made. If you bought 2K21 and wait until 2K23 to buy again isn't that a two year cycle? At the same time gamers like myself and others can enjoy the product, and, most importantly, the company makes money.

[ksuttonjr76]

Re: Why did 2k drop gameplay support for next gen?

I may be missing something but I just don't see what the benefit of moving off the current yearly cycle is. I mean, in theory, a two year cycle would lead to a more polished game. 2K is selling extremely well, 2K20 sold 14 million copies, so there clearly is a demand from the gamers to purchase the product. I haven't seen any official numbers for 2K21 but I imagine its somewhere around that number between the two gens.



Would whatever improvements to the game they make result in that game selling 28 million copies? Would that game still not have some issues we cant stand? I don't think so. I say that as someone who is on his 3rd "real" MyNBA because of bug crashes. It's ridiculous! The pic and roll D is bad. I want the game as polished as possible. I personally feel like 2K is too ambitious and that a longer cycle would only result in them cramming more in the game. I'd love for 2K to say that we haven't added any new features for 2K22, but we spent the whole cycle ironing out bugs and on gameplay.



Also, whats the difference between just skipping a year buying the game and the studio releasing every two years? I personally enjoy buying the new sport games at the start of the real life seasons, respectively. And I also enjoy whatever new gameplay tweaks that have been made. If you bought 2K21 and wait until 2K23 to buy again isn't that a two year cycle? At the same time gamers like myself and others can enjoy the product, and, most importantly, the company makes money.

That's an interesting take. You think that 2K would try to cram even more features if they had more time? Man, I don't know how much "bigger" the game can get, but anything is possible. To be fair...some gamers will still complain, but I think the sports genre is more exposed to that due to the yearly release.

Some of us are basketball junkies, so skipping a year is really not seen as an option. Personally, I like playing with the "new features" every year. I just wish that the game was more polished and didn't require so many patches every year for what is arguably "easy" things that shouldn't have been missed in the first place. As I have stated many times before in other threads...if only they would have taken the injuries off the online roster, I would still be playing NBA 2K20. NBA 2K21 is not a great game to me, but it's far from the worse. NBA 2K21 sits squarely in the middle for me. Either you hate it, or you love it. On the other hand, I've more less given NBA 2K21 (and other games) somewhat of a "mulligan" due to the pandemic happening during a new console release year.

[canes21]

Re: Why did 2k drop gameplay support for next gen?

I may be missing something but I just don't see what the benefit of moving off the current yearly cycle is. I mean, in theory, a two year cycle would lead to a more polished game. 2K is selling extremely well, 2K20 sold 14 million copies, so there clearly is a demand from the gamers to purchase the product. I haven't seen any official numbers for 2K21 but I imagine its somewhere around that number between the two gens.



Would whatever improvements to the game they make result in that game selling 28 million copies? Would that game still not have some issues we cant stand? I don't think so. I say that as someone who is on his 3rd "real" MyNBA because of bug crashes. It's ridiculous! The pic and roll D is bad. I want the game as polished as possible. I personally feel like 2K is too ambitious and that a longer cycle would only result in them cramming more in the game. I'd love for 2K to say that we haven't added any new features for 2K22, but we spent the whole cycle ironing out bugs and on gameplay.



Also, whats the difference between just skipping a year buying the game and the studio releasing every two years? I personally enjoy buying the new sport games at the start of the real life seasons, respectively. And I also enjoy whatever new gameplay tweaks that have been made. If you bought 2K21 and wait until 2K23 to buy again isn't that a two year cycle? At the same time gamers like myself and others can enjoy the product, and, most importantly, the company makes money.

Unless I'm mistaken, the discussion wasn't about 2k releasing a game every other year. The discussion was having a setup that had a base team that continued to work annually like they do now, then having other teams split up so that team A works on the release of 2k22, team B works on the release of 2k23. When 2k22 releases team A starts working on 2k24.

Other developers in non-sport genres have taken this approach and found success, so the discussion was on how that approach could potentially benefit a sports game where annual releases are forced.

Right now a lot of features in all sports games are rejected because they simply cannot be created in one year. Only the big back of the box features that are deemed worthy are worked on for 2 or 3 years before they are put into the game. If you had teams that were given 2 cycles to implement their vision into the game, how would that impact the series moving forward?

Would team B get in more community requested additions if they had 2 years to focus on their release and not 9 months? Would team A also get in more features and bring in more depth if they also got 2 years of development time instead of 9 months?

I lean towards believing we would see more polish and more depth if this approach was taken, but nothing is guaranteed.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[JUSTlFIED]

Re: Why did 2k drop gameplay support for next gen?

I may be missing something but I just don't see what the benefit of moving off the current yearly cycle is. I mean, in theory, a two year cycle would lead to a more polished game. 2K is selling extremely well, 2K20 sold 14 million copies, so there clearly is a demand from the gamers to purchase the product. I haven't seen any official numbers for 2K21 but I imagine its somewhere around that number between the two gens.



Would whatever improvements to the game they make result in that game selling 28 million copies? Would that game still not have some issues we cant stand? I don't think so. I say that as someone who is on his 3rd "real" MyNBA because of bug crashes. It's ridiculous! The pic and roll D is bad. I want the game as polished as possible. I personally feel like 2K is too ambitious and that a longer cycle would only result in them cramming more in the game. I'd love for 2K to say that we haven't added any new features for 2K22, but we spent the whole cycle ironing out bugs and on gameplay.



Also, whats the difference between just skipping a year buying the game and the studio releasing every two years? I personally enjoy buying the new sport games at the start of the real life seasons, respectively. And I also enjoy whatever new gameplay tweaks that have been made. If you bought 2K21 and wait until 2K23 to buy again isn't that a two year cycle? At the same time gamers like myself and others can enjoy the product, and, most importantly, the company makes money.

Skipping a year as a consumer is not the same as a 2 year development cycle. Trying to develop the game in less than a year leads to half baked elements which we can see in the games today, and with the last 3 releases being virtually the same.

Also increasing numbers sold is not why we are saying they should extend their development cycle. The executives should be worried about maintaining or even losing says versus increasing them.

Or course it can be argued, but NBA2K is on a bubble with the sales. Some of us already see what's coming, but year after year they are testing their consumer's patience. Remember the hashtag from a few years ago? The Content creators who are not under contract are turning their backs on them this year. If a legit competitor or NBA Live comes back strong, that may be the final blow for them, unless they can turn things around.

[tru11]

Re: Why did 2k drop gameplay support for next gen?

Clearly, I know it's been around for years, because my first comment on this topic literally referenced Activision...clearly, it works for Activision, because they're able to release a yearly COD which each game having a 3 year development cycles...clearly, Take 2 know they need more developers, hence the purchase of a new studio which torpedoes your early argument concern of "double the cost"....clearly, I stated a long time ago that it was pure speculation whether they stick with the yearly cycle or maybe shift to a 2 year cycle...

For whatever reason, you took upon yourself to "prove" that a 2 year cycle was a stupid idea, and Take 2 has already decided against it. Also, you implied early that these developers "love" working long hours at the expense of family, because more money is always good. After all your goalpost moving, you want to sarcastically act like it's a good idea. You do all that yapping to prove what? To try to convince us that change is never good? At the end of day, your perspective was "If it ain't broke, why try to fix it?", which implies that you don't see a problem with how the game is released every year.

Well, some of us do see a problem....

You haven’t torpedoed anything my man.

Take2 is the parent company.
2K is 1 of several subsidiaries from Take2.

2K had several subsidiaries themselves.
1 is called Visual Concepts.

Visual Concepts consist of 7 studios.
They make the nba and wwe series.

How you can link Take2 buying a studio to cost doubling for visual Concepts is beyond me.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

And you want to convince 2K that its time to change their business model based on what you think/feel/believe/assume is something that might work.

Like i said good idea[emoji1474]

Good luck and you will proof me wrong once they do as you suggested.

At that time ill be back to this thread to admit you where right!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports