What am I really paying for?

[Toupal]

How is it that Madden 16, NBA 2k16, and MLB the Show are all the same price when we are getting more from one than the other?

Look at the size difference of these files...

Madden 16- 19.59gb

NBA 2k16- 44.86gb

NBA Live 16- 24.45gb

MLB the Show 15- 36.1gb

and yet in the end, we are paying the same price for these games. When in terms of size, 2k is more than twice the game of Madden.

[ggsimmonds]

This again?

**Paging CM Hooe, you need to insert your usual message again**
(or was it roadman?)

[4thQtrStre5S]

GB size means nothing as far as game play...It means the other games have more audio and video files...Actual programming takes up very little space in comparison, but it is generally harder to program all that goes on in a football game than a baseball or basketball game. So you're paying for worker hours put into making the game work....I hope these threads stop; they mean nothing, and take up space.

[roadman]

Quote: Originally Posted by ggsimmonds

This again? **Paging CM Hooe, you need to insert your usual message again** (or was it roadman?)

Definately CM, he is the game designer wizard.

Yes, same thread, different month.

As a friendly reminder, just use the search function at the top.

[BadAssHskr]

...or it could mean the've become more technologically advanced and can do more with a heck of a lot less, and expect bigger and better in the future.

[Toupal]

Quote: Originally Posted by BadAssHskr

...or it could mean the've become more technologically advanced and can do more with a heck of a lot less, and expect bigger and better in the future.

I've played madden far to long to ever expect anything bigger and better in the future.

I think the file size comparison is nice to point out because the excuse "The don't have the memory for that." Goes right out the window.

The point is, there is a reason EA's games take up less memory, and I want to know why...

The reason I bring price into it, is because it does seem like Madden lacks the most features out of all the other sports games, and I wasn't sure if the file size had anything to do with it. So I raise the question, what are we really paying for? Are all sports games created equal? And is madden worth more or less than the $59.99?

I am not saying that we should be paying more or less based on GB's (this isn't apple), but I there must be a reason EA is using less memory.

[saywatt]

Quote: Originally Posted by 4thQtrStre5S

GB size means nothing as far as game play...It means the other games have more audio and video files...Actual programming takes up very little space in comparison, but it is generally harder to program all that goes on in a football game than a baseball or basketball game. So you're paying for worker hours put into making the game work....I hope these threads stop; they mean nothing, and take up space.

Sorry, but this isn't entirely true.

Programming is a part of my every day life and I will agree with the original poster here. The reason why Madden is so much smaller is because it is an inferior game. One tiny application I work on has over two million lines of code.. Madden is lacking hundreds and thousands of graphic related files the other titles have. Textures, sprites, etc. Audio is incredibly small compared the visual pieces.

There is no competition so they release a poor football game every year. I'm thankful we have something but our money isn't going towards paying developers lol. 6 billion in profit... There is a very small dev team that works on this game and they just repackage and modify an engine that isn't there own - that's why Madden sucks. It is like Half-Life; Counter-Strike and Team Fortress were just modifications of an existing engine - just visual changes.

And that is why as a developer this is so frustrating; they have built this game off someone else's hard work and cannot even make quality visual upgrades...

[roadman]

From CM Hooe, a game designer.

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...offseason.html

Disc footprint has absolutely no correlation with game quality. It is solely the amount of content (specifically textures, audio, meshes, and other game assets) used in the game. Rather, it's how the developers use the content that affects the quality of the game.

I wish I could say that this was the first time I've said this on this forum.

(By the way, the thread is almost 2 years old)

If Madden doubled its disc footprint, the only immediate results you'd see are higher-res textures, higher-poly-count geometry, and a larger sound bank to draw from for commentary (note that this is completely separate from the commentary being any smarter, that is all code-side).

Again, file size absolutely has no bearing on how fun a game is.

Point once again being that you don't need a massive amount of content to make a great game, even in this generation of consoles. There's absolutely no correlation. Game design and game mechanics matter foremost.

To repeat myself from earlier, the thing that changes by adding more content with specific regard to a sports game is atmosphere and presentation. More content adds more player faces, more player-specific animations, more stadiums, more lines of commentary, etc. These things are nice and can make a good game great, but they cannot make a bad game good. A good game must stand up foremost solely on the gameplay itself. With respect to Madden, the offensive line play, WR-DB interaction, defensive play calling AI, defensive run fits, and what not don't magically improve because the game has a bigger disc footprint. Seeing those gameplay mechanics addressed are the things that everyone in the simulation sports community wants, and those things are almost entirely code implementation and refactoring (admittedly with some supporting animation additions will be needed, yes, but that's a difference on a scale of megabytes, not gigabytes).