Is Ultimate Team Ruining Madden (And other Sports Titles)

[roadman]

Quote: Originally Posted by cusefan74

Seeing this only upsets me more. If a former QB is there, then why is QB play not a lot better?

If you are referring to signature styles, 100% agree.

This was the first year I could tell the difference from a CPU rated Rodgers and a CPU rated Hundley, so, I think in that regards, the differential was finally noticeable.

[DaGreatOne21]

Quote: Originally Posted by roadman

If you are referring to signature styles, 100% agree. This was the first year I could tell the difference from a CPU rated Rodgers and a CPU rated Hundley, so, I think in that regards, the differential was finally noticeable.

And this is part of the biggest problem of Madden's franchise mode....lack of immersion. If all players feel the same (or at the very least, CLOSE to the same), why is anyone going to care about building a team over the course of years.

There have been numerous times where Ive heard the excuse "Very few people go beyond one season in franchise mode, which is why EA doesnt focus on it". For hypothetical purposes, lets say thats true....could that possibly be because the mode simply isnt fun? Could it be because its not immersive at all? Could it be because EA has dumbed down the mode to a point where there is very little depth to the strategy of franchise mode?

I mean, look no further than EA's big wigs saying that gamers dont care about single player experiences anymore. Uhhhhh....no EA, many many many gamers still LOVE offline single player experiences and will flock to it in droves if the single player element/campaign is high quality. Thats what EA doesnt get.....if you make your single player campaigns mediocre like EA does and has been doing for at least a decade now, of course its going to seem like people dont care about single player.

And in the end, I wont care one bit about MUT and endless microtransactions milking customers of cash IF IF IF the game is great! Because in the end, it the customer is agreeing to make those purchases, so if they WANT to spend money on giving them an advantage in game or some piece of special equipment, have at it. I think its greedy and exploitative, especially to the level EA does it, but again, its a mutually agreed upon deal.

But until EA starts focusing on quality games rather than their bottom line, they are always going to be hated, and alot of their practices are going to have a spotlight shined on them like it did with Battlefront 2.

[Thunderhorse]

Quote: Originally Posted by timhere1970

Nothing wrong with greed. Very little of great value is ever accomplished without it. The problem with madden is the lack of market forces to control it. They are motivated by profit without due consideration given to quality just like your cable company. They are not suffciently responsive to customers.

Probably the most accurate and appropriate way I've seen this put in a long time.

[mykelmosinee]

Quote: Originally Posted by DaGreatOne21

And this is part of the biggest problem of Madden's franchise mode....lack of immersion. If all players feel the same (or at the very least, CLOSE to the same), why is anyone going to care about building a team over the course of years. There have been numerous times where Ive heard the excuse "Very few people go beyond one season in franchise mode, which is why EA doesnt focus on it". For hypothetical purposes, lets say thats true....could that possibly be because the mode simply isnt fun? Could it be because its not immersive at all? Could it be because EA has dumbed down the mode to a point where there is very little depth to the strategy of franchise mode? I mean, look no further than EA's big wigs saying that gamers dont care about single player experiences anymore. Uhhhhh....no EA, many many many gamers still LOVE offline single player experiences and will flock to it in droves if the single player element/campaign is high quality. Thats what EA doesnt get.....if you make your single player campaigns mediocre like EA does and has been doing for at least a decade now, of course its going to seem like people dont care about single player. And in the end, I wont care one bit about MUT and endless microtransactions milking customers of cash IF IF IF the game is great! Because in the end, it the customer is agreeing to make those purchases, so if they WANT to spend money on giving them an advantage in game or some piece of special equipment, have at it. I think its greedy and exploitative, especially to the level EA does it, but again, its a mutually agreed upon deal. But until EA starts focusing on quality games rather than their bottom line, they are always going to be hated, and alot of their practices are going to have a spotlight shined on them like it did with Battlefront 2.

Really well said. I agree, IF the game we're on par with MLB The Show or NBA 2k18, I would have ZERO issue with their MUT (though personally, I find it ridiculous), but with all the attention MUT and H2H get, it's frustrating as hell as a strictly offline franchise player.
I haven't made it through a complete season offline in several years now, because it just feels senseless and absolutely boring. I used to play 20 or more years when franchises we're good...still do in the other games I mentioned. There's just NO DEPTH or immersion in Madden anymore. It literally feels exactly the same in preseason as it does in regular season, as it does in the playoffs....and it just feels empty.

Sent from my Redmi Note 3 using Tapatalk

[CM Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by ForUntoOblivionSoar∞

Were it not for MUT those designers would be: -fixing uniforms -fixing player faces -adding new plays (assuming there is a tool designed for that, and can't imagine why there wouldn't be) -making more tuning adjustments -fixing low priority tuning adjustments (hello punts, pancakes and possibly qb tendencies) -getting online tools running in weeks instead of an entire Madden cycle Etc .

Were it not for MUT, those designers are probably working somewhere else and not at Tiburon, so those things you are complaining about still aren't getting done.

[ForUntoOblivionSoar∞]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

Were it not for MUT, those designers are probably working somewhere else and not at Tiburon, so those things you are complaining about still aren't getting done.

Which brings us back to the true problem: EA is not willing to fork over the money to make the game as great as it could be.


Even if MUT didn't exist, EA could still choose to pay that talent the competitive salaries necessary to keep it. They'd still be raking in far more income than would be necessary to afford that, as they always have. Would they be earning as much? Maybe, maybe not.

Now, I'm aware that you'll argue "well why make games if not for a profit?" No one said they couldn't make a profit. The problem is that too many people in charge of where resources are allocated do not actually give a crap about the art. It is not impossible to have people in charge of the bottom line who also care deeply enough about the art to sacrifice a bit to make a better product. The old argument goes if you make the product as great as possible, you'll recoup your investment from more sales. I see no reason why that couldn't be true, ESPECIALLY considering there is nearly zero competition (the only competition is from other sports games; nearly zero from NFL games).


Of course, we could always bring up the tired argument about what would happen if there were more true competition, but I don't think that's necessary. IF the people at the top cared more about the product, in this idealistic fantasy world I'm positing, we wouldn't have this problem. Because they'd sacrifice a little bit of their disgusting profits to make the art better. And before you say "well you're dreaming about an unrealistic scenario in which the people making the most money off of the product actually care about it," the entire premise of the thread is hinting at an idealistic fantasy world in which MUT didn't exist. *shrugs*

[CM Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by ForUntoOblivionSoar∞

Which brings us back to the true problem: EA is not willing to fork over the money to make the game as great as it could be.

Quote:

Even if MUT didn't exist, EA could still choose to pay that talent the competitive salaries necessary to keep it.

Quote:

The problem is that too many people in charge of where resources are allocated do not actually give a crap about the art. It is not impossible to have people in charge of the bottom line who also care deeply enough about the art to sacrifice a bit to make a better product.

You're putting forth wildly uninformed and unsubstantiated assumptions about how Tiburon works, assumptions which contradict conversations I have shared with friends and colleagues who currently work and/or previously worked down there, some of whom I presently share an office with on weekdays.

Quote:

The old argument goes if you make the product as great as possible, you'll recoup your investment from more sales. I see no reason why that couldn't be true

The 12-month release cadence mandate that Tiburon puts hard limits on what sort of ambitions the dev team can chase for a given boxed release.

Even if that constraint didn't exist, chasing perfection is not an optimal strategy for game devs either. Go read up about Duke Nukem Forever (by 3D Realms; by all accounts DNF was an abject disaster of a project and was restarted at least twice as 3DR chased the idea of the perfect Duke Nukem game) and Titan (a cancelled MMO by Blizzard, its cancellation which cost a bunch of people their jobs and the only reason it wasn't a massive loss is that the remaining team radically pivoted the project into what would become the wildly-successful Overwatch).

[ForUntoOblivionSoar∞]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

You're putting forth wildly uninformed and unsubstantiated assumptions about how Tiburon works, assumptions which contradict conversations I have shared with friends and colleagues who currently work and/or previously worked down there, some of whom I presently share an office with on weekdays. The 12-month release cadence mandate that Tiburon puts hard limits on what sort of ambitions the dev team can chase for a given boxed release. Even if that constraint didn't exist, chasing perfection is not an optimal strategy for game devs either. Go read up about Duke Nukem Forever (by 3D Realms; by all accounts DNF was an abject disaster of a project and was restarted at least twice as 3DR chased the idea of the perfect Duke Nukem game) and Titan (a cancelled MMO by Blizzard, its cancellation which cost a bunch of people their jobs and the only reason it wasn't a massive loss is that the remaining team radically pivoted the project into what would become the wildly-successful Overwatch).

(a) This of course explains why you defend Madden 99% of the time, which makes your posts on these contentious topics less reliable than others.

(b) Why is it not logically possible for executives to decide to double the budget for the game? Note I did NOT say "financially feasible;" I said "logically possible." In an ideal world, the resources allocated to MUT COULD be allocated to other aspects of Madden, WITHOUT losing those designers because the people making financial decisions could choose to pay the competitive salaries despite their work not resulting directly in micro transactions. All it would take is a shifting in the greed versus artistic concern axis in the minds of those who control the budget.







Example: what would happen to Madden if Tiburon's budget is suddenly tripled?


I argue the game would get better. You seem to be arguing that what I just said is an "uninformed opinion based on ignorance about how Tiburon works."