A Two Year Development Cycle

[Godgers12]

Do you guys think that a two year development cycle would work for Madden? I'm not talking about releasing the game every two years, because let's face it EA is all about their coin and would never agree to something like that. Nevertheless, what I'm referring to is something similar to what Activision does with CoD. Bring in another development team, so you have two different teams working on different games at the same time. For instance one would be working on Madden 21 and the other would be working on 22.

I honestly think if we had a two year cycle such as this, the finished product would be so much better, and each game would feel fresh and new, as you would have two differing visions working in unison. Just something I think would be beneficial for all involved...

...thoughts?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Operation Sports mobile app

[Rayzaa]

Re: A Two Year Development Cycle

Do you guys think that a two year development cycle would work for Madden? I'm not talking about releasing the game every two years, because let's face it EA is all about their coin and would never agree to something like that. Nevertheless, what I'm referring to is something similar to what Activision does with CoD. Bring in another development team, so you have two different teams working on different games at the same time. For instance one would be working on Madden 21 and the other would be working on 22.

I honestly think if we had a two year cycle such as this, the finished product would be so much better, and each game would feel fresh and new, as you would have two differing visions working in unison. Just something I think would be beneficial for all involved...

...thoughts?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Operation Sports mobile app

Not sure it would matter if the NFL wont allow the game to have certain things. However, for the sake of just fixing things that havent been fixed in 3 years, yes another team should certainly get a shot.


Id be all for having another team have a crack at Madden than having Tiburon do it. They just dont seem to get it right.

[tg88forHOF]

Re: A Two Year Development Cycle

Yes, it would improve quality.

It would also introduce more inconsistency from a consumer perspective year-to-year.

2 years is a long time from a development perspective...it encourages teams to think and build long-term and "big picture". This is both a benefit and a drawback; in this case, communication of features and requirements between teams becomes a bigger factor, and a development truism is that more handoffs usually means more drops.

Pretend this is reality, and team A is working a 2-year cycle toward the release of Madden 22. A year in, team B starts development of Madden 23. 2 years in, team A finishes Madden 22 and starts work on Madden 24.

Team B can start Madden 23 with whatever team A has in the pipe, and build off it. They make long-cycle plans based off whatever team A has in place. So far, so good.

Now say team A has to make a mid-cycle change after that point. Something they were working simply isn't feasible, blows up in testing, whatever. Not only do they need to scramble to make the changes themselves, they need to cleanly communicate those changes to team B. That's a handoff, and thus an opportunity to drop something on the floor. Even if they do manage to do it relatively cleanly, there's a good chance it could disrupt some of team B's longer-cycle (and thus more inflexible) plans. That increases both the odds that team B needs to make additional changes to compensate, and the number of changes they're likely going to have to make.

This results in more changes that have to be communicated back to A when they go to work on 24...more handoffs, more chances to drop something.

From having worked for a developer who used something close to this strategy, the complexity and sheer volume of those communications continue to build up cycle over cycle, to the point where a lot of the long-term fixes the system was intended to produce don't come to fruition...even with the longer cycles, everybody's still scrambling to keep up.

It can work ok, and there would probably be some net positive changes that came from it. But those positives would be balanced by more inconsistency version-to-version.

I'm not sure how well the Madden community as a whole would tolerate that additional inconsistency. More to the point, I don't feel like EA specifically has a track record of the kind of command-and-control and internal communication necessary to pull it off.

[oneamongthefence]

Re: A Two Year Development Cycle

Madden isn't also made year to year. Certain aspects of the game have continuous development that may not be seen until a year later. Things such as Long shot, protak, frostbite, took more than one dev cycle to complete. Tue only advantage I could see if there could be more playtesting and polish to the final game which is sorely needed which would hopefully lead to less bandaid fixes that don't get properly resolved.

Sent from my LM-Q720 using Tapatalk

[mtmetcalfe]

Re: A Two Year Development Cycle

I would be down for Madden to take the Call of Duty approach. I think you’d basically be getting 2 different games which could be a good thing. Maybe if you don’t like Madden that comes from developer ‘A’ theres always the ‘B’ teams game to look forward to.

That being said, I’m not sure why EA would take this approach because I don’t know if it would have any financial benefits for the them. In fact, probably the opposite.

[DeuceDouglas]

Re: A Two Year Development Cycle

I don't think this approach would work very well with Madden and I'd argue it hasn't really helped with CoD either. Those games are accomplishing less and releasing in worse states with three year cycles than they were with two year cycles. The thing with CoD as well is that while each year the game is under the CoD umbrella, it's basically a standalone title each year where it's completely different than the previous year and the three (now two studios) didn't really collaborate at all.

With Madden it's more of a true yearly title and I think involving two studios creates a lot more room for conflict of design, vision, etc. You see that within CoD as well where Treyarch has always been more about balance and competitiveness while Infinity Ward focuses more on catering to new and lower skilled players. It works for CoD because each year they're entirely different games but with Madden there has to be some kind of continuity from year-to-year.

I think there'd be more of an argument for remaining with one studio and allowing for a bi-annual release. That'll likely never happen but I think the game would benefit more from that than a multi-studio approach. It's tough though because games are so predicated on post-launch content now that even an additional might not help or change much.

[Ladygreat1]

Re: A Two Year Development Cycle

I agree, I subscribe to every word

[tg88forHOF]

Re: A Two Year Development Cycle

I think there'd be more of an argument for remaining with one studio and allowing for a bi-annual release. That'll likely never happen but I think the game would benefit more from that than a multi-studio approach. It's tough though because games are so predicated on post-launch content now that even an additional might not help or change much.

Agree this is much more likely to be successful and get the benefits people want out of a cycle change.

Also agree it's vanishingly unlikely to ever happen...that's simply too much money left on the table for all parties (EA, NFL, NFLPA) involved.

[PhillyPhanatic14]

Re: A Two Year Development Cycle

I don't think it would work because of the amount of the game that is outdated. Every time there is a feature request the answer is that the current system is too old to update or add onto. Just this week the answer given for why custom playbooks don't have access to the new Live Playbook plays is that the old system is full and would have to be rebuilt.

If you had two separate studios dealing with a ton of outdated stuff and a company like EA that only cares about the money then nothing would ever get done.

For us to get the game we want it has nothing to do with more time or a 2 year release. EA would have to dig into their precious madden profits and start investing the profits back into the game. That's clearly not going to happen lol but that's what it would take. For the amount of money that this game makes there should be a team of 200 devs working on it year-round, not 40 or whatever the current amount is... They released a picture of the staff about a year ago and i was shocked at how few people were on the team in relation to the amount of money this game brings in.

[kennylc321]

Re: A Two Year Development Cycle

Not sure it would matter if the NFL wont allow the game to have certain things. However, for the sake of just fixing things that havent been fixed in 3 years, yes another team should certainly get a shot.


Id be all for having another team have a crack at Madden than having Tiburon do it. They just dont seem to get it right.

I honestly don't know if I buy into the "the NFL won't allow it narrative." For instance... the "NFL won't allow more relocation cities." I heard that somewhere and it just doesn't make any sense. The NFL thinks that users creating the Nebraska Corndogs will really hurt their product yet the Dublin Celtic Tigers is ok? Nah...

I don't even buy into the whole narrative about the NFL wanting exclusivity. The NFL (and the NFLPA) make more money by having three companies pay $5M (or whatever it is) as opposed to one company paying $3M (or whatever it is) and we all know the NFL is all about the dollar.

EA has been the one to say the NFL wants exclusivity but I have never read anything directly from the NFL saying that's what they want.

So when EA tells me that "the NFL won't allow it" I have to take that w/ a grain of salt... it is a good excuse for not getting anything done.

[kennylc321]

Re: A Two Year Development Cycle

Do you guys think that a two year development cycle would work for Madden? I'm not talking about releasing the game every two years, because let's face it EA is all about their coin and would never agree to something like that. Nevertheless, what I'm referring to is something similar to what Activision does with CoD. Bring in another development team, so you have two different teams working on different games at the same time. For instance one would be working on Madden 21 and the other would be working on 22.

I honestly think if we had a two year cycle such as this, the finished product would be so much better, and each game would feel fresh and new, as you would have two differing visions working in unison. Just something I think would be beneficial for all involved...

...thoughts?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Operation Sports mobile app

The major problem you're going to have is continuity. It is very difficult to pick up where someone else left off. Team 1 will implement a new passing system and in the next year's game, Team 2 has to improve on the passing system as well as do their own thing. That's not an easy task.

[roadman]

Re: A Two Year Development Cycle

I honestly don't know if I buy into the "the NFL won't allow it narrative." For instance... the "NFL won't allow more relocation cities." I heard that somewhere and it just doesn't make any sense. The NFL thinks that users creating the Nebraska Corndogs will really hurt their product yet the Dublin Celtic Tigers is ok? Nah...

I don't even buy into the whole narrative about the NFL wanting exclusivity. The NFL (and the NFLPA) make more money by having three companies pay $5M (or whatever it is) as opposed to one company paying $3M (or whatever it is) and we all know the NFL is all about the dollar.

EA has been the one to say the NFL wants exclusivity but I have never read anything directly from the NFL saying that's what they want.

So when EA tells me that "the NFL won't allow it" I have to take that w/ a grain of salt... it is a good excuse for not getting anything done.

Since you joined in 2018, I don't think you were around when a former EA employee explained things pretty clearly at the onset of the exclusive license.

This is as further down the rabbit hole this discussion will enter because it's the beating of the dead horse syndrome and threads become closed and people become banned in the past. It's been pretty good the last few years as far as discussions go.

The NFL, by going exclusive, made more off of one company, EA, than all 4 or 5 companies combined. And by the way, the NFL Players Union also chimed in a few years ago and stated they have a strong relationship with EA. This relationship is now 15 years strong on the business end of things.

So, to keep things simple, let's say all of those companies had a million dollar licensing fee to pay the NFL. The NFL eliminated all of the companies except EA and charged EA 100 million licensing fee. I'm keeping the figures simple to save time.

You don't have to buy anything, but, it is what it is. The NFL, for the most part, has a exclusive licensing business model across the board.

[kennylc321]

Re: A Two Year Development Cycle

Since you joined in 2018, I don't think you were around when a former EA employee explained things pretty clearly at the onset of the exclusive license.

This is as further down the rabbit hole this discussion will enter because it's the beating of the dead horse syndrome and threads become closed and people become banned in the past. It's been pretty good the last few years as far as discussions go.

The NFL, by going exclusive, made more off of one company, EA, than all 4 or 5 companies combined. And by the way, the NFL Players Union also chimed in a few years ago and stated they have a strong relationship with EA. This relationship is now 15 years strong on the business end of things.

So, to keep things simple, let's say all of those companies had a million dollar licensing fee to pay the NFL. The NFL eliminated all of the companies except EA and charged EA 100 million licensing fee. I'm keeping the figures simple to save time.

You don't have to buy anything, but, it is what it is. The NFL, for the most part, has a exclusive licensing business model across the board.

Thanks for not giving a smart !@#$ response!! (Like I would have)

It just seems really odd that the NFL would initiate this when they are all about the money. And of course, the timing... for this to come about just when 2k was giving EA a serious run for their money.

And ok, fine... the NFL was onboard... but for the NFLPA, who-- and let's be honest-- has the weakest player union and are always talking about how underpaid they are to buy into this as well. Hmm... very suspicious.

And 15 years later (seriously cannot believe it's been that long) for neither party to realize they would make more money with more licenses. Hmm.

But thanks for your insight.

[mercalnd]

Re: A Two Year Development Cycle

Thanks for not giving a smart !@#$ response!! (Like I would have)

It just seems really odd that the NFL would initiate this when they are all about the money. And of course, the timing... for this to come about just when 2k was giving EA a serious run for their money.

And ok, fine... the NFL was onboard... but for the NFLPA, who-- and let's be honest-- has the weakest player union and are always talking about how underpaid they are to buy into this as well. Hmm... very suspicious.

And 15 years later (seriously cannot believe it's been that long) for neither party to realize they would make more money with more licenses. Hmm.

But thanks for your insight.

You are missing the point. The are making MORE money by licensing only to EA because they are charging a much larger price BECAUSE the license is exclusive. If they started to license to other companies, they'd have to significantly lower the amount they charge EA.

Also, while you say the NFL never explicitly came out and said they wanted exclusivity but they have exclusive agreements with many partners in different domains.

[roadman]

Re: A Two Year Development Cycle

You are missing the point. The are making MORE money by licensing only to EA because they are charging a much larger price BECAUSE the license is exclusive. If they started to license to other companies, they'd have to significantly lower the amount they charge EA.

Also, while you say the NFL never explicitly came out and said they wanted exclusivity but they have exclusive agreements with many partners in different domains.

Thank you.