Does anybody wish...

[NEOPARADIGM]

Quote: Originally Posted by canes21

I'm not going to sit here and say buy it every other year because that really isn't the same thing.

I don't understand how it's not.

[da ThRONe]

Quote: Originally Posted by Roggie

Exactly. You can find updated rosters that people make. There's already some rough estimate 2012 rosters on NCAA 11. All the upgrades they making going from 11 to 12 then 12 to 13 are odds on the exact same that we'd have if they went 11-13. Maybe a slight improvement, but not enough to warrant the stoppage. Plus, do you realize the amount of money EA would lose? It would be a HORRIFIC business decision.

This. If anything the improvement from year to year would probably be greater than every two years. More money=more resources for improvements.

[Charleston_Tiger]

Quote: Originally Posted by NEOPARADIGM

I don't understand how it's not.

Its not because they wouldnt be wasting resources (time and money) on as much stuff this time of the year getting ready for a launch. They would be putting those resources into working on the game. It is definitely not the same thing. Its not even close to being the same thing. They would have more time to add BIGGER things to the game such as a new engine if they wanted. Right now they cant do that due ot time constraints. That is why we will never see Euphoria or an Equivalent in NCAA until the next gen of consoles. They dont have time when releasing a new game every year. All they have time for is little tweaks to their existing(outdated) game engine.

[canes21]

It isn't the same thing for many reasons. For starters, if they had 2 years to develop a game they would think about putting in bigger features. They would have more time to work on just one game so they wouldn't have to try and only work on things that they can for sure get in in a one year cycle. We would be able to see bigger changes to the engine and coding.

Also, every year the game comes out, there is around a month of time where the game doesn't change much because they are just polishing it up and letting it get gold and getting ready to distribute it to all retailers. So, that is at least one months worth of time if not more per year. So in two yearly cycles that is at least two months worth of time they really don't work on the game that much. In a two year cycle they would be able to work on the game for a solid 22+ months if not 23 straight getting what they want in. As of now they get around around 10 months to plan out and work on everything. If you think getting 18-20 months of time to work on two games would give you the same results as working on one for 23 straight months, then I don't feel like I could, or anyone could, ever convince you why this is completely different.

[Roggie]

Quote: Originally Posted by canes21

It isn't the same thing for many reasons. For starters, if they had 2 years to develop a game they would think about putting in bigger features. They would have more time to work on just one game so they wouldn't have to try and only work on things that they can for sure get in in a one year cycle. We would be able to see bigger changes to the engine and coding. Also, every year the game comes out, there is around a month of time where the game doesn't change much because they are just polishing it up and letting it get gold and getting ready to distribute it to all retailers. So, that is at least one months worth of time if not more per year. So in two yearly cycles that is at least two months worth of time they really don't work on the game that much. In a two year cycle they would be able to work on the game for a solid 22+ months if not 23 straight getting what they want in. As of now they get around around 10 months to plan out and work on everything. If you think getting 18-20 months of time to work on two games would give you the same results as working on one for 23 straight months, then I don't feel like I could, or anyone could, ever convince you why this is completely different.

But you do realize that the money they make off of NCAA 11 is a lot of what goes towards technological advances in NCAA 12, right? That year of zero income off of the game would kill half of the budget that they use. That's the part where the extra 2 months mean nothing. No money = no major upgrades, and a bunch of polishing.

[Cusefan]

Here is why this will never happen, If NCAA (or any sports game) were to skip a year, they would not make up the sales from the prior year. Its that simple, case closed.

[canes21]

Quote: Originally Posted by Roggie

But you do realize that the money they make off of NCAA 11 is a lot of what goes towards technological advances in NCAA 12, right? That year of zero income off of the game would kill half of the budget that they use. That's the part where the extra 2 months mean nothing. No money = no major upgrades, and a bunch of polishing.

I have already stated that they wouldn't do it because of money, but you all were saying it would be the same thing. If they had the money to do it, then it would be different, that is what we're arguing about, not sales and budgets.

[Kaiser Wilhelm]

Obviously the sales would not be there. But I would wager a pretty penny that the time and money put inot the game is somewhere between 50%-70% of the actual sales.

Now to say the money they make is the reason for the technological improvements is ill-founded with a company as large as Electronic Arts.

If they did something like this the game would most likely play better, look better, have more in-depth features that are not broken (like Dynasty and RTG) our of the box.

Again they would lose money compared to a every year product release, even though it is at the expense of quality.