Can a Two-Year Cycle Work?

[RaychelSnr]

Can sports game developers use a two year cycle to publish games? Chris Sanner has written an article discussing that question and any possible options on the table.

"We, the sports gamers of the universe, have grown accustomed to a very sour taste in our mouths the past few seasons, the result of unfinished buggy products that need patches just to work right."

[savoie2006]

I believe MLB The Show and NHL 08 are living proof that a one year cycle can work.It's just a matter of dedication by the developers.If there is a widely noted problem one year,a patch should be released or they should at least take the time to fix that issue before doing anything else.Most problem are small nagging problems not major.Developers need to spend less time trying to draw people in with fancy new features and worry about correcting any and all gameplay issues.

[nxt]

Re: Can a Two-Year Cycle Work?

But why do companies insist on releasing half finished products even if it means turning out a product that is of terrible quality?

money, and people are still buying the product regardless of how terrible it is. "if we build it. they will come."

[jmood88]

Re: Can a Two-Year Cycle Work?

Of course a two year cycle would work but no company would ever think of doing that with a game that makes alot of money for them each year.

[ehh]

Re: Can a Two-Year Cycle Work?

I believe MLB The Show and NHL 08 are living proof that a one year cycle can work.

People forget that the MLB franchise was a mess for many years before 2005. That game hardly became great during a one year cycle.

Companies would have to figure out a way to make the off year profitable, either charge $60 for a roster update or charge $130 for the game every time it comes out and give free roster updates during the off year.

Money is the bottom line but things are slowly starting to change for many gamers I know. The five buddies of mine who are pretty hardcore with sports games haven't bought Madden in at least three years. I just sold my 360 and all my sports games in favor of a Wii. The sport-game industry is dooooooomed, IMO. It's sad when you compare it to other genre's on the next gen systems. So just from myself alone there's $200-$300 that EA and 2K won't be getting any more. More and more are going to bite, even if there still are a good amount of sheep left out there.

[DaveDQ]

Re: Can a Two-Year Cycle Work?

Most importantly, what we need to start seeing is the foundation of these games being more stable, without the immediate need to "fix" a specific game from the moment it's released. Madden 08 is an example example. The game is filled with more fluff and non-essentials that it's taxing the actual menus in the game. From the irrelevant Marshall Faulk pre-game babble, to the Josten's in game ring feature, it's just unnecessary. I'd much prefer a well polished game engine that is slightly imperfect than a broken game with fluff.

[spankdatazz22]

Re: Can a Two-Year Cycle Work?

The two-year development cycle is one of several misconceptions many in the hardcore community want people to believe they want, but they don't. Why won't devs go to a 2-yr development cycle? Because there's too much money to be made from fans - pretty simple. The 2-yr development cycle belongs on the same pile as:

- "We want substance over hype" - hardcore fans are constantly begging to be hyped. And fault products that don't hype them enough

- "All that matters is gameplay" - maybe last gen, not this gen. Hardcore fans are more than willing to forgive gameplay faults or lack of depth if they feel the game is pretty enough

[Lynsanity]

Re: Can a Two-Year Cycle Work?

People forget that the MLB franchise was a mess for many years before 2005. That game hardly became great during a one year cycle.

Companies would have to figure out a way to make the off year profitable, either charge $60 for a roster update or charge $130 for the game every time it comes out and give free roster updates during the off year.

Money is the bottom line but things are slowly starting to change for many gamers I know. The five buddies of mine who are pretty hardcore with sports games haven't bought Madden in at least three years. I just sold my 360 and all my sports games in favor of a Wii. The sport-game industry is dooooooomed, IMO. It's sad when you compare it to other genre's on the next gen systems. So just from myself alone there's $200-$300 that EA and 2K won't be getting any more. More and more are going to bite, even if there still are a good amount of sheep left out there.

I did the same thing with my PS3. I think a more complete game would be able to be a bi-annual purchase, but nothing like NBA live 2008 for wii. It lacked player lock, dynasty, create-a-player, and more. If you could somehow create a game that had most of the gameplay bases covered and monthly or annual updates, it would work.

[DrJones]

Re: Can a Two-Year Cycle Work?

Developers (as in, the people who actually make the games) would love a 2-year cycle. I've been lobbying for a 2-year cycle for years. Unless you can convince the powers that be at EA and 2K that they'd make more money with this system, however, it'll never happen.

One of the side effects of exclusivity you guys may be unaware of: EA and 2K are obligated to release X number of NFL and MLB titles per year on Y number of platforms. NO EXCEPTIONS. If Madden or MLB 2K missed a ship date, they'd have to pay huge fines to the leagues.

[kcxiv]

Re: Can a Two-Year Cycle Work?

In a dream, that would be awesome. In reality it wont ever freaking happen. Madden is a freaking horrible game, but it still brings in a crap load of money. Why would EA pull away from that? They have shown time and time again, that they could care less how good the product is if its still selling like hotcakes. Once sales start slipping then maybe something will change.


So my point is, quit buying the games that suck year after year after year. People need to learn to back off for a year or 2.

[RealmK]

Re: Can a Two-Year Cycle Work?

I believe MLB The Show and NHL 08 are living proof that a one year cycle can work.It's just a matter of dedication by the developers.If there is a widely noted problem one year,a patch should be released or they should at least take the time to fix that issue before doing anything else.Most problem are small nagging problems not major.Developers need to spend less time trying to draw people in with fancy new features and worry about correcting any and all gameplay issues.

Agreed except EA took the liberty of taking the first year off from hockey on next gen to build an engine from the ground up. Something I've been begging 2k to do for years now. In doing so all they needed to do was work on AI for 08 and tweak. Granted 08 isn't perfect but its now at the point where its pretty much lightyears ahead of 2k's hockey game when only a short time ago 2k hockey was king.

[Cardot]

Re: Can a Two-Year Cycle Work?

Just because a game comes out every year doesn't mean we are obligated to buy it. I try maintain a purchasing policy that resists buying games on consecutive years. I will make exceptions in those rare cases where a game makes a significant advance....or if it is offered at a very low price like 2K did a few years ago.

But I go back to Atari, so for me it is quite normal to play the same game for a few years. I know there are others who have a very different view. I have seen several posts of gamers that threatten to not buy a game if the release date is delayed or worse yet, if they don't get to see any preview screens in a timely fashion. I imagine those people would go bananas if they had to wait 2 years between versions.

[BlyGilmore]

Re: Can a Two-Year Cycle Work?

I believe MLB The Show and NHL 08 are living proof that a one year cycle can work.It's just a matter of dedication by the developers.If there is a widely noted problem one year,a patch should be released or they should at least take the time to fix that issue before doing anything else.Most problem are small nagging problems not major.Developers need to spend less time trying to draw people in with fancy new features and worry about correcting any and all gameplay issues.

While I can't comment from first hand knowledge, it sounds like this year's MLB The Show is last years with a few minor fixes and tweaks to the features. To me that's hardly proof you can develop great games year in and year out. If anything the knock on MLB The Show this year has been its basically just a roster update.

Perhaps The Show is the model though - just make a series of small additions each year and not really make any gambles.

(Then again they were also in the position of having a very good game to begin with. And by most accounts they nailed the game play aspect of baseball last year so there was no need for change. MLB The Show could rest on its laurels. A game like MLB 2k or Madden couldn't).

[Nature_Boy]

Great article Chris. At this point and time, I really don't know what it's going to take for companies like EA to start producing quality games once again. Myself, i'm hoping the addition of Peter Moore to EA Sports will shake things up over there and get some rumps in gear.

[ubernoob]

Re: Can a Two-Year Cycle Work?

Great article Chris. At this point and time, I really don't know what it's going to take for companies like EA to start producing quality games once again. Myself, i'm hoping the addition of Peter Moore to EA Sports will shake things up over there and get some rumps in gear.

It depends on your definition of quality.

Do I think Madden is a football sim? No.

Does it have it's "Throw-the-controller-against-the-wall moments"? Of course.

Do I have fun playing it? Sure as hell I do.

It all depends on what mindset you're in. Buying Madden year in and out thinking it's going to be a sim is stupid. We all know what Madden is.