Can a Two-Year Cycle Work?

[A.M. Son]

All the 'money talks' responses are correct. Until the day that we fans don't buy 2M copies of the game each year, the game will continue to make minor upgrades and advances.

However, that doesn't happen in a vacuum. EA knows how the game is being perceived (aside from Moore's assertion that Metacritic ratings indicate a superior game). Although it may not always seem like it, they do pay attention to the message boards and professional and customer reviews- they know where the weaknesses are. That doesn't mean they're going to agree with what we perceive to be weaknesses- but as a general statement they do know what other games are "up to" and where they need to compete.

So, until we only buy 650K games per year, they won't change quickly... but they will change, albeit slowly and methodically.

And as another poster mentioned, they are bound by the exclusive licenses, which means they have certain requirements/ deadlines/ features that they can and cannot have in the game.

That's just my incredibly uneducated opinion.

[A.M. Son]

And in any industry, you're traversing a slippery slope if you let customers solely dictate the creative directions your products take. It's like that in my business- me and my staff have ideas/ views/ plans for where we see our "product", and we do take into account what the "customer" wants, but we try to compromise and marry the two views where best appropriate. There's also logistical limitations to what can or cannot happen as well (in terms of the licenses).

But having said all that, I think EA has tended to forget about user input and opinion over the past few years. They seem to have stagnated and switched on cruise control. We gamers saw "next-gen" as an opportunity for sports games to make it to the next level, and as a whole EA has failed in any area to bring that wish to fruition.

So will a 2 year cycle help any of this? I doubt it. It seems that many of the issue of contention are design/ concept based, and not coding or execution issues. Yes, there's many bugs and literal shortcomings of the game, which would be aided by a 2 year cycle, but overall I think it's just that we and EA are at a huge creative impasse.

[slickdtc]

I'd love a 2 year cycle. But I'm in the minority when I say I only have Madden 06, MVP 05, NHL 2k7, and NFL 2k5. Games that are all 2+ years old (with the exception of 2k7, which I would still have 2k6 if my disc wasn't run over... long story).

But just like everyone else, I agree no big time developer would ever be able to pull it off.

The only developers that would be able to do this would be a minor developer. If Microsoft got back into making their sports games, I think they could do it to start off. Or Nintendo. But once you hit the big time, which 2k, EA, and SCEA's baseball game all have, you can't get away with it. The fans want more. Now. If you can get more proft from 2 games in 2 years then you won't be making only 1 game in 2 years.

[superjames1992]

A 2 year cycle is just not practical. The companies would not make enough money doing it and it would be a stupid move for them.

[dave374]

Frankly, I think a two-year cycle would be preferable.
Just charge for updated rosters and schedules every year or something.
Too many lousy games are getting released.
IMO, this year's edition of MLB2k8 could destroy the series.
Madden desperately needs a two-year cycle.

[BlyGilmore]

Quote: Originally Posted by superjames1992

A 2 year cycle is just not practical. The companies would not make enough money doing it and it would be a stupid move for them.

every other video game genre works on a two or three year cycle and seems to be doing OK.

with some creative moves, good DLC content and selling of updated rosters I bet the game companies could make up the difference in revenue they lose.

for instance one thing they could do is stagger releases. not everybody buys both NCAA and Madden each year. but if Madden releases in 2008 and NCAA in 2009, folks might buy both that normally wouldn't.

Same for NHL and NBA Live. or NHL 2k and NBA 2k.

not to mention sales are very likely to increase with a superior product.

[Cardot]

Quote: Originally Posted by BlyGilmore

every other video game genre works on a two or three year cycle and seems to be doing OK.

One big difference with the sports genre however, is that you have the year stamped right on the label. Unlike other genres that can seem pretty new for a couple years, NBA 2K8 looks a bit old on a shelf next to NBA Live 09.

The thing that makes this question tough, is that I don't know how educated the majority of the sports video games public is? I know that most people on OS are very educated. We understand the games, their competition and debate every nook and cranny between them. We understand that a 1 year old game with good downloadable content can be just as good as a new game.....But what percentage of the market does know that? What percentage of the market sees 2 games on a shelf and simply assumes the one with the later year on the label is the better game?