The Yearly Release Cycle is Just Fine

[RaychelSnr]

I have consistently argued that the yearly release cycle was more a hindrance to sports games than a help. But I think my stance has changed a bit after 2010.

What we ended up with this year were several very well made games that received some big improvements in just one year. We also saw some titles rest on their laurels a bit (MLB 10: The Show comes to mind).

But the argument for sports games releasing every other year (or longer) does not hold up as well as I originally thought for a variety of reasons.

Read More - The Yearly Release Cycle is Just Fine

[Dazraz]

Excellent point regarding Gran Turismo 5. Proof that time is not always the answer. It's about using what development time exists wisely.
I personally like the yearly release cycle. It's nice to have a fresh game for the new season whatever the sport. 2K showed exactly what is possible in 12 months. Unfortunately the yearly cycle is often brought into question due to the frequency in which developers use the yearly turnarounds as an excuse for the lack of innovation/quality in their titles.
Unless technology changes to a level where games can be substantially upgraded & updated via a simple download a yearly release remains the way to go for the top tier titles.

[statum71]

Good point about GT5.

Another example: Even with two years to work with.......I'm willing to bet NBA Elite 12 won't improve enough to even contend with THIS year's NBA 2K. Never mind competing with 2K12.

[BlackRome]

After the patches this was the best Madden released on the next gen systems.

Wish I could say the same for NBA2k11. Online the series has gotten worse and worse since 2k8. The game just moves to slow online if you can get a game. It's almost impossible to play on the ball defense due to the delay. All I see is people switching, getting a bump then switching to another player.

If they won't upgrade their servers they need to take a year off and get their online code corrected. They have been running the same code for the last 3 years. Which sucks.

I haven't seen anything about a new patch being released. Looks like they are done trying to fix everything
that is broke. Since I only play online NBA2k11 is just collecting dust.

[BlackRome]

"Unranked Online Game Divergence Workaround
The team has found the root cause to the network drops in unranked online matches post patch. The settings file in the hard drive will need to be deleted. Upon loading the game, a new settings file will be created. You must keep your settings at default anytime you play an unranked match. Once inside a game, you can change any settings you wish. However, you cannot change any settings and have them applied to the file.

This only pertains to unranked/player matches, including lobby matches. Ranked games are not affected, and you can use your own settings file for such matches. I would suggest creating a settings file for both ranked/unranked if you consistently play between the two. It's quite possible that both players will need to have the default settings file. 2K is working hard to find a fix for this as soon as possible as they understand the limited ability to inform all online players of this workaround."

This is unacceptable. Maybe they do need a year off to fix the game.

[rockchisler]

I believe bringing people in (That play the game) can help early in development not 2 months before to see the game will be very beneficial simmers and cheesers.

[phant030]

Quote: Originally Posted by statum71

Good point about GT5. Another example: Even with two years to work with.......I'm willing to bet NBA Elite 12 won't improve enough to even contend with THIS year's NBA 2K. Never mind competing with 2K12.

if they used this year to build on Live 10, Elite would have been able to compete. 2k11 should thank Live 10 b/c it plays a lot like it and 'borrows' a lot from its gameplay.

Ppl only want two year cycles on a game they like and feel has been unsatisfactory for a few years. IMO gameplay wise, NBA 2k11 and MLB: The Show has really been more of the same over the past few years. But since they are believed to be the cream of the crop...most users won't say they need a 2 yr cycle.

If a person wants a two year cycle, skip a year.....guess what? most cant. So they 'really' don't want it, they just talk about it like they do. After two years, what if you don't like it? you will have to wait 4 years to get a game you MIGHT like...whereas on they yearly cycled you will have the opportunity to like multiple titles.

Also, ppl attention span w/ games are so short. They are constantly trading in games after a few months. You mean they would wait 6 or so months of not playing a game to update it? We don't even know what the addition of players (faces), animation, and miscellaneous code support will entail...Companies will hv to purchase the next patch to support the DLC, Have developers work on all functions of the DLC and patch...possibly patch the patch...get players in for scans....get new arenas/courts/jerseys in via DLC and patched support...users will need to download all of this (no telling the size and time)..all this while working on the 2yr version at the same time. Worth it?...might as well put out a new product.

So, there's no guarantee you will like it. No guarantee it will be bug free (never happening). No guarantee the features you are 'waiting on" will be added. No guarantee the Company will recoup 2x the profit they are forfeiting. Teams to work on the old game and new game, restructuring of the workforce, etc....IMO, i dont think it's worth it...especially when the results aren't close to being guaranteed or even favorable.

[alexgamez122]

I think Fight Night would be more appropriate, since they seem to be going with the two year approach. Although not much changes in boxing, having a Call of Duty setup would be cool; Sports games don't sell well enough to fund that operation.