Why not use cycles?
 

With the economy in a steady decline, and game prices at $59.99, why not use a two year or three year cycle?

For example NBA 2k11 could focus on making a very great game and offering say every 1-2 month patches fixing gameplay, etc.

Then instead of releasing new game with limited "new" features, just releasing a say $19.99 full roster update for the new season, and ending the update capability for the older rosters and not being able to play online without the new rosters, but weekly roster update data still free and occuring until the offseason then the updates end so they focus on creating a new roster for next year.

This would limit costs for discs also limiting buyers cost so instead of spending $59.99 every year you spend $59.99 one year then the next two your only spending $19.99

Also for offline exclusive players there still is 2kShare so if they don't need the $19.99 roster they can use one from 2kShare but still arent able to play online without the Official 2K Roster with a certain code so that people aren't just swapping rosters and getting past

This has negatives as well, say people are unhappy with a game, such as Madden recieved criticism this year, they are stuck for 2-3 years with it. However, if the company makes a great enough game this worry shouldn't be that much, it forces the gaming company to make a great product that will last.

I know that this has alot of issues but there are alot of positives with lower costs for gamers, but the companies may want to keep making 59.99 every year so please post your thoughts

Re: Why not use cycles?
 

The companies may want to keep making 59.99 every year.

End of discussion. :smirk:

Re: Why not use cycles?
 

And it really shouldn't take 2 or 3 years to put out a good sports game.

Re: Why not use cycles?
 

This. And I'm not sure the math adds up on a two year development cycle.
Madden 11 sold about 5 million copies, right? So, what happens if you switch to a two year development cycle, and now you sell 9 million copies. That's a dramatic increase, but how is that more profitable than a single year development cycle?

Re: Why not use cycles?
 

Ok let's say Madden 12 sells 5 million also, that's 10 million to your 9 million. I do understand what your saying though, they would or should put out a better product with 2 years as opposed to 1. Money is the bottom line.

Re: Why not use cycles?
 

Money is absolutely the bottom line, and switching to a 2 year development cycle would basically require Madden to double its sales in order to maintain the same profits as a yearly release. I just don't know if it's feasible.

Re: Why not use cycles?
 

yeah money will drive it all but plus, my biggest concern about that is still say that they make a game with lots of flaws and dont address them then instead of waiting one year your waiting 2-3

Re: Why not use cycles?
 

Well for one that is how people keep their jobs. 2 they can make alot more money off of making a new game every year then just doing updates every few months. That's pretty much how it works in the business world. Doing a new game each year brings new features and updates and stuff to the game. :cavalry: