The Yearly Release Cycle Needs to Be Changed Up

[RaychelSnr]

I love waiting for a new NHL game every year. I read every preview, blog, tweet and Facebook update. I rummage through various forums to try and find information on the upcoming game. Any piece of information will do; every detail discovered feels like another step towards the game's release.

And every year, roughly two weeks after release, I feel disappointed. Minor improvements, major bugs and paying customers being used as beta testers. And I have nothing against EA for doing this because if you have to push out a game every 12 months this is what will happen.

But imagine a band releasing an album that is not done yet. For a few weeks you would have to listen to it without vocals because they were mixed so badly that they got muted behind guitar tracks. Or imagine a badly edited movie that loses track of characters between scenes and might or might not have an ending.

Read More - The Yearly Release Cycle Needs to Be Changed Up

[rockchisler]

Good article

[bfindeisen]

Why not just sell like subscriptions? I'd be happy to pay a monthly subscription fee to the developers of my favorite games (i.e. MLB: The Show, NBA2k, Madden, Gran Turismo, etc..) and they just continue to develop the game/genre. I'd like them to continually be trying to improve and build on what they're doing, rather than completely overhauling the games all the time. Come out with meaningful updates as they're needed or ready to be released...no "deadlines".

[Dazraz]

Th problem with biannual releases is that even if a company alternated titles year on year, there would be a reduction in income when compared to yearly releases. Therefore the developer would have no alternative but to reduce staff numbers. This would mean that despite having an additional 12 months to develop a game the reduced staff numbers would lead to little if any increase on actual man hours dedicated to any particular title.

[CLEAR17]

I think i remember reading an article from a developer that on the next consoles games may just become updates that you download. Can't remember who said it or when it was said, but interesting

[Pythons80]

Good article, but my hunch is that a biennial release schedule would cut their profits nearly in half which is why they haven't done it to this point (I'm sure they've considered it, they are a business after all). EA's monopoly on sports games does funny things to the consumer. Like you say, every year EA is basically treating its paying customers as beta testers. However, how many of us are refusing to buy the next title because of it? Maybe a few but most of us are so enthralled with the idea of sports video games and so hopeful that the myriad of problems will be fixed that we buy the games anyways even if it is mostly just a roster update. As consumers of this niche market, what other options do we have? There are no other comparable firms in the marketplace releasing a similar product so we buy it anyways.
Anyways, I guess my point is that EA doesn't care about the consumer and like any firm that wants to survive in the marketplace they put profits above all else, including quality of the product and happiness of the consumer.

[bfindeisen]

Th problem with biannual releases is that even if a company alternated titles year on year, there would be a reduction in income when compared to yearly releases. Therefore the developer would have no alternative but to reduce staff numbers. This would mean that despite having an additional 12 months to develop a game the reduced staff numbers would lead to little if any increase on actual man hours dedicated to any particular title.

...which is why a monthly subscription would make sense. Price it so that the developer can stay optimally staffed and still produce profit, while coming out with updates and improvements as they become ready...

[statum71]

Well written. But I respectfully disagree.

UFC 2010 came out after a 2 year cycle. And the improvement was not that much greater that yearly releases. I look for Fight Night Champion to have plenty of things that could've been better after a 2 year wait as well.

Example: I've seen video of FN Cahmpion...and the presentation is STILL lacking. And its been two years.

[Dalsanto0026]

I agree. In most cases annual releases don't show enough improvement/upgrades to warrant an annual purchase (with the exception of the leap from NBA 2K10 to 2K11) so for the customer a 2 year development cycle makes sense. However, from a business standpoint profits would be reduced due to the sheer number of people who'll still gladly fork out money each year regardless of the level of improvements made, so I can't see this changing.

If I'm happy with the game eg MLB 10, NBA 2K11, NHL08, then I'm quite content to stick with them for a couple of years. I don't like the idea of forking out $100 AU for minor upgrades each year. If there are no drastic improvements and only gameplay tweaks eg what EA has done with the stale NHL series from 09-11 then I think something like DLC might be a better option.

[milesizdead]

I agree. In most cases annual releases don't show enough improvement/upgrades to warrant an annual purchase (with the exception of the leap from NBA 2K10 to 2K11) so for the customer a 2 year development cycle makes sense. However, from a business standpoint profits would be reduced due to the sheer number of people who'll still gladly fork out money each year regardless of the level of improvements made, so I can't see this changing.

If I'm happy with the game eg MLB 10, NBA 2K11, NHL08, then I'm quite content to stick with them for a couple of years. I don't like the idea of forking out $100 AU for minor upgrades each year. If there are no drastic improvements and only gameplay tweaks eg what EA has done with the stale NHL series from 09-11 then I think something like DLC might be a better option.

I must say that if you´re playing NHL08 still, updating to NHL11 is a must!
Seriously, the game has improved heaps since 08.

[Bad_Intentions]

Only problem is if a game sucks you're stuck with it for 2 years

[Quinney123]

Re: The Yearly Release Cycle Needs to Be Changed Up

nah its ok lol

[slapped89]

Make one good game, Update it constently, and its set till a new console

[canucksss]

great points. i also have that kind of feeling that EA is treating most of the consumers as beta testers. bi-annual is a good suggestion too. dont like releases that are plagued with bugs, modes that are almost half-useless until the release of a patch. i bought the game on the release date (Sept) and did not start my BGM until the release of Tuner 2.0 and Petr Pucks roster update (sometime Dec) so i have to wait almost 3 months to play the mode???
Plus, you cant continue what you achieved on the next release coz you have start from scratch. I would really wait before buying the 2012 (considering 2K will not release NHL game). If there's no significant change or improvement, then I'll not buy it and wait for 2013 or even 2014.
I have CH2K8 and still loving the game. Sure graphics is old but the fun of playing and recruiting plus the depth of Career is great. People are just making a roster update (courtesy of 2k share) and the game still brand new.

[FBeaule04]

It would all make sense if that wasn't about money. In EA mind, Ultimate Hockey, CHL, Memorial Cup, new physics and face-offs was enough to short-cut on BAGM and BAP. t's ok, that's there point of view.

If that wasn't about money, everything should be made to make the game perfect, enhancing the modes you have, correct bugs and make the AI be what it's suppose to be.

And you also have to understand that there's no competition for EA. It's either you play with our game or you go f*** yourself.

I would be totally for a 2 year release, but that wouldn't make some people, who complain as often as they breathe, to yap that this game doesn't have this or that.