9th Circuit Upholds NCAA Can't Restrict Athletes

[BizDevConglomerate]

���� the companies aren't to blame, it's the consumers who are suckers. Like the saying goes, "a sucker is born every 14 secs".

I'm done, great dialogue.

[ODogg]

Re: 9th Circuit Upholds NCAA Can't Restrict Athletes

You didn't read it bro.

Uh yes, I did. If I'm misunderstanding then tell me what part of what I quoted I am misunderstanding because it seems pretty clear to me from that statement that you are in the camp of "release sports games every 3 years instead of annually" which is, in my opinion, a really dumb idea for everyone involved.

[ODogg]

Re: 9th Circuit Upholds NCAA Can't Restrict Athletes

���� the companies aren't to blame, it's the consumers who are suckers. Like the saying goes, "a sucker is born every 14 secs".

I'm done, great dialogue.

You are right, we get what we pay for. However, I disagree that you're accusing the buying public of being a sucker for purchasing. Obviously people feel they are getting what they want...if not they wouldn't buy.

And if you're alluding to the fact that the public will just buy anything then you're wrong. The history of gaming is littered with failed systems, failed games, failed add-on products and just about every other failed type of thing one can think of.

You may not like how things are going, and that's your right, but to say others who don't hold the same view is a sucker is very narcissistic I think. To each his or her own I say.

[redsox4evur]

Re: 9th Circuit Upholds NCAA Can't Restrict Athletes

Uh yes, I did. If I'm misunderstanding then tell me what part of what I quoted I am misunderstanding because it seems pretty clear to me from that statement that you are in the camp of "release sports games every 3 years instead of annually" which is, in my opinion, a really dumb idea for everyone involved.

Yea I agree after re-reading his post I am also confused because to me he is in that camp.

Also BizDev why would the LEAGUE and the company do it? Nobody would pay for a patch in this day and age. Because we already get patches for free to fix issues, add content (RMPGA), etc. So why would people now all of sudden people pay for a patch? Also these companies would be insane to price these patches at $60 a pop IF they were to go that route. And if they sell the game yearly they do get that $60 for every game sold. You aren't looking at both sides of the argument. Yes the consumers would probably be better off by doing what you suggested. But the company is losing a ton of money doing it for the reason I stated above and I'll state it again, also these companies would be insane to price these patches at $60 a pop IF they were to go that route and when they release a new game it is for $60 per game.

[ODogg]

Re: 9th Circuit Upholds NCAA Can't Restrict Athletes

Yea I agree after re-reading his post I am also confused because to me he is in that camp.

Also BizDev why would the LEAGUE and the company do it? Nobody would pay for a patch in this day and age. Because we already get patches for free to fix issues, add content (RMPGA), etc. So why would people now all of sudden people pay for a patch? Also these companies would be insane to price these patches at $60 a pop IF they were to go that route. And if they sell the game yearly they do get that $60 for every game sold. You aren't looking at both sides of the argument. Yes the consumers would probably be better off by doing what you suggested. But the company is losing a ton of money doing it for the reason I stated above and I'll state it again, also these companies would be insane to price these patches at $60 a pop IF they were to go that route and when they release a new game it is for $60 per game.

Even if it was $10 it'd be outrage. Heck, even if they called it a roster upgrade and wanted to charge for it people would be angered and say the rosters suck and why pay for what they can get for free and get better done from the community?

These people who say sports games should release every two or three years should realize that it would make things even worse.

Imagine if the next Madden to come out would be Madden 19 instead of Madden 17. Expectations would be off the charts and no matter what sort of game was delivered people would be very pissed off and underwhelmed.

It's just a really stupid idea I think. If you don't feel there's enough innovation each year then the solution is simple, just buy every couple years or even every 3 years and see the change you want.

[BizDevConglomerate]

I didn't say the game should release every two years, I said the disk. PES has proven my point that you don't need the exact team name or license in order to have a great game. It's the consumers that make things hard.

Most of PES consumers are from outside the USA they don't complain about having to play with Liverpool FC. They make it work. The thing is Americans are spoiled brats. I'm American, But I'm not a brat or a sucker. You guys are the reason we have these horrible games.

Thank you. Thank you very much😐😐

[BizDevConglomerate]

Uh yes, I did. If I'm misunderstanding then tell me what part of what I quoted I am misunderstanding because it seems pretty clear to me from that statement that you are in the camp of "release sports games every 3 years instead of annually" which is, in my opinion, a really dumb idea for everyone involved.

I am saying release the disk every few years, and provide heavy updates in between. Yes a patch, but not your conventional patch, an over haul patch.

I believe the company will save money and so will we by not needing new disks every year. Most people complain that we're only getting roster updates. 2k is different, I think they do make significant changes bit they too can convert to heavy patches or software upgrades.

What I'm proposing is change, drastic change. You have to think something is going to change. So why be so afraid.