Help me to understand this sentiment:
As 1Kurgan1 already mentions, sports games are an entirely different genre to FPS.
Comparing sports sims to FPS just doesn't work. I'm not a die hard Madden or any other sports series buyer. But usually the people who are are the ones who have been buying it since SNES, the roster updates and small changes they don't mind. The people that keep these franchises afloat probably don't play many other franchises, so they spend their $60 a year on the new Madden and are set.
Sports games are different. THey are released each year mainly because the sport teams in the pros are always changing so they need to have the roster updated and what not.
My only response to all three of these sentiments is that you're big fans of whatever sport you cheer for, and don't want to admit to the same thing that the main stream is not admitting to. You are content with what you have now, and don't really want any game changing changes made.
1) A properly structured game can have a non-static roster. Player skins/models are easy to add assuming that you have a console save file for the new players. Last time I checked a simple table of mathematical values describes each player, and the player skin is just a texture over a wireframe model. This is very easy to include in a DLC package. This answers:
THey are released each year mainly because the sport teams in the pros are always changing so they need to have the roster updated and what not. And they cant just do that from game updates over the internet. Cuz they need to create the models and such for each new player for each team. However I havent boughten a Sports game since like NBA LIVe 06 and NFL fever for Xbox Original.
2) They are a different genre, so what. My point was not that they were the same genre, it was that the fundamental structures of both are very similar. They exist by having a largely unchanged set of core mechanics, with a few set dressing changes between revisions. Madden has remained largely unchanged, with the exception of graphics, since the early 2000's. Choose a play, run the play with a potential play shift, repeat. COD has been choose a class (rock-paper-scissors balanced), shoot a guy, repeat. Honestly, this mechanic hasn't ever changed for shooters, but the real disappointment is less the acceptable multiplayer and more the lackluster story missions.
Additionally, change without purpose is stupidity. 10vs10 basketball is not a well thought out change. Something like a persistent online ranking, which allows you to unlock better players for your custom team as you play, is a logical and reasonable move forward. This is my answer to:
Geez, I wonder why?
You want NBA 2K13 to feature 10v10 games? Or Madden to be a "can only score using touchdowns" American football?
The engines I could understand since they really have console roots in the first place anyway.
I don't know about Madden, but several sports games doesn't "satisfy" your "criteria."
Football Manager 2012 is actually quite different from 2011. FIFA 12 have several features not in FIFA 11. NBA 2K12 have an updated interface, more "legends", and some "realism" enhancements too.
3) Pigeon holing fans of sports games is foolish. If they spend $300 on a console they're likely to spend some money on games that aren't sports related. If you assume that the only thing they buy is yearly sports games you say they are willing to settle for rehashed crap. Nobody I know that owns sports games only plays sports games, and it stands to reason that there would be very few people out there, aside from die hard fans, that would fit into this category.
Assuming that this supposition is correct, you can still have DLC that will earn a publisher money. Imagine three yearly DLC packs, on a game that lasts for two years. Let's assume football (the US kind)is what you want. You buy the game engine, with a current roster of characters. The production company has the basic gameplay, and all of the available game modes available at launch. 4 months down the line you release DLC that updates fields, rebalances players that have been inaccurately depicted, and adds some other features to current game modes. DLC pack two updates rookie line-ups, so that players can hold their own drafts, and take personal interest in upcoming events during season down-time. This package is a must for everyone who loves their sport, and needs to feel that they have personal links to their team of choice. The final DLC package updates teams to their current rosters, adding and subtracting players to make the professional team rosters accurate. Three DLC packages cover everything for the whole year.
Both developer and consumer benefit from this arrangement. As a consumer you can skip two of the three DLC packages, and still wind-up with an accurate yearly sports game. The die-hard fans still get their most up to date information, but the casual crowd doesn't have to buy a whole new game each year. Developers get two year to work on the fundamentals of a game. Two development years will offer time to rewrite the basic engine, tweak the UI, and generally learn from and improve the mechanics of the game. Smaller teams could work on the DLC packages, saving development money, but providing a constant revenue stream for the development team.
Let's then talk pricing. $50-60 for the base game is given. The initial DLC packages could be around $10-15. This would be fair for new stadiums, and new experimental gameplay modes. All of this being predicated on a substantial enough amount of content being generated. Additionally, this proving ground couldbe used to test new ideas for things to be included in the next major release. $10 maximum for the second package is a reasonable price. This package will amount to a bunch of new skins, and that's about it. Finally, the game update. This one is tricky, but I could see $15-25 dollars. You're functionally working on a complete team update, which is akin to the yearly games that are purchased now. If you campare it to the $50-60, then the price is a great deal. I believe this update would not necessarily be the most labor intensive, but the price premium would be justified. If you're keeping tally that's a $50 maximum ($35 minimum), for a functionally fully updated game, every year. The smaller size, and updated DLC will do wonders for longevity. Casual gamers will have the option to spend $25 per year for a time accurate roster, which should satisfy everyone.
Does this not seem like one of the rare instances where DLC might drastically improve a game? If you can't tell, this is my response to:
Comparing sports sims to FPS just doesn't work. I'm not a die hard Madden or any other sports series buyer. But usually the people who are are the ones who have been buying it since SNES, the roster updates and small changes they don't mind. The people that keep these franchises afloat probably don't play many other franchises, so they spend their $60 a year on the new Madden and are set.
So, what can I say in summary. Yes, yearly shooters and sports games have a lot in common. Yes, COD is suffering from the same stagnation that sports games are (taken from an only mildly biased perspective, as truly removing bias is impossible). Yes, I am a bit long winded. And finally; yes, I will love to see COD relegated to being released every few years, as I think sports games should be.
