Controversial Suggestion

[borivoje213]

FM - as with other sports sims - is basically an annual thing.  And like many annual release games, you do hear criticisms from less hardcore followers moaning about how the game doesn't change enough each year.

I don't know the official statistics, I think some threads have polled people and no doubt SI are aware that there are a portion of players who don't buy the game every year (IMO probably for the above reason).

One way to entice people to make a more long-term commitment to the game - rather than simply offering discounts for repeat buyers - would be to make it semi-subscription based game.   The subscription would be available for the calendar year(s) from the date of purchase rather than a fixed point in the year, giving you updates to the game for that period of time, and those who make longer 2, 3, 4 year commitments can pay less per year. Edit This way instead of only rewarding past commitment from players, who will continue to purchase the game and benefit, new players would be enticed to know they're going to benefit moving forward too.  Ensuring players that regardless of their purchase date they are running the latest updated version.

The benefits of this to the user:

Improvements would be released on the fly.  Rather than the plethora of minimal updates that are criticised by some as being unsatisfactory to justify a new purchase, smaller updates throughout the year would continually improve player experience.  Basic updates that could be implemented to current saves such as visual introductions to ME etc could be rolled out for instant impact, while others requiring new saves to be created wouldn't affect players running long term saves and simply be available to them the next time they decide to create a fresh save (transfers for instance would be up to date no matter when you choose to start a game).  

This would encourage players to start new saves more frequently.  Currently a number of players decide enough is enough and have a break until a new version comes out.  With this, players would be able to pick it back up with a new save to try out new game experiences just as soon as a new updated feature that interests them becomes available.  The ability to play from databases of previous seasons but with the new features, could be made available, as has previously been requested as a new feature suggestion by others.  The ability to play from the latest season for specific leagues could then be triggered at a certain time in the year, one much closer if not even in advance of the current season start dates, instead of several months after.

For instance, if you want to start a game at the beginning of or during an EPL season, you can do so at any point with the latest transfer update available.  Alternatively you could create a new save starting from last season with that season's database but with the full up to date game.  This would be the same for the start date of any individual league in the game with their relative "Latest Seasons Start Points" being triggered at the decided date with that date's latest database.  You could choose to start a game mid-season IRL but beginning of respective season in-game with the start of season or latest database (as it is currently) , and possibly introduce a feature to start at literally any point in time up until the present standings and database of roughly that moment in time (within reason).  If your team is in a relegation battle come early spring (I'm a Coventry fan - please not again).  You can pick up in March and start a save to try and rescue them from whatever nightmare you're actually living through.

The point is that instead of waiting for the smallest things that are save game compatible you get them as they become available, plus a few things that make it more flexible.  If it's a bigger thing you'll get it later down the line anyway, which you get by buying a new version.  If it's something that isn't backwards compatible it starts from the next time you fire up a new save.  

Overall, players whether hardcore or not will be rewarded for their commitment to the game both financially and with a more up to date product throughout their subscription (only updates would cease - the game in it's state would remain playable post subscription), with added flexibility on databases and start dates, and less committed followers would have added incentive to jump aboard at any point whether it be sooner or later.

 

 

[forameuss]

There's a certain disconnect between your idea and your supposed benefits.

Why does a subscription model mean that improvements could be released on the fly?  There's plenty of steps in there missing.  Why does it encourage to start saves more frequently?  From the way people talk, the prospect of a more fluid base is more likely to delay people starting rather than encourage.  Databases from previous seasons presumably won't be allowed due to licensing - that's why they can't sell previous editions on Steam when the new one comes out.  Licensing would probably cover your other points too.  

The one question that comes up when this has been brought up is this - what's in it for SI?  What makes them look at this idea and think that it's the right way to go?

[borivoje213]

30 minutes ago, forameuss said:

Why does a subscription model mean that improvements could be released on the fly?  

Because it's in the interest of a business to put updates and improvements towards their next version rather than giving it away for free right now.  In this case it would be a continual thing with people picking up subscriptions at any point in time which, which means wouldn't suit and that would suit the current fixed annual release.  Both points go hand in hand, the disconnect would mean exactly the opposite. EDIT - In this format you're more likely to get those who follow summer leagues and those either side of winter starting up/renewing subs at different points in the year which suits them better than waiting for 1 fixed release date that doesn't correspond with much.  It's a matter of flexibility.

30 minutes ago, forameuss said:

Why does it encourage to start saves more frequently?

If I play a 6 month save and I feel I've experienced everything I want to in the game, currently I have to wait until the next version which can be some way off.  With this format, by the time I've finished with that save and want to create a new one, there may be larger updates available with new features that were not compatible with that save.

30 minutes ago, forameuss said:

From the way people talk, the prospect of a more fluid base is more likely to delay people starting rather than encourage. Databases from previous seasons presumably won't be allowed due to licensing - that's why they can't sell previous editions on Steam when the new one comes out.  Licensing would probably cover your other points too.  

I'm not wholly sure what you mean by the first bit, please clarify.  As for databases from previous seasons it's a good point but not the end of the world.  FM17 is now sold discount, so IF this is the case and previous seasons beyond 17 couldn't be available, whatever the licencing date they can simply be closed-off as and when their legal availability would expire.  I'm sure if this suggestion became popular SI would consider licencing implications.  I'm assuming not many of us on this forum are experts in this.

 

30 minutes ago, forameuss said:

The one question that comes up when this has been brought up is this - what's in it for SI?  What makes them look at this idea and think that it's the right way to go?

As edited, I hadn't made it quite clear.  Currently players generally only get a small discount for an advanced purchase for the coming season or their past commitment is rewarded for owning previous titles.  These players are already committed followers and likely to remain so.  This system would reward a future commitment with a greater discount being giving for those who make advanced purchases for the next couple of years or so.  Meaning players who are new to the game have incentive for coming aboard.  EDIT - also it would end selling of discounted legacy versions of the game, meaning that anyone who fancies giving it a go jumps straight in with the latest version at current price.

Thank you very much for all of your feedback.  You make some good points and your questions were a great opportunity to clarify the suggestion.

[forameuss]

16 minutes ago, borivoje213 said:

Because it's in the interest of a business to put updates and improvements towards their next version rather than giving it away for free right now.  In this case it would be a continual thing with people picking up subscriptions at any point in time which, which means wouldn't suit and that would suit the current fixed annual release.  Both points go hand in hand, the disconnect would mean exactly the opposite.

They already put updates and improvements towards their next version, and they haven't given it away for free.  They've received the money for a copy, and use that to fund continuous development.  The only way you'd see any benefit financially is if the subscription model cost more.  Can't see that being a popular decision.  There's also the fact that even this "steady" stream of income (which isn't guaranteed) is a lot lower than what they're used to.  They're currently built around the way they develop, implementing this is a massive sea change for them, and I'm not convinced there's too much benefit.

16 minutes ago, borivoje213 said:

If I play a 6 month save and I feel I've experienced everything I want to in the game, currently I have to wait until the next version which can be some way off.  With this format, by the time I've finished with that save and want to create a new one, there may be larger updates available with new features that were not compatible with that save.

That's how you play, and that's fair enough, but it's by no means the consensus.  I get the same feeling of not much point prior to a new version, but more a few weeks before the new one comes, not months.  Doubt I'm alone in that (but then you're not either).  All I meant was that there's plenty of people who refuse to start proper saves until certain updates drop.  How do these people react when, under your suggestion, these updates are coming much more frequently?  How do they react when these more frequent updates don't fix what they were waiting for, or haven't been tested to the same degree because there simply isn't enough time?  

16 minutes ago, borivoje213 said:

I'm not wholly sure what you mean by the first bit, please clarify.  As for databases from previous seasons it's a good point but not the end of the world.  FM17 is now sold discount, so IF this is the case and previous seasons beyond 17 couldn't be available, whatever the licencing date they can simply be closed-off as and when their legal availability would expire.  I'm sure if this suggestion became popular SI would consider licencing implications.  I'm assuming not many of us on this forum are experts in this.

Answered kind of in the previous part.  some people talk about only starting their save in January "once the bugs have been ironed out".  Your method has an even more fluid base.  After the transfer window update you can be fairly sure that the game you play will not be updated and move the goalposts, so you're free to start.  That all changes if you implement this.

16 minutes ago, borivoje213 said:

As edited, I hadn't made it quite clear.  Currently players generally only get a small discount for an advanced purchase for the coming season or their past commitment is rewarded for owning previous titles.  These players are already committed followers and likely to remain so.  This system would reward a future commitment with a greater discount being giving for those who make advanced purchases for the next couple of years or so.  Meaning players who are new to the game have incentive for coming aboard.

You say it would reward players with "a greater discount".  So are you pricing this subscription at lower than it would cost someone to buy the full game?  Again, why would SI go for that?  You're substituting a large income at a set point in the year for a non-guaranteed one that is smaller.  And I'm not sure that generally you're really describing something that is unique to your way of releasing.  The current method has committed followers, and will remain so.  People can still "come aboard" by buying the game as it is, sight unseen or by trying the free demo.  You're essentially using it as a low-cost demo that benefits from updates.

I don't doubt that there would be some benefits to users with this, but I'm not really seeing any benefit to it for SI.  Can't see anything other than their profits going down from it, which will directly affect the quality of any future updates or titles.  A snowball.

EDIT: But thanks for actually discussing it, and I mean that.  Plenty seem to take any kind of critical comment on an idea as some kind of personal slight.  I'm happy to be convinced about any feature if it's argued well enough, as long as they're prepared for holes to be shot in it.

[borivoje213]

3 minutes ago, forameuss said:

They already put updates and improvements towards their next version, and they haven't given it away for free.  They've received the money for a copy, and use that to fund continuous development.  The only way you'd see any benefit financially is if the subscription model cost more.  Can't see that being a popular decision.  There's also the fact that even this "steady" stream of income (which isn't guaranteed) is a lot lower than what they're used to.  They're currently built around the way they develop, implementing this is a massive sea change for them, and I'm not convinced there's too much benefit.

They would still receive money for copies.  1 purchase for 1 year - same as now only flexible to when in the year that falls.  It wouldn't need to cost any more than it does now.  If you don't think it would be popular that's fair.  The stream wouldn't be lower, it would be exactly the same, we'll come back to that later.  It is a big change, and the benefits are up for debate you're free to your own opinion

 

7 minutes ago, forameuss said:

That's how you play, and that's fair enough, but it's by no means the consensus.  I get the same feeling of not much point prior to a new version, but more a few weeks before the new one comes, not months.  Doubt I'm alone in that (but then you're not either).  All I meant was that there's plenty of people who refuse to start proper saves until certain updates drop.  How do these people react when, under your suggestion, these updates are coming much more frequently?  How do they react when these more frequent updates don't fix what they were waiting for, or haven't been tested to the same degree because there simply isn't enough time? 

This is not how I play, it's simply a hypothetical.  But it is a way some people play and there are those who wait around for a new version as I've seen mentioned.  Weeks or months, it differs from person to person.  The point is this would be flexible enough to accommodate BOTH playing styles, it doesn't affect those who it doesn't cause any problems for those who it doesn't apply to, it just helps those who it does apply to.  Those who play continually, those who feel played out and waiting.  People can choose when to take it up again.  And those who refuse to start proper saves until the next updates drop can still do so as soon as what they want is available rather than it being bundled with a new copy.  Those who don't get the fixes or feel underwhelmed by the game as time goes on are just as likely to fall away and not by another copy of the game until they see a release later down the line that catches their eye.  In this instance people may have already purchased a 3 season subscription which is of benefit to SI because they've paid for several versions in advance.  That gives them 3 years where the player might as well use what they've paid for and the things they want - that could make them renew - might drop during those 3 years.

 

15 minutes ago, forameuss said:

Answered kind of in the previous part.  some people talk about only starting their save in January "once the bugs have been ironed out".  Your method has an even more fluid base.  After the transfer window update you can be fairly sure that the game you play will not be updated and move the goalposts, so you're free to start.  That all changes if you implement this.

I don't see that being the case.  Right now if you start a game you have the latest database is true to that window.  Transfers happen in the meantime IRL that don't stop you playing your current save.  it just means if you've started your EPL save with the latest database at the end of January you can move forward knowing all the transfers that are important to you have happened, you don't care that Serbia is still an open window into February, you're not going to start fresh for that.  But the guy who wants to start his Red Star Belgrade save come the and of the Serbian transfer window can do so without worrying that he's on an older database.

 

20 minutes ago, forameuss said:

You say it would reward players with "a greater discount".  So are you pricing this subscription at lower than it would cost someone to buy the full game?  Again, why would SI go for that?  You're substituting a large income at a set point in the year for a non-guaranteed one that is smaller.  And I'm not sure that generally you're really describing something that is unique to your way of releasing.  The current method has committed followers, and will remain so.  People can still "come aboard" by buying the game as it is, sight unseen or by trying the free demo.  You're essentially using it as a low-cost demo that benefits from updates.

This first part is probably my fault for not making it much clearer.  When I say greater discount I mean more discount for the longer in advance you pay.  The discount for purchasing 3 seasons in advance needn't be more than someone currently gets for owning 3 previous copies, it only needs to be a little more than the person who's only buying a 2 season subscription.  So no loss in revenue.  I think SI would and other businesses do go for it because it's something that rewards committed customers and customers yet to commit both equally, and ensures that a good portion of their revenue is received in advance.  So it would be substituting a large income at a set point in the year with a larger income throughout the year and in most cases well in advance of the product.  It is not a unique idea, but it's not unique because other businesses know it's a good model to generate funds in advance and encourage user growth.  The popularity of crowd funding is a good example, although not identical to this scenario.  The current method does have committed followers, but it doesn't necessarily mean they will remain so, many people - as we've both agreed already - become disillusioned with the game and don't purchase copies for a while, if ever.  In this case current and new customers would state their commitment in advance (both instances would benefit unlike currently where only past purchases apply), which would be good for SI in up front revenue for development, an idea of customer numbers going forward, and in many cases a window of opportunity to recover if certain updates aren't so well received.

[michaeltmurrayuk]

You seem to be underestimating the time and effort required to patch and update the game. The game is far too complicated and interconnected to release weekly or monthly updates, even the tiniest change will often affect some other part of the game, even pure data updates for the database are time consuming and when are these changes going to get tested? The game systems also tend to get worked on at the same time one person will be redoing the transfer logic whilst someone else will deal with the squad logic it takes time to code these it's not like SI spend April working on the Transfer System and with it done they then 'withhold' the improvements until November and then spend May working on the Squad Logic before moving onto the next area, the systems are co-dependent and are worked on at the same time, and once they are working they need to be tested to make sure they actually work and also play nice with the rest of the game - even if the transfer system was overhauled in April they just cannot dump that into the existing game in May as changes made would affect other parts of the game or it would be dependent on changes made elsewhere so we have to wait for June for the Squad Logic to be updated, but that then depends on the new league rules and finance model that isn't ready yet so we are now into Sept and the data update is ready and the updates are being tested and look we are now into October when the game is due to be released anyway.

You also have the problem if the game is constantly updated the code base will be quickly fractured especially if people are expecting their purchase to get support over three years or more - Person One starts his game on day one and plays it for three years meaning every update over that period needs to be checked to make sure it doesn't break anything in that version, Person Two starts their game in Month Three after a major update that introduced game features not supported by games started on Day One, this person plays that game for three years meaning all future updates need to ensure they don't break something in this version - after one year you have 12 to 52 different versions of the game that all need supporting and they will all need their own databases.

You also have the problem of how do you implement major new features - take the 3D match engine - if FM08, FM09 and FM10 were running under this system and update FM09 introduced 3D how would that be backported to FM08? Same with System Requirements what happens if someone's spec falls below a future versions spec are they cut off from a game they have paid for?

What about people who prefer to play the game in March after the last patch, if the game is always updated when are they going to start playing?

[borivoje213]

25 minutes ago, michaeltmurrayuk said:

You seem to be underestimating the time and effort required to patch and update the game. The game is far too complicated and interconnected to release weekly or monthly updates, even the tiniest change will often affect some other part of the game, even pure data updates for the database are time consuming and when are these changes going to get tested? The game systems also tend to get worked on at the same time one person will be redoing the transfer logic whilst someone else will deal with the squad logic it takes time to code these it's not like SI spend April working on the Transfer System and with it done they then 'withhold' the improvements until November and then spend May working on the Squad Logic before moving onto the next area, the systems are co-dependent and are worked on at the same time, and once they are working they need to be tested to make sure they actually work and also play nice with the rest of the game - even if the transfer system was overhauled in April they just cannot dump that into the existing game in May as changes made would affect other parts of the game or it would be dependent on changes made elsewhere so we have to wait for June for the Squad Logic to be updated, but that then depends on the new league rules and finance model that isn't ready yet so we are now into Sept and the data update is ready and the updates are being tested and look we are now into October when the game is due to be released anyway.

You also have the problem if the game is constantly updated the code base will be quickly fractured especially if people are expecting their purchase to get support over three years or more - Person One starts his game on day one and plays it for three years meaning every update over that period needs to be checked to make sure it doesn't break anything in that version, Person Two starts their game in Month Three after a major update that introduced game features not supported by games started on Day One, this person plays that game for three years meaning all future updates need to ensure they don't break something in this version - after one year you have 12 to 52 different versions of the game that all need supporting and they will all need their own databases.

You also have the problem of how do you implement major new features - take the 3D match engine - if FM08, FM09 and FM10 were running under this system and update FM09 introduced 3D how would that be backported to FM08? Same with System Requirements what happens if someone's spec falls below a future versions spec are they cut off from a game they have paid for?

What about people who prefer to play the game in March after the last patch, if the game is always updated when are they going to start playing?

I would have imagined the existence of a multitude of online games that continually introduce new tweaks, adjustments and dlc as well as single player games then there would be no difference here in the way new features are rolled out.   I don't doubt the requirement is huge and I think our expectations differ massively here.  Any large scale co-dependent changes I would only expect to be done once maybe twice a year, with only the smaller updates for new features rolling out more frequently.  But hey never mind,  I can see FM is very complex though, I hold my hands up and probably underestimate the workload and that this game is something all-together unique.

In answer to the last question, the concept of the topic was for players to be able to start playing at whatever the latest version is at the time.  With only compatible updates applying to that save.  Newer larger updates that aren't compatible with the current save only applying new saves that are created after the update.  Much like how a new database can be downloaded now.  It doesn't apply to your current save because things have changed, but applies next time you start a new one. 

Oh well.  If it can't be done it can't be done.  Thanks for getting back to me and offering some well informed perspective.

[santy001]

The biggest downside (purely from a personal point of view) is the mention of regular database updates. The research team is a voluntary group, I don't think there'd be too much interest if we were having to provide almost on-going data updates. 

Even more of a nightmare would be the need to keep it all correct in light of what would be included, cut off dates etc. Logistically it would be a nightmare on that front alone. 

[borivoje213]

Aye, fair point.

[borivoje213]

8 minutes ago, santy001 said:

The biggest downside (purely from a personal point of view) is the mention of regular database updates. The research team is a voluntary group, I don't think there'd be too much interest if we were having to provide almost on-going data updates. 

Even more of a nightmare would be the need to keep it all correct in light of what would be included, cut off dates etc. Logistically it would be a nightmare on that front alone. 

Having said that, would you really expect your opinions to change that greatly and so frequently?

Also when I mentioned database updates I meant transfers which would be very little work.  Individual teams would still only need to be done once I would imagine.  But different deadlines for different leagues.

 But you're right, team reports are also important to the game.

 

[santy001]

It depends what you're advocating, if you're after something more akin to FIFA's form ratings, and something similar in FM that would be truly horrendous to cater for. 

However, whenever we do research ideally we do everything upto that point. Which could devolve into an awful lot of admin if nothing else. 

[borivoje213]

I see, no I was thinking more player appraisals as something wholly different to how transfers are handled.  So an overhaul of the team the likes of which I think you're talking about would probably remain the same.  But as I said, rolling out into the database at different junctures throughout the year as nations reach their respective start dates.

[Neil Brock]

Reviewed so locked.