FM23 Headline Features Revealed

[MBarbaric]

I've finally caught up with the thread after a week or so

Haven't played any new FM since FM16 (still, I did buy 21). Partly because of a great database i use, partly because I didn't see enough advancement in the ME.

I have no idea how is the ME nowadays, however, if the bulk of the discussion here is about the graphical presentation of the ME, we have sort of first world problem. It means SI has resolved the biggest issue (well, for me) - the ME and can look towards more cosmetic side of the game. 

That being said, there's no denial the game needs to keep with the time and it is inexcusable how the 3d presentation looks in 2022. Real stab in the back - it obviously looked better 5 years ago.  

Edited October 16, 2022 by MBarbaric

[KeiranShikari]

The match engine is what it's always been, okay. Some years it's better than others, most of the time it's decent but it rarely feels like it's taking strides forwards. 

I just hope 23's is balanced well. The reveal was promising but as always - proof, pudding, eating. The fact they haven't actually shown us much of it  has me thinking it won't be a huge step forward - Obviously hope I'm wrong there.

On the aesthetics side they clearly care more about animations than the rest of the package (unless they're dribble animations of course).

Edited October 16, 2022 by KeiranShikari

[KillYourIdols]

1 hour ago, Federico said:

I'm not sure who is shouting the loudest, for what I have seen in this thread the users seem pretty much split in half, but from my perspective FM23 hasn't been welcomed as we all hoped. Users have always been encouraged to give their feedback in a constructive way, something I hope I did, maybe not and I'm sorry if so, and the best way to do it is putting down a post which of course has the possibility to be long to read. I can't see anything more constructive than someone who shows concerns and explains the reasons of those concernes in depth.

This thread hasn't gone downhill, people had expectations and some of them have been disilluded I'm afraid.

You absolutely were constructive, and many have been, but it seems a majority don't hear what they want to hear, so parrot the same thing over and over again thinking SI will immediately change what they want changed. 

The "Constructive" side of the conversation seems to have all but gone now. On top of this, this is (was?) A thread for the headline features that has now turned off topic and has become more of a "request/feedback" thread, of which there is one already.

It just feels derailed.

 

[XaW]

3 hours ago, Federico said:

My friend, I'm not talking of being punished or not. I'm talking of how much we waste time on reading and how the game flows and how I see this as a huge malus for FM. I'm pretty sure even the biggest fan of press conferences is completely bored after the second season. I once counted 15 (fifteen!!!) questions in a press conference. Every answer (and there are multiple, forcing me to scroll down the screen to pick what I want) required 2 to 4 (if not worse) lines to read. I'm serious, no kidding. So my point is why to insist on this aspect of the game that basically anyone of us get bored with - from an optimistic point of view - after 3/4 seasons and that inevitably will be skipped/delegated? Why adding local newspaper interviews and what good this brings to the gameplay? Why adding more meetings and more interactions in general if anyone of us will pass them by after few sesons because it's such a boring and repetitive aspect of the game?

I think we all want just more football, better/polished trainings (and I'm still waiting for someone who explains us how they affect our players and for how long), a tactic system that gives us 100% of creativity freedom (included set pieces) and SOME cosmetic stuff. Motorsport manager is fantastic, just like FM07: one random question any now and then and then BOOM let's race!

I feel like I'm loosing the focus on the main subject which is supposed to be football lately. Also that fact that - as said earlier - every FM looks like the previous FM (I just can't believe the only dilemma was which color to pick and associate to purple) doesn't help at all to dive into a new experience. And that all they call "features" in my opinion can be barely classified as "patches". The ME is extraordinary - we all reckon this. There's no other football managing game that can be comparable to FM. But adding a role or a new (one and one only) individual or team instruction or renaming/enhancing what we have already... I'm sorry that's not enough to justify a full price.

It looks like venting but I'm just embittered because of the direction this game took and is driven to

The thing is, this is your opinion, you can't speak for anyone other than yourself. In the same way I can only speak for myself when I disagree. Everyone wants different things and some changes will be what you want, and some will be what I want. Personally, I don't care if the leave everything match related as is currently. I care more about the world that the game creates and that the world outside the pitch work well. That's why I spend a lot of time holidaying and verifying how the world works and reporting issues in that regard.

1 hour ago, DMaster2 said:

So that's why they keep ignoring graphics, regen faces, stadiums, international management, set pieces creator overhaul, etc... despite an overwhelming response from basically any social media for this game?

Remember that neither of us has the whole picture regarding what most people want (remember that those who shout the highest is rarely the majority!). I've been talking to a few (non gamer) friends of mine who play and they have never complained about things like that. They were really excited about the squad planner, and the CL licences mostly. 

[XaW]

1 hour ago, Federico said:

I'm not sure who is shouting the loudest, for what I have seen in this thread the users seem pretty much split in half, but from my perspective FM23 hasn't been welcomed as we all hoped. Users have always been encouraged to give their feedback in a constructive way, something I hope I did, maybe not and I'm sorry if so, and the best way to do it is putting down a post which of course has the possibility to be long to read. I can't see anything more constructive than someone who shows concerns and explains the reasons of those concernes in depth.

This thread hasn't gone downhill, people had expectations and some of them have been disilluded I'm afraid.

Just to be clear, I haven't thought of you as anything but constructive, even if we disagree! These types of feedback is always welcomed by SI, so me disagreeing with you in the topic does not mean you are wrong. If I were to put on my moderator hat (if someone would step over the line of what is acceptable), I'd be very clear about it, especially in a thread were I am engaged in the topic,

[GreenTriangle]

2 hours ago, DMaster2 said:

The least you should expect for a full price game in 2022...

That would mean not buying any more games. Because I don't have to work too hard to discover countless flaws even in games that are highly appreciated by gamers.

[phd_angel]

Let me expand my critique of FM23 constructively, with a caveat that I'm basing this on the headline feature video alone (I'm hopeful that the game experience will surprise us positively).

From someone who works in marketing and technology, we should note that the development of game features typically follows three basic criteria:

1) desirability - by users and fans in the consumer market (consumers)
2) feasibility - developers can build features in the short-run (technology)
3) viability - can be commercialized to generate a good margin ($$$).

 

Based on the headline feature video alone, it is clear that SI team (Miles and leadership) has not been paying any attention to what forum fans have been asking for years. Instead, senior and junior developers spent most of their efforts on secondary fluff that doesn't add anything to the game core issues/problems/flaws/opportunities.  For a couple of years now, FM has been developed under the mantra of "Building Your Own Story".

Another example: from a purely marketing perspective, given that this is a World Cup year, SI missed a HUGE opportunity in not revamping and promoting the International team management - another request that core fans have making in the forum for years now. What's more, some of the new announced features are so complicated that it won't please first-time buyers either.

SI team: if you need marketing strategists who really listen to the fan base, know about market growth, and love this game, I'll be happy to send my CV. Regards.

 

 

Edited October 16, 2022 by phd_angel

[Kyznar]

Ok, ive decided to throw my 2 cents in the mix. Ive been streaming FM over on Twitch for 8 years now, im one of the longest running FM streamers, not that it matters, we are all equal consumers and player count to the fanbase. Since I was a little kid ive seen this game grow and grow into a well established cornerstone of yearly release gaming, and ive loved it for the past 25 years. This year is the 1st year im totally and completely underwhelmed/not hyped for the latest release. Ive gone beyond from being a "passionate yet frustrated critic" wanting to see my favourite series take even bigger leaps forward, to just being a "tired, dejected, routine-like consumer" seeing the game direction go in uninspiring circles around itself.

You and I could sit here and break down each individual feature/mechanic and have 48 varying views about what is right and wrong, but that wont get us anywhere, and it certainly wont get SI to go anywhere. BUT Sports Interactive have fundamentally failed to utilise that biggest resource. THE FANBASE. Years and years of an open forum of every single individual, throwing random opinions about every minor or major part of the game is a completely unproductive way to gather feedback and implementing change to the game. For bug reporting, sure, absolutely perfect. But when it has come to game changing opinions being effectively communicated to the developers, them instances are few and far between, due to this directionless feedback loop. One that comes to mind off the top of my head was a few years ago when the game launched and we had MAJOR balance issues with one-on-one chances being near broken and patches were pushed through to find a solution, but that took a huge collective outcry.

In the video game industry, developers need to make use of this massive opinion and data collecting machine, and SI have NEVER made any extensive effort to connect in an engaging way with the fans. Ill list off a few things that come to mind in what I think is done inefficiently or not at all.

1. Consistent and regular livestreams/content creation from the ACTUAL studio and developers. Not "presenters" that barely know how to click through the menus, but people who work on the game, know its function. Open that line of direct real time feedback. Give us personalities from within the studio that work on our favourite game that we can become attached to and importantly give/receive TWO WAY COMMUNICATION that engages with the fan base much better than yelling random opinions into a replyless void like forum space. I must say listening to the handful of devs that we got on the FM23 Headlines Feature video was fantastic, we need more of that, lots more, not once a year.

2. Developer diaries. Ill use the example of Paradox Interactive for this one. Go on their EU4 forums and they still post development updates about upcoming changes and future plans for that game, WHICH IS A 9 YEAR OLD GAME! The posts are made directly from a member of the development team, it gives you an insight on what they think is wrong/right with the game, they critic their own features in a open and honest manner and provide sneak peeks at what they are working on. BUT more importantly, the feedback thread from fans that follows the post is then directed towards the mentioned topics/issues. Its a focused feedback loop, not a random assortment of varying opinions throughtout an indepth game. This surely has to be incredibly useful to the said dev members to guide them in what they are doing is correct/flawed in the changes being made and feature direction.

3. Transparency. This point might be a bit more of a personal view and is a philosophy rather than anything physical. But the idea or "conspiracy" that SI think their game is perfect and everything they do is the right decision and that they dont make mistakes or the "they have no direct competition in the market so they dont care", is a common viewpoint that SI have brought upon themselves as proof of how distant they are from the fanbase. Whether that viewpoint is factually correct or not, DOESNT MATTER. It exists and has to be managed and relieved, which has failed to been rectified for years now. The player base can only make assumptions based on the information they are given, if you give us no clear open information we will ultimately jump to conclusion/beliefs whether they are right or wrong, we are justified to make them as dedicated fans/consumers.

There is probably a few other things that I wanna say but theyve probably slipped my mind in the moment or its hard to muster them together into anything that can be categorized in a constructive manner right now.

Ultimately, SI MUST improve how they treat their passionate fanbase. Treat us with respect and honesty and we can provide a valuable collective resource in the games growth and development. THEN and only then we can start to break apart what is right/wrong with the game features and changes year to year, patch to patch. This developer-fan relationship doesnt not work right now, realise that, please. Changes cant happen instantly and all at once, we arent unreasonable, and we have seen 1 or 2 signs of small progress, such as dev apearances in the headline video. (ALSO it just came back to me, remember that ONE TIME we had a playable beta branch for ME changes before Winter Update? That was awesome! Where'd that idea go?!) More intent needs to be shown through transparency about that direction of improving relations/communication with us.

Ill leave it for there now, I could probably write a whole lot more and thats before I even delve into my own opinions/feedback on game direction. If you read through all this, thank you for your time. And I am personally curious as to what others think of this viewpoint of completely changing/improving developer-fan relations in order to improve our game.

[themadsheep2001]

The playable public beta branch was once year round and got canned because virtually no one actually left feedback for it, despite there previously being massive clamour for it. 

[grade]

21 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

The playable public beta branch was once year round and got canned because virtually no one actually left feedback for it, despite there previously being massive clamour for it. 

Not questioning what you said is false, as genuine curiosity question, when was that?

[themadsheep2001]

2 minutes ago, grade said:

Not questioning what you said is false, as genuine curiosity question, when was that?

Certainly pre covid, but not that long ago I think it was for FM18 maybe?

[grade]

7 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Certainly pre covid, but not that long ago I think it was for FM18 maybe?

Weird... How did I miss that?

[DMaster2]

5 ore fa, XaW ha scritto:

Remember that neither of us has the whole picture regarding what most people want (remember that those who shout the highest is rarely the majority!). I've been talking to a few (non gamer) friends of mine who play and they have never complained about things like that. They were really excited about the squad planner, and the CL licences mostly. 

I've came back here after reading everywhere, be twitter (hi Zealand debacle on bad graphics yet again, to which i didn't saw any SI response unsurprisingly...), reddit, youtube (fm23 headline features, especially on the lack of international management love), etc... and they all have the same major complaints more or less, the ones people had for literal years now. The truth is simply that SI keep selling million copies each year by adding basically nothing other than a new fresh coat of paint and so why they have to work to actually improve the game? That's the idea i have in mind

[samuelawachie]

I’m still hoping to know why the pitch textures and face Gen graphics changed. 
I have FM14 and 21. I can see the difference in those aspects of the games. The FM 14 pitch looks better. Why?

I don’t need conjecture or speculation. We used to have an Ask-SI-Anything thread for these sort of questions. We need answers as to what changed from management. 

Was also going to throw my 2 cents into the other conversations, but who can afford that these days!?

I agree with XaW who insists on prioritizing improving longer term play of AI competitiveness and team building. 
 

As much as this pains me, I’ll take a leaf from #DiaperDon and say

 Make The A.I. Great Again

[BrightLad5]

On 15/10/2022 at 16:26, Neil Brock said:

Some areas are highly flexible and allow us to make sizeable changes in a relatively short time frame. Others have extreme technical limitations which make that much harder, so requires significant development time and long-term planning. Project Mousetrap as Nic Madden discussed in the recent Features video is a prime example of that. In that specific example we had to ask ourselves, would our player base prefer gradual improvements with a quickly approaching ceiling or a bigger long-term project which opens up even more possibilities?

People wont agree with me here, but if you cant add enough sizable changes in time... don't release a NEW game. I'm saying this as someone, like a lot of you, who has been playing and loving this game for over 20 years.

NEW being the operative word here. There was a feature released on Manager customisation in the most recent blog. Lovely, that's good, genuinely I like that. However, they mention for example having 6 new hairstyles? So... what, they are just using the 20 existing hairstyles from FM22 again and then just adding in 6 different ones?? That's not what NEW games do. New games create and re-work everything. They use the same base but rework all the graphics and gameplay to improve it for a new game. If their isn't big noticeable changes to the manager customisation this year, then basically they have added 6 hairstyles and a watch and called it a new game when really it is just DLC.

If they havent got time to add a working, graphical representation of Set Piece training (which we all hope is on their feature review list), or other BIG new features that the game desperately needs then don't fob us off with BS "features" that aren't good enough to be classed as a new game

Rockstar dont release a new GTA every year because if they did the game wouldn't improve... they release DLC and updates over the months/years to keep their games fresh and then they (EVENTUALLY in GTAs case...) release the new game when it is actually ready and NEW! Same can be said for the majority of games. They don't release a new game every year excluding maybe 1 very big FPS gaming franchise.

Just because it is a sports game, doesnt mean they have to release a new title every year. Providing an extensive database update yearly at a small cost if we want it, and then every 2/3 years release a NEW game with flashy fancy NEW features when they are ready to be rolled out... this would be better IMO.

[DP]

22 minutes ago, BrightLad5 said:

People wont agree with me here, but if you cant add enough sizable changes in time... don't release a NEW game. I'm saying this as someone, like a lot of you, who has been playing and loving this game for over 20 years.

NEW being the operative word here. There was a feature released on Manager customisation in the most recent blog. Lovely, that's good, genuinely I like that. However, they mention for example having 6 new hairstyles? So... what, they are just using the 20 existing hairstyles from FM22 again and then just adding in 6 different ones?? That's not what NEW games do. New games create and re-work everything. They use the same base but rework all the graphics and gameplay to improve it for a new game. If their isn't big noticeable changes to the manager customisation this year, then basically they have added 6 hairstyles and a watch and called it a new game when really it is just DLC.

If they havent got time to add a working, graphical representation of Set Piece training (which we all hope is on their feature review list), or other BIG new features that the game desperately needs then don't fob us off with BS "features" that aren't good enough to be classed as a new game

Rockstar dont release a new GTA every year because if they did the game wouldn't improve... they release DLC and updates over the months/years to keep their games fresh and then they (EVENTUALLY in GTAs case...) release the new game when it is actually ready and NEW! Same can be said for the majority of games. They don't release a new game every year excluding maybe 1 very big FPS gaming franchise.

Just because it is a sports game, doesnt mean they have to release a new title every year. Providing an extensive database update yearly at a small cost if we want it, and then every 2/3 years release a NEW game with flashy fancy NEW features when they are ready to be rolled out... this would be better IMO.

In fairness, Rockstar don’t have to sell a new game every year. Look at their number of sales compared to FM. 

SI have to make some sort of profit every year so a release is necessary. Getting the balance right between new stuff and working on background things for the future is the tricky part. 

[rp1966]

1 hour ago, BrightLad5 said:

Just because it is a sports game, doesnt mean they have to release a new title every year. Providing an extensive database update yearly at a small cost if we want it, and then every 2/3 years release a NEW game with flashy fancy NEW features when they are ready to be rolled out... this would be better IMO.

There's two different things at play here.  First is the sales model.  FM is an annual sports game, the model is that it is sold as a new title each year and everyone knows that the main thing you are buying is the database update.  Alongside that you expect the rest of the game to evolve like any other well supported game.  Bug fixes, refinement of existing features, complete overhauls of individual game modules and every 5 years or so a complete new core providing significant changes reflecting current hardware and technical expectations (which in a non-annual game would be the new game version release).  Most non-annual games roll out updates on a quarterly basis.  But the level of progression going by calendar dates should be similar regardless of the model.  

The problem with FM is that the progression just hasn't been delivered in any meaningful way in recent years.  I would just offer the comparison between the degree of updates (via free patches) to No Man's Sky since it was first launched and FM (at £35 per year) over the same period.  Also look at the relative sizes of the studios.

https://www.thegamer.com/no-mans-sky-every-update-expansion-dlc-content/

Edited October 17, 2022 by rp1966

[Erimus1876]

51 minutes ago, DP said:

In fairness, Rockstar don’t have to sell a new game every year. Look at their number of sales compared to FM. 

SI have to make some sort of profit every year so a release is necessary. Getting the balance right between new stuff and working on background things for the future is the tricky part. 

They could release a yearly database update instead and charge a reduced fee for that.  But instead they release what they claim to be a "full" game every year and charge everyone full price for it, when in reality its just last years game with a few pointless 'features' tacked on.. virtually no graphical improvements for going on 5 years now, same features people have asked for improvements on year after year going ignored in favour of manager clothing and wrist watches etc etc...

But nothing will change until the sales begin to drop, as money is the only thing that matters at the end of the day. Can't blame SI really, they're a business after all.  Where is the incentive to make the changes people ask for when the people will buy their game in any case?  The problem lies with the blind loyalty of the fanbase who'll continue to buy the game year after year despite the features leaning ever more toward fluff and cosmetics that have little actual substance behind them.

In saying that maybe there is some hope for future editions as I think this year is the first time I've seen a growing discontentment, not just on these forums, but across social media too, along with big streamers/youtubers finally saying enough is enough.  We'll see.

Edited October 17, 2022 by Erimus1876

[forameuss]

52 minutes ago, DP said:

In fairness, Rockstar don’t have to sell a new game every year. Look at their number of sales compared to FM. 

SI have to make some sort of profit every year so a release is necessary. Getting the balance right between new stuff and working on background things for the future is the tricky part. 

It always amuses me when Rockstar are held up as this shining example in the industry, despite probably being as predatory with microtransactions (if not more so) than the likes of standard whipping boys EA.  If we're talking about "need" then no-one at Rockstar ever needs to do anything ever again given how much they make through shark cards.

48 minutes ago, rp1966 said:

The problem with FM is that the progression just hasn't been delivered in any meaningful way in recent years.  I would just offer the comparison between the degree of updates (via free patches) to No Man's Sky since it was first launched and FM (at £35 per year) over the same period.  Also look at the relative sizes of the studios.

https://www.thegamer.com/no-mans-sky-every-update-expansion-dlc-content/

While I see where you're coming from, I'm not sure NMS is a good comparison to make to anything else really.  They're a freak case in the way they've dealt with the product, and even though they've arguably had one of the most amazing resurrections in recent times, it still bears repeating that the only reason they were in the position to resurrect was because they screwed up so incredibly badly in the first place. 

Having said that, it is interesting to wonder how Hello Games are staying afloat with their strategy.  Can only assume they made an outrageous profit initially (and I think they had a very lucrative deal with Sony from the outset).

6 minutes ago, Erimus1876 said:

But nothing will change until the sales begin to drop, as money is the only thing that matters at the end of the day. Can't blame SI really, they're a business after all,  The problem lies with the blind loyalty of the fanbase who'll continue to buy the game year after year despite the features leaning ever more toward fluff and cosmetics that have little actual substance behind them.

Ultimately, this is true.  For all the complaints that come up this time of year, every single year, how many times does that translate to that person actually not buying the product?  If it did, in large enough numbers, then we'd probably see a change in approach.  But...well, what do people expect them to do if sales stay high?  What better validation for their plans is getting money in their pocket?

And also, worth noting that just because the natives are restless here, or Reddit, or YouTube or whatever, doesn't mean the majority aren't still happy.  I imagine there's plenty of people who will pick up the game on day 1, play it to death, end up with thousands of hours, and then do it all again next year.  All the while being delighted doing so.  Ultimately they're no more or less wrong than someone who dislikes the game.

Edited October 17, 2022 by forameuss

[rp1966]

1 minute ago, forameuss said:

, it still bears repeating that the only reason they were in the position to resurrect was because they screwed up so incredibly badly in the first place. 

Having said that, it is interesting to wonder how Hello Games are staying afloat with their strategy.  Can only assume they made an outrageous profit initially (and I think they had a very lucrative deal with Sony from the outset).

A lot of the problem with NMS was that it was massively overhyped.  The initial release was still decent enough for plenty of people to put 50 hours or so into it - and 50-100 hours is pretty good for most games.  Most of the complaints initially centred around the fact that multiplayer was expected and not delivered.  It's fair to say that they've been a great example of how to accept and address criticism.

[BrightLad5]

58 minutes ago, DP said:

In fairness, Rockstar don’t have to sell a new game every year. Look at their number of sales compared to FM. 

SI have to make some sort of profit every year so a release is necessary.

They make a net profit of around £5 million a year. Most people get the game for say, £32 a year? Id happily pay £10 a year purely for a database update and maybe throw in a new skin. Then they can focus all the time on some sizable new features over the course of 2 or 3 years instead of rushing out a game every year when they may not be capable of doing so...

...we're going to get back to debating Zealand's dreaded subscription model again soon aren't we 

[BrightLad5]

7 minutes ago, rp1966 said:

A lot of the problem with NMS was that it was massively overhyped.  The initial release was still decent enough for plenty of people to put 50 hours or so into it - and 50-100 hours is pretty good for most games.  Most of the complaints initially centred around the fact that multiplayer was expected and not delivered.  It's fair to say that they've been a great example of how to accept and address criticism.

Reminds me of GTA5's horrific online launch... think they managed to recover it though 

[forameuss]

2 minutes ago, rp1966 said:

A lot of the problem with NMS was that it was massively overhyped.  The initial release was still decent enough for plenty of people to put 50 hours or so into it - and 50-100 hours is pretty good for most games.  Most of the complaints initially centred around the fact that multiplayer was expected and not delivered.  It's fair to say that they've been a great example of how to accept and address criticism.

Yeah, the hype really, really didn't help.  I was one that got it at launch and it was...fine.  A puddle, rather than an ocean.  Endlessly wide but incredibly shallow.  A result of letting a developer - albeit the senior one - become the marketing guy when he really, REALLY wasn't suited to be that.  Looking back, it's just a guy who was absolutely passionate about what he was doing getting carried away, but he never should have been in that position in the first place.  Particularly when people are fickle, and when they get an idea in their mind that didn't end up coming to fruition, they went a bit scorched earth.

But everything from then, they've been great.  They got their heads down, they worked themselves ragged, and they tried to make good on what they initially talked about.  I just don't think using them as a yardstick works given the completely unique case. Not many developers could get away with following their example

[forameuss]

1 minute ago, BrightLad5 said:

They make a net profit of around £5 million a year. Most people get the game for say, £32 a year? Id happily pay £10 a year purely for a database update and maybe throw in a new skin. Then they can focus all the time on some sizable new features over the course of 2 or 3 years instead of rushing out a game every year when they may not be capable of doing so...

...we're going to get back to debating Zealand's dreaded subscription model again soon aren't we 

I wouldn't pay for something sold as a pure database update.  Not much changes from edition to edition, but there's still a noticeable difference as all the little features add together into the overall experience.  I'd have no interest in paying for the same game as the previous year, with just the addition of something I could get for free - albeit in much lower quality - elsewhere.  

And a subscription model can get itself in the sea, as I can't even muster the effort to put it there myself.

[Choi seung won]

I honestly think si is investing a lot in useless parts. In particular, I think it is really useless to invest in platforms other than PC.

If I look at the people around me, there are no people who play on touch or console at all, or I delete it because it is inconvenient to try it once or twice.

Because it is impossible to patch the console version at all, the depth is very insufficient compared to the PC version.
And decorating a soccer manager is useless. Of course, no one cares about the appearance of a soccer manager among users.

Please pay attention to the stadiums, set pieces, more realistic transfers, etc. that users want.

[BrightLad5]

13 minutes ago, forameuss said:

I wouldn't pay for something sold as a pure database update.  Not much changes from edition to edition, but there's still a noticeable difference as all the little features add together into the overall experience.  I'd have no interest in paying for the same game as the previous year, with just the addition of something I could get for free - albeit in much lower quality - elsewhere. 

It would be DLC though, a download that is available at the end of each transfer window. They release a winter update patch with the transfers updates already. If you try to distance yourself from the Season by Season nature of football or sports and think about it more as a video game that is releasing updates and DLC onto Epic/Steam for the user to download and use as they please then it doesn't sound that crazy. Loads of games release DLC to to make their game better and keep it exciting whilst they are developing the next game in the series.

I get that you can get DB updates for free, but having a fully optimized and supported DB update from SI would be my personal preference in this example.

 

10 minutes ago, csw4228 said:

I honestly think si is investing a lot in useless parts. In particular, I think it is really useless to invest in platforms other than PC.

If I look at the people around me, there are no people who play on touch or console at all, or I delete it because it is inconvenient to try it once or twice.

Because it is impossible to patch the console version at all, the depth is very insufficient compared to the PC version.
And decorating a soccer manager is useless. Of course, no one cares about the appearance of a soccer manager among users.

I do disagree, making games accessible to multiple platforms is really important and there is definitely a market for PS5 and Xbox FM. Console gamers may not put in 1000+ hours like a lot of the hardcore PC FMers but they may well put in quite a few seasons and play 50-100 hours (a normal amount for a game) definitely! 

Also, I'm very interested in anything that increases the graphical side of the game like the manger customisation. Maybe if we do start putting more pressure on improving this side and making it more immersive it will stop being a spread sheet simulator and will move into the 21 century and become a more immersive video game. Look at F1 Manager! 

[Daveincid]

Reading through the pages it almost reads like everyone played FM23 already. How do you guys managed to play it before public beta to already make such final judgements? I mean I don't think this is all down to some short ingame view which SI provided to us all?

[forameuss]

12 minutes ago, BrightLad5 said:

It would be DLC though, a download that is available at the end of each transfer window. They release a winter update patch with the transfers updates already. If you try to distance yourself from the Season by Season nature of football or sports and think about it more as a video game that is releasing updates and DLC onto Epic/Steam for the user to download and use as they please then it doesn't sound that crazy. Loads of games release DLC to to make their game better and keep it exciting whilst they are developing the next game in the series.

I get that you can get DB updates for free, but having a fully optimized and supported DB update from SI would be my personal preference in this example.

How it's delivered doesn't really make a difference to me, whether it's a boxed product, DLC, whatever.  I'll likely buy FM23, but I wouldn't purchase any product that was solely labelled as a database update.  And obviously that's just personally me, but I'd be surprised if I'd be alone in that, and if that's true, then that would be a problem for SI.

[BrightLad5]

14 minutes ago, forameuss said:

How it's delivered doesn't really make a difference to me, whether it's a boxed product, DLC, whatever.  I'll likely buy FM23, but I wouldn't purchase any product that was solely labelled as a database update.  And obviously that's just personally me, but I'd be surprised if I'd be alone in that, and if that's true, then that would be a problem for SI.

So as long as they say its a new game instead of a DB update then its ok? Even if the new features are minimal? I'm getting FM23, its pre-ordered and I'm excited to play it. On the most part I do like some of the new features (more so than FM22 new features) but they still aren't sizable and the point still stands that if it is just FM22 + a couple of new things then it'll be a sad day but we'll see. A big new game every 3 years with lots of new features for £50 with 2 mini DB updates each year in between for £10 would still be my preference but that's just me

[Spedding]

3 minutes ago, BrightLad5 said:

So as long as they say its a new game instead of a DB update then its ok? Even if the new features are minimal? I'm getting FM23, its pre-ordered and I'm excited to play it. On the most part I do like some of the new features (more so than FM22 new features) but they still aren't sizable and the point still stands that if it is just FM22 + a couple of new things then it'll be a sad day but we'll see. A big new game every 3 years with lots of new features for £50 with 2 mini DB updates each year in between for £10 would still be my preference but that's just me

financially that wont be feasible theyd have to get rid of the editor for this to happen add microtransactions, and probably have to cut costs reduce staff numbers, cut licenses etc.

[grade]

40 minutes ago, Daveincid said:

Reading through the pages it almost reads like everyone played FM23 already. How do you guys managed to play it before public beta to already make such final judgements? I mean I don't think this is all down to some short ingame view which SI provided to us all?

We don't... the thing is the updates or headline features this year are way underwhelming.

I also, will say it will be a good game, since this one is based on FM22 with some minor upgrades. Not sure that the money they are asking is worth it. The facegen, I'm sorry, they are laughably bad.

 

I also want to leave you guys with one question.

Why can't we have sort of visual feature like build your stadium, like other iphone and ipad football manager type apps out there?

Things like this, would be awesome. Not saying in this level of detail this youtuber goes, but like building sections of the stadium of different styles of construction?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeysslHKU3A

or this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9GtzBnaXC4

Edited October 17, 2022 by grade

[DP]

2 minutes ago, grade said:

We don't... the thing is the updates or headline features this year are way underwhelming.

I also, will say it will be a good game, since this one is based on FM22 with some minor upgrades. Not sure that the money they are asking is worth it. The facegen, I'm sorry, they are laughably bad.

 

I also want to leave you guys with one question.

Why can't we have sort of visual feature like build your stadium, like other iphone and ipad football manager type apps out there?

Because building a stadium is a step too far outside the scope of a manager. Maybe it would be nice if a new stadium is built they could consult you with some options but it should be streamlined rather than you completely designing it. 

[Daveincid]

vor 1 Minute schrieb grade:

We don't...

Ah okay, my bad then. I need to work on my english skills then.

vor 2 Minuten schrieb grade:

I also, will say it will be a good game, since this one is based on FM22 with some minor upgrades.

I hope so too. As soon as the Beta drops, there will be much more to talk about!

vor 3 Minuten schrieb grade:

Why can't we have sort of visual feature like build your stadium, like other iphone and ipad football manager type apps out there?

If you mean it to have it as an ingame-feature: Most likely because this is not the job of a manager. I don't think it would suit well into the game from a philosophy point of view.

If you mean it as a feature for the pre-game editor: Maybe it's difficult due to licenses, maybe it's reason X or Y but it would definetly be a massive project to create it.

[grade]

2 minutes ago, DP said:

Because building a stadium is a step too far outside the scope of a manager. Maybe it would be nice if a new stadium is built they could consult you with some options but it should be streamlined rather than you completely designing it. 

I know it is outside of the scope of the Manager job, but why not? Wouldn't be fun?

[Boycott]

I am enjoying my save on FM22 which is the first new FM I purchased in years. I will give 23 a miss until further down the line. 

[rp1966]

13 minutes ago, grade said:

I know it is outside of the scope of the Manager job, but why not? Wouldn't be fun?

I'm not particularly interested in a stadium builder, but SI shouldn't be restricting themselves by saying 'the manager  doesn't do this' - especially when it comes to cosmetics.  You wear two hats as someone playing FM - one is role-playing the manager, but the other is as a gamer who wants control over their game environment.   And some things in that space are just fun to do (I know ... using the 'f-word' in relation to adding things to FM).

The pre-game and in-game editors both allow things to be changed that a manager clearly can't do - that's you acting as gamer, not role-playing the manager.  So why not allow you to edit the stadium so that it is a design you like? The game clearly uses some kind of construction kit, so allow it to be manipulated.  City-builder type mods allowing new 3D models to be community created is probably never going to happen, though. I would imagine the stand design is tightly constrained by the crowd generation code.

Edited October 17, 2022 by rp1966

[forameuss]

38 minutes ago, BrightLad5 said:

So as long as they say its a new game instead of a DB update then its ok? Even if the new features are minimal? I'm getting FM23, its pre-ordered and I'm excited to play it. On the most part I do like some of the new features (more so than FM22 new features) but they still aren't sizable and the point still stands that if it is just FM22 + a couple of new things then it'll be a sad day but we'll see. A big new game every 3 years with lots of new features for £50 with 2 mini DB updates each year in between for £10 would still be my preference but that's just me

Yes, because like I said, all the minor features add up to a different experience to anyone that looks beyond major feature announcements and actually waits until the product is actually here.  

You're also assuming that this hypothetical product that arrives in 3 years time won't just be roughly the same product you would have gotten with the current model.  3 years of features vs 1 year of features is going to probably need 3 times the testing effort, so the difference would likely be negligible.  It's not like they sit down in November with a blank sheet of paper and say "right, what about the next version?" We already know they've got women's football arriving in a future version, and they've said in the past that they're planning multiple versions in advance.  The only difference this change would likely make would be a superficial one to stop people making the same complaints every Autumn, and move to them making them every third Autumn.

[grade]

22 minutes ago, Daveincid said:

Ah okay, my bad then. I need to work on my english skills then.

We are simply discussing what was announced and the way the game is heading. I respect you, i don't think this kind of joke wasn't really needed...

22 minutes ago, Daveincid said:

I hope so too. As soon as the Beta drops, there will be much more to talk about!

Agreed. Again, these comments were related what was announced by SI.

22 minutes ago, Daveincid said:

If you mean it to have it as an ingame-feature: Most likely because this is not the job of a manager. I don't think it would suit well into the game from a philosophy point of view.

If you mean it as a feature for the pre-game editor: Maybe it's difficult due to licenses, maybe it's reason X or Y but it would definetly be a massive project to create it.

I understand, that its their philosophy of the game to be the most realistic simulator ever, but if you really, really push it too further it will be the most boring game ever. This is a computer game, it needs to have level of fun and gamezation, since all of us play this for fun and in our free time. Agaian, I will repeat myself, over, over, and over again. This not the word of God or my word is law or anything like that. This is my personal opinion and such you and others are free to disagree.

If I had Miles job, the game probably would have slightly different direction. Would be successful or not... don't know, not fortune teller. But I do know, people would complained about my vision of the game. it's impossible to please everybody, this thread just shows that.

Have good day.

Edited October 17, 2022 by grade

[BrightLad5]

8 minutes ago, rp1966 said:

I'm not particularly interested in a stadium builder, but SI shouldn't be restricting themselves by saying 'the manager  doesn't do this' - especially when it comes to cosmetics.  You wear two hats as someone playing FM - one is role-playing the manager, but the other is as a gamer who wants control over their game environment.   And some things in that space are just fun to do (I know ... using the 'f-word' in relation to adding things to FM).

The pre-game and in-game editors both allow things to be changed that a manager clearly can't do - that's you acting as gamer, not role-playing the manager.  So why not allow you to edit the stadium so that it is a design you like? The game clearly uses some kind of construction kit, so allow it to be manipulated.  City-builder type mods allowing new 3D models to be community created is probably never going to happen, though. I would imagine the stand design is tightly constrained by the crowd generation code.

Love all this... but a reminder that the player models are currently on par with a late 90's MMO so maybe we a while off this...  The uproar on new graphics this time round feels a lot bigger than normal... hopefully improvements come sooner rather than later! 

[aj6658]

1 hour ago, csw4228 said:

I honestly think si is investing a lot in useless parts. In particular, I think it is really useless to invest in platforms other than PC.

If I look at the people around me, there are no people who play on touch or console at all, or I delete it because it is inconvenient to try it once or twice.

Because it is impossible to patch the console version at all, the depth is very insufficient compared to the PC version.
And decorating a soccer manager is useless. Of course, no one cares about the appearance of a soccer manager among users.

Please pay attention to the stadiums, set pieces, more realistic transfers, etc. that users want.

But by the sounds of their job descriptions, there is a big change coming. Makes comments of a big technological change coming. Now this could be FM24 or it could be FM26. If they are moving the game forward it would be a long project and i do think its coming 

• Graphically the game has gotten worse. We all talked about how FM17 is better looking and the only reason i can think of is theres focus on something else
• They said womens football will be done properly and they have investment for that. It would be a good time to update the back end as well
• The game has stagnated for a few years. The tactics screen has been the same for a good while, things feel a big bloated or tacked on. 
• The "headline" features this year felt way too small.
  • Planner - nice QoL adjustment but i dont think it takes a whole year to build
  • Licenses - Again nice addition but not headline. 
  • Timeline - Shouldnt take a whole year to build 
• On the licenses, they mentioned how they have  armbands for each competition - in what world can we see that currently in the engine?
• And like i said, the Job description mentions a big technological change 

 

The only issue is, when will we see this - I feel like frustration in the community is going to be larger if FM24 is mostly small updates. Even people like Zealand are coming out against the low standards. 

 

[grade]

12 minutes ago, rp1966 said:

I'm not particularly interested in a stadium builder, but SI shouldn't be restricting themselves by saying 'the manager  doesn't do this' - especially when it comes to cosmetics.  You wear two hats as someone playing FM - one is role-playing the manager, but the other is as a gamer who wants control over their game environment.   And some things in that space are just fun to do (I know ... using the 'f-word' in relation to adding things to FM).

The pre-game and in-game editors both allow things to be changed that a manager clearly can't do - that's you acting as gamer, not role-playing the manager.  So why not allow you to edit the stadium so that it is a design you like? The game clearly uses some kind of construction kit, so allow it to be manipulated.  City-builder type mods allowing new 3D models to be community created is probably never going to happen, though. I would imagine the stand design is tightly constrained by the crowd generation code.

Not sure what exactly entails in terms of mods, but I seem mods doing some different design stuff in City Skylines. The rest I agree with you.

[BrightLad5]

2 minutes ago, forameuss said:

Yes, because like I said, all the minor features add up to a different experience to anyone that looks beyond major feature announcements and actually waits until the product is actually here.  

You're also assuming that this hypothetical product that arrives in 3 years time won't just be roughly the same product you would have gotten with the current model.  3 years of features vs 1 year of features is going to probably need 3 times the testing effort, so the difference would likely be negligible.  It's not like they sit down in November with a blank sheet of paper and say "right, what about the next version?" We already know they've got women's football arriving in a future version, and they've said in the past that they're planning multiple versions in advance.  The only difference this change would likely make would be a superficial one to stop people making the same complaints every Autumn, and move to them making them every third Autumn.

If they cant improve a release from 1 year to 3 years then there are bigger issues. I don't think this is the case. I get there are features 2, 3 often 5 years in the works at any given point. But say they don't release one of these each year and instead release all 3 (one for each year for example) in the hypothetical game release on the 3rd year. Maybe they have 2 BIG features a years currently depending how you look at it... that would be 6 big new things every 3rd year. It would feel so much better as a NEW game

[Daveincid]

vor 1 Minute schrieb grade:

I respect you, i don't think this kind of joke wasn't really needed...

You are right, it wasn't but it happend. Sorry!

vor 2 Minuten schrieb grade:

This is a computer game, it needs to have level of fun and gamezation, since all of us play this for fun and in our free time. Agaian, I will repeat myself, over, over, and over again. This not the word of God or my word is law or anything like that. This is my personal opinion and such you and others are free to disagree.

Oh I don't have an issue at all with your points. There was just a lot of "We" and not "I", so I assumed you were talking in the name of several persons. Personal opinion is something completely different, absolutely fine! I really just hate the "we"-argument.

vor 4 Minuten schrieb grade:

f I had Miles job, the game probably would have slightly different direction. Would be successful or not... don't know, not fortune teller. But I do know, people would complained about my vision of the game. it's impossible to please everybody, this thread just shows that.

True that

vor 4 Minuten schrieb grade:

Have good day.

You too!

[grade]

17 minutes ago, forameuss said:

Yes, because like I said, all the minor features add up to a different experience to anyone that looks beyond major feature announcements and actually waits until the product is actually here.  

You're also assuming that this hypothetical product that arrives in 3 years time won't just be roughly the same product you would have gotten with the current model.  3 years of features vs 1 year of features is going to probably need 3 times the testing effort, so the difference would likely be negligible.  It's not like they sit down in November with a blank sheet of paper and say "right, what about the next version?" We already know they've got women's football arriving in a future version, and they've said in the past that they're planning multiple versions in advance.  The only difference this change would likely make would be a superficial one to stop people making the same complaints every Autumn, and move to them making them every third Autumn.

I'm not under any illusion that SI is  going to drastically changed the graphics of the match in FM24 (forget about FM23 too late for that), because majority of users complained in this thread in world wide web (despite I don't see us that making these complains to be the majority).

I understand things do take time and we are yet too see what Miles implied in Headline feature video about hiring more people to studio.

If they announced major changes to graphics in FM24, is because it was something that was already in the pipeline. But since SI has 0 policy of sharing with us anything what is in development (independently if you aree with that or not), there is no way of knowing.

Edited October 17, 2022 by grade

[rp1966]

3 minutes ago, grade said:

Not sure what exactly entails in terms of mods, but I seem mods doing some different design stuff in City Skylines. The rest I agree with you.

What I was getting at was for City Skylines you could build a pretty accurate model of, say, The London Stadium, and import it.  I wouldn't imagine an FM stadium editor to allow that, but it would allow you switch a 4 stand stadium for one with filled corners of the same capacity - as an example.

[grade]

9 minutes ago, rp1966 said:

What I was getting at was for City Skylines you could build a pretty accurate model of, say, The London Stadium, and import it.  I wouldn't imagine an FM stadium editor to allow that, but it would allow you switch a 4 stand stadium for one with filled corners of the same capacity - as an example.

yes, it implies for SI build the tools for that in-game or off-game or both.

[Boycott]

I remember how FM 2010 was explicitly marketed as being a "polished" game to fix issues that were prevalent in FM 2009 when 3D first came into the game. And 2009 generally was the most forgettable FM. It felt very clunky to play and looking at Steam it was the lowest amount of hours I put into by far. In contrast for me 2010 was quite fun and a lot smoother to play. I wonder why SI don't do that same strategy of telling the fan base in advance that they will spend the development of the next edition cleaning up some persistent problems people have flagged up and in doing so any revolutionary changes can be pushed back a bit in a more forgiving way. At the moment is seems like they are neither evolutionary or revolutionary. 

Edited October 17, 2022 by Boycott
typo

[BrightLad5]

37 minutes ago, Boycott said:

I wonder why SI don't do that same strategy of telling the fan base in advance that they will spend the development of the next edition cleaning up some persistent problems people have flagged up and in doing so any revolutionary changes can be pushed back a bit in a more forgiving way.

And sell said "scuffed edition" for the same price as the following years alleged "polished version"  

The power you have when you have a monopoly on the market is incredible

[FCP_Football]

4 hours ago, forameuss said:

I wouldn't pay for something sold as a pure database update.  Not much changes from edition to edition, but there's still a noticeable difference as all the little features add together into the overall experience.  I'd have no interest in paying for the same game as the previous year, with just the addition of something I could get for free - albeit in much lower quality - elsewhere.  

And a subscription model can get itself in the sea, as I can't even muster the effort to put it there myself.

You are basically paying £32 for a database update now though....

[waraka14]

I don't post often here and I might be totally out of line here, but improving the match engine UI shouldn't be that hard. I am actually really surprised it continues to look terrible; F1 Manager developed insane graphics in a couple of years...and with things like unreal engine it really shouldn't be that hard. And yes, I know this is a management game, but great and realistic match engine would add so much immersion to the experience