A Video I'd Love to See

[gunnerfan]

With all the complaints piling up in the feedback thread, it would be great to see a You Tube (or similar) video of a panel discussion including a few of the most thoughtful contributors on game play, such as Cleon and Rashidi, as well as someone from SI (perhaps Neil Brock) about where FM needs to go, and which improvements are feasible. My impression is that the complaints about FM23 are louder and more strident than in years past. It would be nice to hear from SI in a setting in which follow-up questions can be asked and answered.

[alian62]

Do one then . 

[gunnerfan]

2 hours ago, alian62 said:

Do one then . 

I'm sure there are plenty of folks who are both better at video productions than I and in closer contact with the key people.

[Ferocious289]

I'd love to know how much time they dedicated to making/working on this edition football manager

[alian62]

7 hours ago, gunnerfan said:

I'm sure there are plenty of folks who are both better at video productions than I and in closer contact with the key people.

There is a video on You-Tube where 4 bloggers got together for a 20 plus minute discussion about FM23 . Zealand was one of those.  Was very interesting 

[gunnerfan]

3 minutes ago, alian62 said:

There is a video on You-Tube where 4 bloggers got together for a 20 plus minute discussion about FM23 . Zealand was one of those.  Was very interesting 

Thanks, I'll check that out, but I'd like to see the folks I mentioned doing one.

[JimmysTheBestCop]

Dr Benji hosted one on launch. Honestly I can see some bad things with SI forming. Fm blew up after 19 especially with pandemic. It never had more eyes on it then now. 
 

With that comes different responsibilities. First si is pretty awful at communicating with its user base. After 6 months it should be about the next versions and bits and developer diaries should be released. 

Si also focusing too much on the new player  as a lot of the new features are for new players. But if they play for many hours will stop using all these features. 

Press conferences, squad planner hell even scouting is a pain this year. I just add players manually it so much faster. 

SI besides match engine has neglected long term players the last several versions. 

It is not just the match engine graphics. It is the sound, atmosphere, lighting, stadiums, the grounds etc. So much could be improved in match engine experience with the need for dedicated graphic cards. 

But they should have a high end hd version for people with dedicated GPUs. Makes no sense why that isn't an option. 

SI imho doesn't have a good idea what it's user base wants because it doesn't communicate with it's user base. 

SI focuses on features they want or think new users want but not what long term users want. 

I mean the default skin is trash. Pay an artist 15k to make 10 default skins. So we don't have to hope and pray our favorite skin continues each version. I mean that is the simplest thing to do. Why isn't this done? Cause Si doesn't have open communication with it's users. 

Our only hope is YouTube and twitch creators cause they do have pull have Si. Us as a user base have 0 pull with Si. We have to petition content creators to petition Si. That is pretty sad. 

I've only been here since fm19 but that is what I've seen so far. Video game development isn't handled this was anymore. Especially from Indy developers. It is about open communication and constant updates and progress reports. 

I actually found FM from way of ootp aka out of the park baseball. And their devs are exactly the same way as Si but even worst. 0 communication. 0 knowkedge of what video games fans want etc.

I can SI going down that same road. They really have to improve their communication by a factor of 10. SI needs to know what there user base wants and not guess at it. 

I can honestly say if the grapchis or sound or atmosphere or stadiums aren't imprived in fm24 there be 0 reason for me to purchase it. Unless there some new killer feature which I highly doubt. 

I do long term low leagues save so mostly everyone is a new gen. So new rosters and player updates mean 0 to me. 

 

[phnompenhandy]

This one

The TRUTH About FM23 W/ Benjy, Zealand, WTS and Lollujo

[themadsheep2001]

Gonna say that youtubers don't have the pull people think, and certainly not the pull the youtubers think. Also the fanbase isn't a homogenous block, it's lots of different people wanting different things, which might actively contradict each other, and that's not taking into account what SI want to do because they'll also have their ideas 

[forameuss]

Some people will only be happy when everyone at SI personally comes around their house and apologises to them.  They - quite rightly in my opinion, no matter how disappointing - decide not to get too involved in these forums because of the abuse they get, so what makes you think they'd believe having some kind of public blood-letting would be a worthwhile task?  Particularly when it wouldn't matter in the slightest what was actually covered, as people would draw their own conclusions to match their own preconceptions.  SI know exactly what the direction is for their own game.  Is that the right direction?  That's a matter of opinion, but that's exactly it - an opinion.  And one that ultimately doesn't matter because it's unlikely to change the course of where the developers want the game to go.

But the power you do have as a consumer is to decide whether or not to buy.  If you disagree with the direction, you're welcome to send a message by not buying, or at the very least providing feedback.  But there's no divine right to change anything just because there's been complaints.

[warlock]

20 hours ago, gunnerfan said:

My impression is that the complaints about FM23 are louder and more strident than in years past

Disagree. The complaints in feedback come from a tiny minority of forum members, and forum members are a tiny minority of the users. If you want a more representative view of the game, look at reviews on Steam: more than 5,000 reviews and 'very positive' overall.

I'm very happy with FM23 - of course there are things that could be better but I've played hundreds of hours since beta and encountered very few bugs. As for SI listening to users, I wish SI would listen less and stick to their own vision of the game. Every time the devs do listen it results in a downgrade.

[gunnerfan]

1 minute ago, forameuss said:

Some people will only be happy when everyone at SI personally comes around their house and apologises to them.  They - quite rightly in my opinion, no matter how disappointing - decide not to get too involved in these forums because of the abuse they get, so what makes you think they'd believe having some kind of public blood-letting would be a worthwhile task?  Particularly when it wouldn't matter in the slightest what was actually covered, as people would draw their own conclusions to match their own preconceptions.  SI know exactly what the direction is for their own game.  Is that the right direction?  That's a matter of opinion, but that's exactly it - an opinion.  And one that ultimately doesn't matter because it's unlikely to change the course of where the developers want the game to go.

But the power you do have as a consumer is to decide whether or not to buy.  If you disagree with the direction, you're welcome to send a message by not buying, or at the very least providing feedback.  But there's no divine right to change anything just because there's been complaints.

First of all, I wasn't suggesting anything like a "public blood-letting". I mentioned Cleon and Rashidi because they are long-term commentators on the game and its inner workings. And I mentioned Neil Brock because he is on the forum and already has an idea of what irks many of the users. Furthermore, my idea was not so much for a critique of FM23, but rather a discussion of how the game can be improved going forward. I've been playing FM since CM99. I've bought new versions most years, and every year since FM17. As for communication from SI, it's one thing to not get involved in the forum, but it's quite another not to communicate at all. I understand the business goal of expanding the fan base, but I also understand it's possible for them to lose out the back door as many as they take in at the front.

[themadsheep2001]

1 minute ago, forameuss said:

Some people will only be happy when everyone at SI personally comes around their house and apologises to them.  They - quite rightly in my opinion, no matter how disappointing - decide not to get too involved in these forums because of the abuse they get, so what makes you think they'd believe having some kind of public blood-letting would be a worthwhile task?  Particularly when it wouldn't matter in the slightest what was actually covered, as people would draw their own conclusions to match their own preconceptions.  SI know exactly what the direction is for their own game.  Is that the right direction?  That's a matter of opinion, but that's exactly it - an opinion.  And one that ultimately doesn't matter because it's unlikely to change the course of where the developers want the game to go.

But the power you do have as a consumer is to decide whether or not to buy.  If you disagree with the direction, you're welcome to send a message by not buying, or at the very least providing feedback.  But there's no divine right to change anything just because there's been complaints.

It's interesting, because I'd like to see SI have more communcation. But, at least in the case of this forum in GD, there's too many people looking for gotchas or just to have a dig anyway. We see it every single time Neil posts, and its not everyone but a fair number, because ultimately the communication they want is SI telling them what they want to hear, not what SI actually have to say. So I do get the retience from SI, and I've seen the number of dev interaction dwindle over the years due to the way people speak to them. 

Not sure If I'm board with a round table video, because If you're going to do that, I'd rather SI just state it on the forum for everyone

[warlock]

Just now, themadsheep2001 said:

Not sure If I'm board with a round table video, because If you're going to do that, I'd rather SI just state it on the forum for everyone

Can't even see the point of a video. If you want to know what Neil would say, just read his posts in the feedback thread.

[forameuss]

3 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

It's interesting, because I'd like to see SI have more communcation. But, at least in the case of this forum in GD, there's too many people looking for gotchas or just to have a dig anyway. We see it every single time Neil posts, and its not everyone but a fair number, because ultimately the communication they want is SI telling them what they want to hear, not what SI actually have to say. So I do get the retience from SI, and I've seen the number of dev interaction dwindle over the years due to the way people speak to them. 

Not sure If I'm board with a round table video, because If you're going to do that, I'd rather SI just state it on the forum for everyone

I would too.  The game is an incredibly complex beast, and a lot of the discussion points that come up here would be ended pretty quickly if those that actually had access to the answers felt like they could communicate them without getting abuse.  But I won't hold that against them, because to expect anyone to face abuse while at work - particularly when it's over something as relatively harmless as games development - is ridiculous.  It's just a case of "this is why we can't have nice things".

8 minutes ago, gunnerfan said:

First of all, I wasn't suggesting anything like a "public blood-letting". I mentioned Cleon and Rashidi because they are long-term commentators on the game and its inner workings. And I mentioned Neil Brock because he is on the forum and already has an idea of what irks many of the users. Furthermore, my idea was not so much for a critique of FM23, but rather a discussion of how the game can be improved going forward. I've been playing FM since CM99. I've bought new versions most years, and every year since FM17. As for communication from SI, it's one thing to not get involved in the forum, but it's quite another not to communicate at all. I understand the business goal of expanding the fan base, but I also understand it's possible for them to lose out the back door as many as they take in at the front.

But that's the thing.  You aren't suggesting it, but as others have said, the community isn't one homogenous blob all thinking the same thing.  There will be some people who find it all really interesting, and take it in the right spirit.  But for every one of those, there's likely 10 that would use it as a stick to beat SI with.

Let's develop this though.  You want it to be a discussion on how the game can be improved.  SI have their view on that.  They put that forward in a video, but you disagree with it.  What has this video gotten you then?  They already give you a forum to make suggestions, but ultimately the roadmap is the roadmap.  Not to mention that it wouldn't be at all possible for SI to build the product that everyone wants, that'd be a logical impossibility.

[duvels]

5 minutes ago, warlock said:

Disagree. The complaints in feedback come from a tiny minority of forum members, and forum members are a tiny minority of the users. If you want a more representative view of the game, look at reviews on Steam: more than 5,000 reviews and 'very positive' overall.

I'm very happy with FM23 - of course there are things that could be better but I've played hundreds of hours since beta and encountered very few bugs. As for SI listening to users, I wish SI would listen less and stick to their own vision of the game. Every time the devs do listen it results in a downgrade.

Looking at the bigger numbers, it does look like this year's edition hasn't had the same reception as last year's:

FM23 has a 83.61% approval rating vs FM22's 90.37% (according to steamdb.info)

Number of players 2 weeks after release of the beta: 72232 for FM23 vs 75398 for FM22

Peak number of concurrent players october-january for the release year: 78687 for FM23 vs 88767 for FM22.

You could say the falling number of players has something to do with the recession going on, but the approval ratings don't. FM has always scored close or in the 90's for approval rating on Steam. 83% is still a good score though, but relative speaking, this hasn't been up to the normal standard.

[gunnerfan]

4 minutes ago, forameuss said:

You want it to be a discussion on how the game can be improved.  SI have their view on that.  They put that forward in a video, but you disagree with it.  What has this video gotten you then? 

That's why I suggested a roundtable including long-term contributors on the forum. I think there would be a lot to gain from it for those of us on the forum. And hearing interactions, rather than just an SI video (you may recall the 42 minute video announcing the new features of FM23 was rather dreadful), would allow viewers to see the process.

The numbers @duvelsposted should be a wakeup call for SI. And the comments in the video referenced above coincide with my impression that the negatives are stronger this year than in prior years. I think it would be a good PR move for SI. You don't have to agree.

[phnompenhandy]

Coincidentally, I got this on Twitter today

THE BIG FOOTBALL MANAGER SURVEY

 

So Dr. Benjy is compiling a survey of users to take to SI.

I concur with the observation that there is a small minority of posters here who's attitude is basically toxic, always looking to post negative stuff about FM23. The Official FM23 Feedback Thread became so unpleasant to me that I ceased opening it a while back. Elsewhere, I just glaze over those kinds of posts and I don't see any reason SI employees should indulge them. Benjy and the other people in that YouTube video do articulate valid criticisms without descending in toxicity, and I do believe they talk for a larger fanbase. They all play daily and post regularly, so it's not as if their criticisms put them off playing and enjoying the game. 

Anyway, my point is -  a video is unnecessary. The survey should suffice.

[Wolf_pd]

18 minutes ago, phnompenhandy said:

Anyway, my point is -  a video is unnecessary. The survey should suffice.

The survey is only sufficient if coverage of subject and coverage in terms of public reached is good. The first coverage is up for debate after reading through the questions and the reach is limited.

If anyone would do a survey, it should be SI.

[themadsheep2001]

3 minutes ago, Wolf_pd said:

The survey is only sufficient if coverage of subject and coverage in terms of public reached is good. The first coverage is up for debate after reading through the questions and the reach is limited.

If anyone would do a survey, it should be SI.

Now this would be interesting, though they do get a lot of data anyway 

[CFuller]

While I get why some FMers would appreciate some frank discussions between SI and the fanbase about where the game is going, I'm not sure what a YouTube video would achieve.

Doctor Benjy has been very critical - but constructively critical - about FM23 and is a strong voice in the community. I'm sure any feedback he can give from this survey to SI would be useful (if SI are interested, of course).

I have not enjoyed FM23 very much and have given a lot of negative feedback on the game over the last two months (about the ME, player development, AI transfer logic, press conferences). But I've always tried to be fair with my criticism and submit bug reports when I can.

Unfortunately, I agree about the Feedback Thread - and General Discussion at large - being quite unpleasant. A lot of useful, constructive feedback and suggestions get drowned out by destructive rants and abuse towards the developers or anyone who defends the game. While I would like SI to be more open with the community about certain topics, I can understand why they are not.

[forameuss]

52 minutes ago, gunnerfan said:

That's why I suggested a roundtable including long-term contributors on the forum. I think there would be a lot to gain from it for those of us on the forum. And hearing interactions, rather than just an SI video (you may recall the 42 minute video announcing the new features of FM23 was rather dreadful), would allow viewers to see the process.

The numbers @duvelsposted should be a wakeup call for SI. And the comments in the video referenced above coincide with my impression that the negatives are stronger this year than in prior years. I think it would be a good PR move for SI. You don't have to agree.

What exactly does "long-term contributors on the forum" mean, and why does it matter in this context? I have a lot of posts and apparently I've been a member for approaching thirteen years now.  My opinion matters no more or less than someone who devotes a huge amount of time to this game but doesn't visit the forum at all.  And they also matter the same amount as any hypothetical YouTuber or content creator does too.  After all, if (completely made up) YouTuber Johnny Managerface decides the game isn't for him anymore, but sales and critical reviews remain at the usual levels, then they're not exactly going to run around like they sky's falling just because one person doesn't like the way they're going.

I'm just struggling to see what you're actually advocating for.  I don't want "PR moves".  I don't want them to come out and rhyme off all these things they'd like to do, only for most of them not to appear (because, amazingly, plans and priorities change very regularly in software development).  I want them to go away and make the best possible product they can, and then let me decide for myself whether I think it's worth my money.  

[Neil Brock]

As a studio we announce information at certain times based on our long and short-term strategies which are decided by people in key positions here at SI.

To help us make decisions, we compile data across numerous different avenues, such as focus groups, player data and surveys; we have sentiment reporting across these forums, press and player reviews, social media, reddit and plenty of other contact points. We have direct lines of live communication with our community moderating team and a selected group of content creators. 

Internally we have a Community and Customer Experience team who try to amplify the voice of the community back into the studio which goes into a mixing pot of decisions across multiple areas including, but not limited to, design, development and communication.  

Every issue raised in the Bug Tracker is read and assessed. Every feature request is read and assessed. We have people monitoring our forums and social channels all year round and recently hired a member of staff from within the creator community to liaise with that group. She consumes community-made content and gives creators a channel to communicate with us directly.

We run a Private Alpha test before the launch of each FM of hundreds of people from within our community and research teams which is made up of people who have productively contributed over the years, by raising issues and providing feedback via these forums. 

If a question has been asked and we've not answered it, there will be a reason for that, and sometimes a reason we can't always publicly explain. 

We appreciate anyone who takes the time to reach out to us and provide feedback. Anyone who plays our games has the opportunity to communicate with us and as I've hopefully made clear above - we will be listening. 

[gunnerfan]

1 hour ago, Neil Brock said:

As a studio we announce information at certain times based on our long and short-term strategies which are decided by people in key positions here at SI.

To help us make decisions, we compile data across numerous different avenues, such as focus groups, player data and surveys; we have sentiment reporting across these forums, press and player reviews, social media, reddit and plenty of other contact points. We have direct lines of live communication with our community moderating team and a selected group of content creators. 

Internally we have a Community and Customer Experience team who try to amplify the voice of the community back into the studio which goes into a mixing pot of decisions across multiple areas including, but not limited to, design, development and communication.  

Every issue raised in the Bug Tracker is read and assessed. Every feature request is read and assessed. We have people monitoring our forums and social channels all year round and recently hired a member of staff from within the creator community to liaise with that group. She consumes community-made content and gives creators a channel to communicate with us directly.

We run a Private Alpha test before the launch of each FM of hundreds of people from within our community and research teams which is made up of people who have productively contributed over the years, by raising issues and providing feedback via these forums. 

If a question has been asked and we've not answered it, there will be a reason for that, and sometimes a reason we can't always publicly explain. 

We appreciate anyone who takes the time to reach out to us and provide feedback. Anyone who plays our games has the opportunity to communicate with us and as I've hopefully made clear above - we will be listening. 

Fair enough. Thanks, Neil.

[Hovis Dexter]

3 hours ago, CFuller said:

...... Unfortunately, I agree about the Feedback Thread - and General Discussion at large - being quite unpleasant. A lot of useful, constructive feedback and suggestions get drowned out by destructive rants and abuse towards the developers or anyone who defends the game. While I would like SI to be more open with the community about certain topics, I can understand why they are not.

Agree ... there are far too many toxic comments which make for unpleasant reading. I am sure that SI welcomes constructive criticism but there is no excuse for some of the rants that appear on the site.

[gunnerfan]

15 hours ago, phnompenhandy said:

This one

The TRUTH About FM23 W/ Benjy, Zealand, WTS and Lollujo

Interesting discussion. 

[doctorbenjy]

14 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Gonna say that youtubers don't have the pull people think, and certainly not the pull the youtubers think. Also the fanbase isn't a homogenous block, it's lots of different people wanting different things, which might actively contradict each other, and that's not taking into account what SI want to do because they'll also have their ideas 

Just catching up on this thread, how much pull do people think we have and how much pull do you appear to think we have? I've seen you be critical of 'Youtubers' many times before, I'm just curious as to where you get this view point from?

[JimmysTheBestCop]

16 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Gonna say that youtubers don't have the pull people think, and certainly not the pull the youtubers think. Also the fanbase isn't a homogenous block, it's lots of different people wanting different things, which might actively contradict each other, and that's not taking into account what SI want to do because they'll also have their ideas 

Most people outside of england and europe come to FM through content creators especially north america. And europe might nudge north america in overall population but in terms of sheer gamers north america has europe beat. so i wouldnt underestimate their contributions to spread the word of FM. After all FM even produced by Sega is an Indy niche title.

But it is also hard to conquer North America with decades old graphic engine, awful sound, lighting, stadiums and atmosphere. I think more is expected of FM now then ever before especially post covid. I hop SI is up to the challenge. But SI needs to start acting like a AAAA dev and not a small niche indy dev.

Hell out of the park baseball released an official stadium editor. Its fan base is dwarfed by FM and it might be lucky to have 12 employees in the development staff. But it has better stadiums and face generation than FM who is the big dog on the block.

SI needs to come correct with sound and graphics. I mean it is a meme all over the internet how bad the sound in FM is and how everyone mutes it. That isnt good for a leading game in sports management. Take some money buy more default skins and buy some real honest to god sound system that goes along with the match engine and adds to the experience. 

I cant imagine in any universe there was data to support creating squad planner or press conference. It is absolutely boring. Even the new agent interaction as good as it is ADDS millions of clicks. Now you need at least 3 mouse clicks per player to find out about transfer cost. The amount of useless clicks in FM23 has reason ungodly. 

SI needs to come correct in FM24. Time to up the game. Time to revolutionize not just small evolution each version. Absolutely love FM23 but I see ZERO reason to buy fm24 if graphics, sound, lighting, stmostpsher or stadiums arent touched. Yes FM23 ME is way better then FM22 but it still plays 95% exactly the same as fm22. 19-21 i could see difference but the difference between 22 and 23 are so small. At least in terms of game play. Yes there are improvements but its the same game play.

[deltablue]

7 hours ago, doctorbenjy said:

Just catching up on this thread, how much pull do people think we have and how much pull do you appear to think we have? I've seen you be critical of 'Youtubers' many times before, I'm just curious as to where you get this view point from?

Well this isn't a criticism of you personally it doesn't help when some of you claim credit for SI releasing a patch shortly after doing a video together discussing the game's flaws. Then there are the misleadingly-titled videos claiming to discover 'The Truth' about FM and how it works but which are based on a flawed understanding of the game and a spreading of misinformation.  As for your survey, some of us tried it and weren't impressed by the flawed (and in some cases clearly biased) questions which are of limited value towards helping provide proper constructive feedback to help improve the game and how SI engage. It seems designed more so you can make a big thing of how much the fanbase agrees with what you and the others have been saying. Apologies if I have misjudged your motivations but just wanted to explain why some of us have a certain negative impression of the big name FM youtubers.

[Andros]

@deltablue I just had a look at the survey: could you be specific on what you identify as flaws so that future surveys can be improved?  Perhaps so more collaboration on this might help both parties?

[Ferocious289]

The survey was good straignt the point, there was no ambiguous questions and asked the questions that mattered around the game. I can understand why SI wouldn't like it because outlines areas of the game where people  find lacking and asking users exactly what they want in the game.

You can't really complain about a survey being flawed when Miles takes the word of steam reviews where randoms are making comments such as ''best game ever'' and ''love it'' as feedback to how successful the game is.

Edited January 6, 2023 by Ferocious289

[themadsheep2001]

4 minutes ago, Ferocious289 said:

The survey was good straignt the point, there was no ambiguous questions and asked the questions that mattered around the game. I can understand why SI wouldn't like it because outlines areas of the game where people  find lacking and asking users exactly what they want in the game.

See this kind of disingenuous post is exactly why you see SI post less and less. What's the point in communicating with users who misrepresent you right after you've put out a clear clarification?

[forameuss]

Just from looking at the posts about the survey, it's clear it's going to be pitched in a specific direction.  Wasn't going to fill it in, but now I will just out of curiosity to see if I'm right.  

First impressions, I can see why certain questions are asked, but they don't seem to be asking it in the right way.  Like asking your first FM - what is that telling you?  Seems to be trying to see how long-tenured a fan is, but there's no difference in that question between someone who bought FM05, then left the series for almost two decades, and someone who has bought every edition.  Maybe I'm missing what the question intended, but given there's no other questions around that...it's also asking the sort of basic stuff that SI probably have in far greater detail and, crucially, in far larger numbers.  What's the point if you're ultimately wanting this to go to SI and help?  What use is you telling them that 200 pissed off people on twitter manage at a lower level when they have metrics that tell them what every single one of their millions of users have done with their careers in great detail?

Outside of that, the next section is basically another big pinata shaped like the feature announcement that they're inviting people to beat to death.  

The "How you play football manager" section lacks detail (but again, SI will know all this in the detail they'd need).  I manage different levels of team.  How many seasons isn't something you can usually just put a single numerical answer on.  Hell, the whole section seems incredibly pointless to anyone that can actually do something with it.

The Do you Install pack seems pointless too given that SI can't really be seen to have much to do with that.

Speaking generally, that survey just reads like it was written by an AI bot that had been exclusively trained by people who dislike the game.  If you also dislike the game, you'll probably think it's great.  Personally I struggle to see much use for it at all.

[Ferocious289]

1 hour ago, themadsheep2001 said:

See this kind of disingenuous post is exactly why you see SI post less and less. What's the point in communicating with users who misrepresent you right after you've put out a clear clarification?

The person/youtuber who did the work and put out a user friendly survey for fans of the game to give their feedback on the direction of the game, is now being discredited on here. I shared the survey on a few discord channels and ther reactions were only positive, it doesn't take long to complete and you don't have write full stories to explain what is you like and don't like in the game.  On  here  people are saying its flawed, biased and making accusations that it was solely designed for people who dislike the game which is beyond harsh. The survey is designed for users to quickly give feedback on what they'd like see changing for the better without being asked ''how you sent a bug report'',I struggle to see how a survey with 8 page questionaire is less credible than the steam review system. The only advatange the steam feedback has it is clocks up how many hours a user has played the game but the feedback on there  is mostly filled with line oners either about how much they love the game or how mucuh they hate the game, there is no balance

 

[themadsheep2001]

1 minute ago, Ferocious289 said:

The person/youtuber who did the work and put out a user friendly survey for fans of the game to give their feedback on the direction of the game, is now being discredited on here. I shared the survey on a few discord channels and ther reactions were only positive, it doesn't take long to complete and you don't have write full stories to explain what is you like and don't like in the game.  On  here  people are saying its flawed, biased and making accusations that it was solely designed for people who dislike the game which is beyond harsh. The survey is designed for users to quickly give feedback on what they'd like see changing for the better without being asked ''how you sent a bug report'',I struggle to see how a survey with 8 page questionaire is less credible than the steam review system. The only advatange the steam feedback has it is clocks up how many hours a user has played the game but the feedback on there  is mostly filled with line oners either about how much they love the game or how mucuh they hate the game, there is no balance

 

You keep talking about the steam reviews as if it's the only point of information. Did you read Neil's post? Are you are aware that SI already get a lot of this data, on a much broader scale?

[danielgear]

RE the survey its also a small % of the market. Ben has around 110.000 subscribers less than half of that follow him on twitter. FM22 sold between 1-2million copies (can't find the exact number) but a article 5 months ago said they sold over 1 million so even if we take the minimum at 1million copies and Bens high of 110,000 that's only 11% of the consumer base. his latest tweet suggested 13,000 replies which is 1.3%.  which isn't a true representation of the consumer opinion just his small % of it. I know a lot of people that play the game that have never watched, read or listened to any FM content or visited the forum. Miles has said before in interviews the "community" is only a small part of the consumer. Whilst its great we as a community try to improve the game we have to also understand that SI don't just cater to us. The best way to improve the game is to feedback in the way SI asks via Beta testing threads and feature requests. 

RE the game itself FM23 is the best in the series, there might be areas that haven't improved where you'd hoped but its better than last year and in fairness to SI improves year on year. The main outcry seems to be around graphics but again its a small area of the market. The graphics for me are spot on I don't need them to look any better than they are, my focus is more on the ME which has taken a massive step forward this year and Data which has improved and kept ahead of the market as the IRL game of football is becoming more data driven. 

RE the skin, I agree its not the best but with so many great community efforts I'd rather SI focused more on improving the core game than a skin that I can easily download an better one and SI can spend more time improving Set Pieces 

 

Edited January 6, 2023 by danielgear

[duvels]

13 minutes ago, danielgear said:

RE the survey its also a small % of the market. Ben has around 110.000 subscribers less than half of that follow him on twitter. FM22 sold between 1-2million copies (can't find the exact number) but a article 5 months ago said they sold over 1 million so even if we take the minimum at 1million copies and Bens high of 110,000 that's only 11% of the consumer base. his latest tweet suggested 13,000 replies which is 1.3%.  which isn't a true representation of the consumer opinion just his small % of it. I know a lot of people that play the game that have never watched, read or listened to any FM content or visited the forum. Miles has said before in interviews the "community" is only a small part of the consumer. Whilst its great we as a community try to improve the game we have to also understand that SI don't just cater to us. The best way to improve the game is to feedback in the way SI asks via Beta testing threads and feature requests. 

RE the game itself FM23 is the best in the series, there might be areas that haven't improved where you'd hoped but its better than last year and in fairness to SI improves year on year. The main outcry seems to be around graphics but again its a small area of the market. The graphics for me are spot on I don't need them to look any better than they are, my focus is more on the ME which has taken a massive step forward this year and Data which has improved and kept ahead of the market as the IRL game of football is becoming more data driven. 

RE the skin, I agree its not the best but with so many great community efforts I'd rather SI focused more on improving the core game than a skin that I can easily download an better one and SI can spend more time improving Set Pieces 

 

1000 respondents is usually enough to get statistical relevance, regardless of the total population you want to test.

edit: to be clear and complete, this is true as long as you select your respondents completely random, which is not the case for Ben's survey.

Edited January 6, 2023 by duvels

[doctorbenjy]

2 hours ago, deltablue said:

Well this isn't a criticism of you personally it doesn't help when some of you claim credit for SI releasing a patch shortly after doing a video together discussing the game's flaws. Then there are the misleadingly-titled videos claiming to discover 'The Truth' about FM and how it works but which are based on a flawed understanding of the game and a spreading of misinformation.  As for your survey, some of us tried it and weren't impressed by the flawed (and in some cases clearly biased) questions which are of limited value towards helping provide proper constructive feedback to help improve the game and how SI engage. It seems designed more so you can make a big thing of how much the fanbase agrees with what you and the others have been saying. Apologies if I have misjudged your motivations but just wanted to explain why some of us have a certain negative impression of the big name FM youtubers.

Who claimed credit for the patch? I know some of us gave very specific feedback and those specific things were altered but I don't believe anyone took credit for it? That'd be weird.

 

You're looking far too deeply at a Youtube title, calling something 'The Truth' is to get people to watch, in fact 90% of Youtube titles are designed to get people to watch, I think our discussion in that video is extremely balanced, and you'd need to point out to me the elements you think are a 'flawed understanding of the game' and 'spreading of misinformation'. As for the survey, again, I think people are looking at it far too deeply, it's allowing the community that SI communicate with regularly behind closed doors to get a snapshot of what the current player base think. A lot of the questions I didn't ask is data I know they already have, but there were a few questions where we were interested in that data too, no survey is perfect. I believe the big name FM Youtubers are a lot more open to have a discussion with people like yourself, if you'd give us a chance, but that's very much up to you.

[doctorbenjy]

1 hour ago, forameuss said:

Just from looking at the posts about the survey, it's clear it's going to be pitched in a specific direction.  Wasn't going to fill it in, but now I will just out of curiosity to see if I'm right.  

First impressions, I can see why certain questions are asked, but they don't seem to be asking it in the right way.  Like asking your first FM - what is that telling you?  Seems to be trying to see how long-tenured a fan is, but there's no difference in that question between someone who bought FM05, then left the series for almost two decades, and someone who has bought every edition.  Maybe I'm missing what the question intended, but given there's no other questions around that...it's also asking the sort of basic stuff that SI probably have in far greater detail and, crucially, in far larger numbers.  What's the point if you're ultimately wanting this to go to SI and help?  What use is you telling them that 200 pissed off people on twitter manage at a lower level when they have metrics that tell them what every single one of their millions of users have done with their careers in great detail?

Outside of that, the next section is basically another big pinata shaped like the feature announcement that they're inviting people to beat to death.  

The "How you play football manager" section lacks detail (but again, SI will know all this in the detail they'd need).  I manage different levels of team.  How many seasons isn't something you can usually just put a single numerical answer on.  Hell, the whole section seems incredibly pointless to anyone that can actually do something with it.

The Do you Install pack seems pointless too given that SI can't really be seen to have much to do with that.

Speaking generally, that survey just reads like it was written by an AI bot that had been exclusively trained by people who dislike the game.  If you also dislike the game, you'll probably think it's great.  Personally I struggle to see much use for it at all.

I don't know how to tell you it's not pitched in a specific direction, because, it wasn't. It was to get a snapshot of data on how people play and feel about the game, it's no deeper than that, as you've rightly pointed out, many questions weren't asked because I know SI will have infinitely more data on those subjects. I don't mind if SI care about it or not, do I think they should have some base level interest? Yeah, probably, but I won't be devasted if they don't.

Some of the questions are to establish how new people are to the franchise, so which is their first FM, and how they correlates to how they feel about certain features compared to people that will have played for 20 years. Hopefully that clarifies why it was asked. 

The 'next section' as you've described it, is only used as a 'big pinata' if people feel negatively, surely it's not going to be considered that way if people are universally positive? Which I'm well aware many people are. 

The 'How you play' section, you acknowledge that SI will know most of that, so I didn't feel a huge need to potentially serve that data up, again, you've described it as incredibly pointless, which is your right, I happen to disagree.

Install packs, I'm curious, and 14,500 people responding gives me a pretty good idea as to how much people value different externally downloaded items, again whether SI care about this or not, I don't know or mind.

To finish by saying 'that survey just reads like it was written by an AI bot that had been exclusively trained by people who dislike the game' would it be fair to think you had that opinion before you started so may be swayed into thinking about it that way regardless of to content? Maybe I'm wrong, hopefully I've answered some of your points adequately, but if not, I'm here all day if required!

[santy001]

Disclaimer in that on the whole I'm quite ignorant of the FM content creators, and so my sentiments are more moulded by those I've seen around Total War, WoW, FF14 and a mixture of Paradox titles. I feel like any survey done by a content creator will have a rather narrow scope with certain biases. That in itself will vary from content creator to content creator as there will typically be a prevailing or common mindset usually that develops with them and their core audience. Even SI putting out a survey through their twitter would be of limited value in my opinion since it only focuses on a portion of the player base who engage with twitter for example. I feel there's going to be too much to discredit the results outside of it being a mild curiosity. 

Anecdotally, longer term content creation tends to become more frequently negative, or more focused on the negatives with a game. It trends better, it gets more views and so it is understandable but how you mitigate that when trying to present any kind of data that's harvested is an important question. 

[forameuss]

24 minutes ago, doctorbenjy said:

I don't know how to tell you it's not pitched in a specific direction, because, it wasn't. It was to get a snapshot of data on how people play and feel about the game, it's no deeper than that, as you've rightly pointed out, many questions weren't asked because I know SI will have infinitely more data on those subjects. I don't mind if SI care about it or not, do I think they should have some base level interest? Yeah, probably, but I won't be devasted if they don't.

Some of the questions are to establish how new people are to the franchise, so which is their first FM, and how they correlates to how they feel about certain features compared to people that will have played for 20 years. Hopefully that clarifies why it was asked. 

The 'next section' as you've described it, is only used as a 'big pinata' if people feel negatively, surely it's not going to be considered that way if people are universally positive? Which I'm well aware many people are. 

The 'How you play' section, you acknowledge that SI will know most of that, so I didn't feel a huge need to potentially serve that data up, again, you've described it as incredibly pointless, which is your right, I happen to disagree.

Install packs, I'm curious, and 14,500 people responding gives me a pretty good idea as to how much people value different externally downloaded items, again whether SI care about this or not, I don't know or mind.

To finish by saying 'that survey just reads like it was written by an AI bot that had been exclusively trained by people who dislike the game' would it be fair to think you had that opinion before you started so may be swayed into thinking about it that way regardless of to content? Maybe I'm wrong, hopefully I've answered some of your points adequately, but if not, I'm here all day if required!

But if this survey isn't for SI, then what is it for?  If this was something gathering specific datapoints that SI perhaps don't gather, in an unbiased way, with as big a reach as to actually tell you something, then I could understand, but from the above post you seem to be not caring if SI see it or not.  So what's the point?  Is it more to mould your own content in a particular way?  Not trying to "discredit you" or whatever some people think, genuinely curious.  

As for your last point and the uno reverse card you're playing...nah.  I'm saying how it reads.  Had it read like a balanced and unbiased survey, I'd be saying that.  It doesn't.  It reads exactly like the usual talking points of the loudest voices that dislike the game, right down to the emphasis on talking about graphics, and boiling future focuses down to vague boxes that don't even begin to cover what's wrong with the game at its core.  

1 hour ago, Ferocious289 said:

I struggle to see how a survey with 8 page questionaire is less credible than the steam review system

Probably because neither of them are remotely credible in any meaningful way.  They're both biased to varying degrees.

Edited January 6, 2023 by forameuss

[Andros]

i feel like people are more against the concept of the survey rather than analyzing it.  Whilst I see many of those criticizing the survey have a great deal of experience with the game (based on the number of posts and positions they hold on these forums), I would argue that something like this can at least provide some level of debate.  if we firstly look at the survey and debate some specific examples of how it can be done better to achieve desired results, then wait for the responses and debate possible meanings, then that could be a bit more productive.  Dismissing this at this point might only result in pushing away some people - including some youtube content creators.

[gunnerfan]

I thought the survey was fine. Brief and yet fairly comprehensive. Certainly not "pitched in a specific direction".

[themadsheep2001]

1 hour ago, Andros said:

i feel like people are more against the concept of the survey rather than analyzing it.  Whilst I see many of those criticizing the survey have a great deal of experience with the game (based on the number of posts and positions they hold on these forums), I would argue that something like this can at least provide some level of debate.  if we firstly look at the survey and debate some specific examples of how it can be done better to achieve desired results, then wait for the responses and debate possible meanings, then that could be a bit more productive.  Dismissing this at this point might only result in pushing away some people - including some youtube content creators.

As has been pointed out, the concept of the survey is flawed in reach and information gathering, as its either gathering information that SI already have got in better form, or asking questions not really relevant to SI, or not asking questions that would be relevant. And it's doing all this to a very small section that isn't completely random so you're not getting cross samples

All of which makes the results fundamentally flawed, so there's little to be drawn from them in terms of what it means for SI, and if its not relevant for SI, I'm not sure what the point of the survey is. 

Debate goes in various parts of the SI user base, whether it's here, Twitter, reddit, etc without a survey, and I can't see how any perceived dismissal would leave to people being pushed away.

[FM_Grasshopper]

1 hour ago, santy001 said:

Anecdotally, longer term content creation tends to become more frequently negative, or more focused on the negatives with a game. It trends better, it gets more views and so it is understandable but how you mitigate that when trying to present any kind of data that's harvested is an important question. 

Great point made.  Negativity does better in terms of social media engagement, twice as much according to some studies, it's both a blessing and a curse for video game companies.  Especially a title such as Football Manager which has that juggling act of making a video game about a game, there is always that real-life example to work towards and hold up against the title when it's not quite right.

I also think that any fan-made survey would be guilty of translating some of that negativity into the questions too, even if not consciously meant.  I also got that from looking at The Big Football Manager Survey from the off, like what @forameussmentions.  It is why (imo) the survey should be used as an insight into that particular creator's community/circle.  If that is the main point, i.e. "Look at this chart: x% of people who follow me [and/or consume similar content, whilst also using the same social media platform], feel the same as me", then so be it.  If it's good and useful to them, go for it.  That might be the point @themadsheep2001

[doctorbenjy]

2 hours ago, santy001 said:

Disclaimer in that on the whole I'm quite ignorant of the FM content creators, and so my sentiments are more moulded by those I've seen around Total War, WoW, FF14 and a mixture of Paradox titles. I feel like any survey done by a content creator will have a rather narrow scope with certain biases. That in itself will vary from content creator to content creator as there will typically be a prevailing or common mindset usually that develops with them and their core audience. Even SI putting out a survey through their twitter would be of limited value in my opinion since it only focuses on a portion of the player base who engage with twitter for example. I feel there's going to be too much to discredit the results outside of it being a mild curiosity. 

Anecdotally, longer term content creation tends to become more frequently negative, or more focused on the negatives with a game. It trends better, it gets more views and so it is understandable but how you mitigate that when trying to present any kind of data that's harvested is an important question. 

'That in itself will vary from content creator to content creator' - I think this is important, and I think you're right, and it ultimately depends if people think I'm entirely negative or not, I personally would say I'm far from entirely negative and actually incredibly balanced in how I view Football Manager, and I believe those at SI that I communicate with regularly would agree as would those that for example watch my streams on a regular basis and I've demonstrated this over the best part of the last decade. As for what you've said about the negativity of the questions, that then depends on if people think the survey is negative from the outset, which based not only on the results so far but all of the feedback I've had on it, the majority don't believe it is. I'm sure the argument will be made of 'yeah of course your audience don't think it's negative' - but I'm incredibly aware this survey has reached far beyond my active follower base, so to claim otherwise does at a glance look disingenuous, including seeing it being posted here.

Having just had a 2 hour conversation with someone from this very thread about the survey, I think my intentions in that call were made very clear and I've perhaps not done a good enough job of explaining those here, but in a sentence in an attempt to clarify. Ultimately, this survey was for me and other active content creators in the scene to grasp the general feeling towards the game, it's not suppose to be an in-depth look at certain sections, some of which SI will already have data on and some of which I didn't feel relevant at this time, but if SI want to talk about the community feedback I've gathered then I'm open to that, and the communication I've had with them so far suggests they absolutely do, which I hope will be as productive as any other time I speak to them directly.

[forameuss]

To be honest, if the intentions behind it are noble, it probably wouldn't take a huge amount of effort to move it to be more neutral.  Most sections of it are, even if they are just general questions that don't mean much on their own.  But then I'd also add that it's difficult to boil down something truly useful from giving ranges of 1 to 5 on very fixed topics.  I could probably write pages and pages on what was wrong with the game and what could get improved, and end up with it needing a long discussion to distill into something useful.  Me assigning a value of 4 to how important the match engine is to improve is so horrifically vague that it becomes almost pointless.  I was going to try and go into it and maybe outline how I (personally, so ymmv) would neutralise it slightly, but I'm not sure it's entirely possible without providing a million questions that would very quickly become tedious.

And FM_Grasshopper kind of hits on a similar thing to what I mentioned.  If this was a content creator putting out a survey to see how they could grow their own channel, I think that's a perfectly valid thing.  But I'm not sure it's being sold as that.  The original tweet says "useful for the community and for future conversations with SI".  Which I'd vehemently disagree with, but that's probably just me.

[doctorbenjy]

2 minutes ago, forameuss said:

To be honest, if the intentions behind it are noble, it probably wouldn't take a huge amount of effort to move it to be more neutral.  Most sections of it are, even if they are just general questions that don't mean much on their own.  But then I'd also add that it's difficult to boil down something truly useful from giving ranges of 1 to 5 on very fixed topics.  I could probably write pages and pages on what was wrong with the game and what could get improved, and end up with it needing a long discussion to distill into something useful.  Me assigning a value of 4 to how important the match engine is to improve is so horrifically vague that it becomes almost pointless.  I was going to try and go into it and maybe outline how I (personally, so ymmv) would neutralise it slightly, but I'm not sure it's entirely possible without providing a million questions that would very quickly become tedious.

And FM_Grasshopper kind of hits on a similar thing to what I mentioned.  If this was a content creator putting out a survey to see how they could grow their own channel, I think that's a perfectly valid thing.  But I'm not sure it's being sold as that.  The original tweet says "useful for the community and for future conversations with SI".  Which I'd vehemently disagree with, but that's probably just me.

I'm always available for a chat or DM conversation on discord, I'm sure it wouldn't be tedious! DoctorBenjyFM#1990 - this offer extends to anyone else here.

[santy001]

Ultimately I'm too ignorant of the content & audience to do more than offer pertinent insights based on what I have seen established in (other) game communities alongside content creators. 

The conclusions you come to would ultimately be your own @doctorbenjy but you've mentioned it has gone beyond your audience. I'm comfortable taking that at face value, which you've mentioned above as being 14,500 people. That is a lot of people, but as a whole of the FM community? It's statistically a rounding errors % of the player base. There can often times be easy biases to conclude such as the core or regular player base engages with FM content, but this is rarely, if ever, true of any game. The vast majority leave no reviews, engage with no content, never see the FM Twitter page, never view these forums. 

If you can square away in your own mind that you've removed any potential biases then that's fine - its just often the case that people fall into those traps without realising. Being able to explain how that's addressed in any accompanying content/discussion would probably be a positive. Overall, my point is just that I don't think there is any potential for this to positively (or negatively for that matter) influence change within the game. You've since refined the purpose of the survey and that's fine. The initial advisory that it would be used to pass information back through the communication channels available to you, in addition to being something for the community to view. just means its worth pointing out in advance the data wouldn't truly mean all that much. 

[doctorbenjy]

30 minutes ago, santy001 said:

Ultimately I'm too ignorant of the content & audience to do more than offer pertinent insights based on what I have seen established in (other) game communities alongside content creators. 

The conclusions you come to would ultimately be your own @doctorbenjy but you've mentioned it has gone beyond your audience. I'm comfortable taking that at face value, which you've mentioned above as being 14,500 people. That is a lot of people, but as a whole of the FM community? It's statistically a rounding errors % of the player base. There can often times be easy biases to conclude such as the core or regular player base engages with FM content, but this is rarely, if ever, true of any game. The vast majority leave no reviews, engage with no content, never see the FM Twitter page, never view these forums. 

If you can square away in your own mind that you've removed any potential biases then that's fine - its just often the case that people fall into those traps without realising. Being able to explain how that's addressed in any accompanying content/discussion would probably be a positive. Overall, my point is just that I don't think there is any potential for this to positively (or negatively for that matter) influence change within the game. You've since refined the purpose of the survey and that's fine. The initial advisory that it would be used to pass information back through the communication channels available to you, in addition to being something for the community to view. just means its worth pointing out in advance the data wouldn't truly mean all that much. 

I think it boils down to my expectations and equally how I manage the expectations of others. Do I think this survey acts as a definitive example of user data to aid SI in the future? No, absolutely not, I think any survey of this particular nature would find that incredibly difficult. Do I think it's pointless? No, not at all, I think it's ridiculous for anyone to suggest that. Do I think it'll aid my own conversations with them, especially when it comes to giving broader social media feedback in more definitive terms? Absolutely, and the question of, 'well should SI care?' is very much up to them, all I can do is express my feelings and the feelings I'm told about 50 times a day by people playing the game either in Youtube comments, Twitter threads, livestreams, discords or forum posts. I think there is an argument to say I'm giving the 'vocal' majority something of a voice within those potential conversations, people might dispute that, but as you yourself said, 14,500 people is a lot of people, it's not a number that can be ignored for a number of reasons. The reality of the data I've received is many of the answer's disagree with my own personal feelings, but the point was never to back myself up with data, it was to find out what people think, I think I've made that much clearer now.