FM 25 DEVELOPMENT UPDATE

[davehanson]

1 minute ago, XaW said:

Or the taller can reach without jumping, but the shorter would need to jump, so there won't be an areal duel unless the short one can pop in front of the tall one. So height has a smal advantage in that regard, and is a feature in the match.

Okay makes sense. Never seen it before as I don’t play on 3D - dots don’t jump 😂

[RandomGuy.]

4 minutes ago, santy001 said:

Two quick and simple examples I can think of right off the bat are when they first tried bringing it across, it wasn't working correctly. What the AI is doing is fine, or can be handled within the game, but with a player there's things which aren't working right and need time allocating to resolve. That time isn't available. 

Secondly, QA testing. This year is likely the biggest demand on QA yet considering the change and there isn't the scope to test it properly even if they believe they could fix issues and offer the FM24 International management in FM25. 

These are simple things that come to mind for me, there is likely much more complexity and nuance to it. 

It's not a standalone game though, it's part of the main game and will be even with its removal. It'll need quality tested regardless of whether you can manage International clubs or not as it'll still affect club level stuff.

Everything needed for the FM24 International experience will be in the game at club level, there was nothing extra that club level didn't have.

It worries me they've focused for years on this game, and change of engine, and such a simple part of it is being totally excluded.

[Clyde1998]

6 minutes ago, davehanson said:

Right. So height is applicable if neither player has jumped for a ball? If they are both on the ground then the likehood is the taller player will win the header?

If they both jump then jumping reach (I would assume and strength probably plays a part) determine who wins a header?

To quote the game's 'hints and tips' bar, shown during processing:

Quote

Jumping Reach reflects how good a player is at reaching the ball in the air. It indicates the highest point an outfield player can reach with his head. It does not reflect how tall a player is but, when considering his jumping ability, height is considered. For example, a player of 200+cm will still possess a high reach even if he is a poor jumper, and a shorter player will struggle to compete at the same height.

Essentially, a player who's tall with poor jumping reach can out perform a short player with good jumping reach.

EDIT: Strength and other attributes (balance?) will likely play a part too.

Edited September 5 by Clyde1998

[santy001]

Jumping Reach is an effective height when off the ground, @XaW covers it well but to continue my example from before if a 6'8" player stays on the ground it uses attributes for a physical challenge in any normal situation, if that 6'1" player jumps maybe his effective height is now 6'6" for example and it uses aerial attributes (there's a lot more than strength to it but it will be a part of it). From what I remember there is something of a penalty to being off the ground and competing for an aerial ball versus being on the ground (in terms of how much control the player has). 

[santy001]

1 minute ago, RandomGuy. said:

It worries me they've focused for years on this game, and change of engine, and such a simple part of it is being totally excluded.

Well think about it this way then, if you're correct it's all there, fine and so simple they'd actually have to invest time disabling it and then testing that it is disabled. No one can stop a person from holding that belief, but it seems bizarre to put it out there that SI are causing themselves more work by removing it when it is working instead of just leaving it in situ. 

[davehanson]

3 minutes ago, santy001 said:

Jumping Reach is an effective height when off the ground, @XaW covers it well but to continue my example from before if a 6'8" player stays on the ground it uses attributes for a physical challenge in any normal situation, if that 6'1" player jumps maybe his effective height is now 6'6" for example and it uses aerial attributes (there's a lot more than strength to it but it will be a part of it). From what I remember there is something of a penalty to being off the ground and competing for an aerial ball versus being on the ground (in terms of how much control the player has). 

Okay, still a little confused, but it doesn’t matter.

 

[Polando]

Why didn't any of the game's creators follow up: If managing a national team isn't very popular, and it's a very important aspect of football, we'll try to refine this mode in the upcoming series to bring as much realism to the game as possible.
???

[CaptainSa]

41 minutes ago, santy001 said:

Total Club Manager

Just want to bring up that in Total Club Manager you could build a girls school to ensure that your youth players actually progressed through your youth academy instead of deciding to go do something other than football and that's a retrospectively incredibly creepy feature to have.

[RandomGuy.]

4 minutes ago, santy001 said:

Well think about it this way then, if you're correct it's all there, fine and so simple they'd actually have to invest time disabling it and then testing that it is disabled. No one can stop a person from holding that belief, but it seems bizarre to put it out there that SI are causing themselves more work by removing it when it is working instead of just leaving it in situ. 

Yes it's totally bizarre, which is what worries me about the whole game, as it seems like a basic version of International football is one of the easiest things they can implement and after years of work they've had to pull it at the end.

I'm surprised how people are ignoring that waving red flag to focus on the meaningless weight stuff.

[XaW]

9 minutes ago, Polando said:

Why didn't any of the game's creators follow up: If managing a national team isn't very popular, and it's a very important aspect of football, we'll try to refine this mode in the upcoming series to bring as much realism to the game as possible.
???

Did you read it?

Quote

 international management will return in a much more feature-rich way to FM26, FM26 Console and FM26 Touch in what will be an exciting year for international football with the World Cup expanding to 48 teams. To be clear, this will return as part of the base game and not as any form of additional downloadable content.

 

[diLLa88]

[retracted] can't read.

Edited September 5 by diLLa88

[kevhamster]

23 hours ago, KrvakForLife said:

Apparently, Unity is taking more things from us than it is giving us, in exchange for a graphical improvement. Am I happy? No, but if it's the path they want to follow, that's fine.

I would rather stay with the current graphics than lose things from the game day after day.

Given the game is being rebuilt from the ground up, there was always going to be fewer features to begin with.  Yes, it's disappointing, but it gives SI room to focus on the fundamentals to give the FM platform a solid platform to build upon.  As long as the fundamentals of the game in FM25 are good, I'm not too concerned about the things being removed personally, especially as the intent is to reintroduce them in future editions once they've had the chance to build them properly.

[RandomGuy.]

4 minutes ago, kevhamster said:

Given the game is being rebuilt from the ground up, there was always going to be fewer features to begin with.  

They've been building this game, with Unity, since ~2021.

Miles said last year they'd initially planned to release it as FM22 but Covid delayed everything by years.

It feels wrong this suggestion that they've only started working on the game in the last 12 months and are now rushing to get it done unfairly. It's them who set this deadline on themselves 12 months ago, and it's them who are pulling parts of the game because they now can't get it to work.

I don't why people are so desperate to make excuses on their behalf.

[Novem9]

46 минут назад, santy001 сказал:

Two quick and simple examples I can think of right off the bat are when they first tried bringing it across, it wasn't working correctly. What the AI is doing is fine, or can be handled within the game, but with a player there's things which aren't working right and need time allocating to resolve. That time isn't available.

Secondly, QA testing. This year is likely the biggest demand on QA yet considering the change and there isn't the scope to test it properly even if they believe they could fix issues and offer the FM24 International management in FM25.

These are simple things that come to mind for me, there is likely much more complexity and nuance to it.

I'd like to think that SI is developing a module that allows tracking the playing form of all players available for national team + create interface for rotating a roster. Since this module will be integrated ABOVE the club modules, doing it now is a big risk that it will have to be torn out and redone later.

By and large, the lack of feedback and developer diaries has once again created a problem out of thin air. If clients knew how development is progressing (what Paradox Interactive and other studios do), there would be more understanding. For some reason, Miles' paradigm is either silence or promises. For me it looks like this. And accordingly, fearing to make promises, it is better to remain silent. But this is a strange approach from the very beginning. Although instead of a report on his trips, it would be more interesting to hear about progress. Not as excuses or reports, but news for those interested. This is not know-how, this is a trend in modern gamedev

[kevhamster]

2 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

They've been building this game, with Unity, since ~2021.

Miles said last year they'd initially planned to release it as FM22 but Covid delayed everything by years.

It feels wrong this suggestion that they've only started working on the game in the last 12 months and are now rushing to get it done unfairly. It's them who set this deadline on themselves 12 months ago, and it's them who are pulling parts of the game because they now can't get it to work.

I don't why people are so desperate to make excuses on their behalf.

Where in my post did I suggest it was only being worked on in the last 12 months?

I just said it's been rebuilt from the ground up, and that's factually true, and when you;re looking at a complete rebuild of an existing annual release, it's expected that some things that were in previous games will not make it into the first version of the rebuilt game.  And if things aren't working as intended, I'd prefer they were left out so what is there works well.

Ultimately people have the choice to buy the game, or not.  If you're not happy with the features that aren't making the cut, then don't buy the game.  

[santy001]

It won't have just been the case though that everything made in FM22 onwards was made for both versions of the game though, that would just double the workload and not be feasible.

The team working on women's football for example, makes sense to assume they've only ever been working on the unity version of the game. So if the unity release had been kicked back to 2026 or 2027 it's pretty much a certainty that women's football would have gone with it. Along with any other features that were in the pipeline for the unity release. The titles still needed to be developed and tested for each release prior to FM25 so it's likely that teams were getting moved across and as a studio full production in unity will have only begun at the point FM24 development ended which would typically be somewhere around February/March. 

Studios don't often go through engine changes and there isn't exactly a template for how to do it. If you do pay attention the wider industry engine changes are frequently met with issues like this. It's not a case of making excuses but accepting the reality of the situation and hoping that the sacrifices this year pay-off come FM26/27/28 etc.

[kiwityke1983]

1 hour ago, davehanson said:

See, for me it is totally the other way round. Maybe because my time playing Football Management sims goes back a lot further, not sure?

 

The Manager

Premier Manager

Fifa Manager

One-Nil-Soccer Manager

Total Club Manager

LMA Manager

Ultimate Soccer Manager

Tracksuit Manager (Plus there was at least one later version)

Football Director

Sensible Soccer (this had a limited management mode, but still played it quite a bit)

Then the split with Eidos and you had Championship Manager and Football Manager for 2 years competing against each other

 

For me there were a lot more enjoyable football management sims in years gone by.

I go back to the ZX spectrum playing football management games in the 80's and even back then you had 3-4 options.

Some obviously much better than others.

The peak was in the late 90's early noughties when you had 3-4 legitimately great football management games that you could cycle through at any one time.

I can't remember the last time I played a football management game other than FM.

Premier Manager or Championship manager when the split happened the first year might be the last time.

We went from lots of choice to just FM really quickly.

Edited September 5 by kiwityke1983

[CamAshworth]

It's a shame the likes of LMA Manager have fallen by the wayside as it has allowed SI to become in my opinion very complacent.

In regards to "Building the game from the ground up" it sounds more like they are porting a lot of the original material over to Unity reading between the lines.

Not being a game developer though I cannot really offer a definite answer on that as I have no idea what kind of task that would be.

But like others have said we are not talking about 12 months of rushed work - we have been told they have been working on this for years.

[RandomGuy.]

7 minutes ago, kevhamster said:

And if things aren't working as intended, I'd prefer they were left out so what is there works well.

And that's my worry.

They've worked on the game for a long time (relatively), and at this stage have admitted defeat on International management, even though most of the processes that make that up will be in the game anyway.

How bad have they gotten International management that it's better to simply exclude it from the game rather than include the incredibly basic version we've had?

Every process that you need for basic International management will already be implemented in the game at club level. There is nothing more they needed to add to give us the very basic version of it. It's not a standalone mode or game.

I don't understand at all, and nobody seems to, how they couldn't include but despite the "announcement" it feels like it's more of it's so bugged they have to remove rather than choice to remove it.

It just gives me a bad feeling about the more complicated things in the game that will be included.

[XaW]

7 minutes ago, kiwityke1983 said:

Championship manager when the split happened the first year might be the last time.

I had the first one after the split (which I didn't know about at the time) and decided then and there that I'd rather not buy any more CMs. Then I heard that SI lost the name, but the kept the game rebranded as FM and I got that and life was good again. That post-SI CM was awful, really really awful.

That said, "The Manager" was a cracking game I played way too much as a kid! For the memories:

[RandomGuy.]

12 minutes ago, santy001 said:

It won't have just been the case though that everything made in FM22 onwards was made for both versions of the game though, that would just double the workload and not be feasible.

They said they were working on both games side by side over a year ago.

[themadsheep2001]

3 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

And that's my worry.

They've worked on the game for a long time (relatively), and at this stage have admitted defeat on International management, even though most of the processes that make that up will be in the game anyway.

How bad have they gotten International management that it's better to simply exclude it from the game rather than include the incredibly basic version we've had?

Every process that you need for basic International management will already be implemented in the game at club level. There is nothing more they needed to add to give us the very basic version of it. It's not a standalone mode or game.

I don't understand at all, and nobody seems to, how they couldn't include but despite the "announcement" it feels like it's more of it's so bugged they have to remove rather than choice to remove it.

It just gives me a bad feeling about the more complicated things in the game that will be included.

The basic version of international management is pretty rubbish. And it still requires work to have it in FM25. So you do enough to have it at the back end for the game world, without spending time porting the front end, where the player interacts 

Why spend more resources on it when you can move resources to make it better next year? 

That's the choice they have made. 

[RandomGuy.]

Just now, themadsheep2001 said:

The basic version of international management is pretty rubbish. 

Why spend more resources on it when you can move resources to make it better next year? 

Because people play it and all the processes to make it work, at a basic level, will be in the game anyway.

There's zero logic in removing it entirely unless you've made it unplayable somehow.

[kevhamster]

3 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

And that's my worry.

They've worked on the game for a long time (relatively), and at this stage have admitted defeat on International management, even though most of the processes that make that up will be in the game anyway.

How bad have they gotten International management that it's better to simply exclude it from the game rather than include the incredibly basic version we've had?

Every process that you need for basic International management will already be implemented in the game at club level. There is nothing more they needed to add to give us the very basic version of it. It's not a standalone mode or game.

I don't understand at all, and nobody seems to, how they couldn't include but despite the "announcement" it feels like it's more of it's so bugged they have to remove rather than choice to remove it.

It just gives me a bad feeling about the more complicated things in the game that will be included.

Let's be honest, international management in FM24 is crap, and the mode has always been half-baked and a complete afterthought.

If it being kept out for FM25 means it comes back as a much improved option in FM26, then I prefer them taking the route they're taking.

Of course, the proof is in the pudding so to speak, so when it comes to the stuff they're taking out, I'm keeping an open mind as to what I think of the game until I actually have it in my hands.  Personally, I'd have preferred that SI showed us something, even if just a single still screenshot, of what to expect in terms of what the 3D match engine will look like.

I do agree that the lack of any shots of anything taken in-engine (even the screens we saw were just concept shots and not taken from a build of the game) does give cause for concern about how the game will actually be.  

[Federico]

9 minuti fa, XaW ha scritto:

 

That said, "The Manager" was a cracking game I played way too much as a kid! For the memories:

Well said man! Well said!

[themadsheep2001]

Just now, RandomGuy. said:

Because people play it and all the processes to make it work, at a basic level, will be in the game anyway.

There's zero logic in removing it entirely unless you've made it unplayable somehow.

You need to port both the backend for the gameworld and the front end for user access.

Not enough people in their eyes play it enough to devote more resources to the front end for fm25 when they can devote them to make it better for FM26. So they will do enough to make it work for the game world, and not do the front end stuff, and move to rebuilding it for FM26. It makes perfect sense tbh

[RandomGuy.]

1 minute ago, kevhamster said:

Let's be honest, international management in FM24 is crap, and the mode has always been half-baked and a complete afterthought.

If it being kept out for FM25 means it comes back as a much improved option in FM26, then I prefer them taking the route they're taking.

I'd love them to improve it too, and think they will. I just don't understand, and worry about, why they've removed it entirely rather than keeping it as a basic mode when everything is already in place for it.

[RandomGuy.]

1 minute ago, themadsheep2001 said:

You need to port both the backend for the gameworld and the front end for user access.

Not enough people in their eyes play it enough to devote more resources to the front end for fm25 when they can devote them to make it better for FM26. So they will do enough to make it work for the game world, and not do the front end stuff, and move to rebuilding it for FM26. It makes perfect sense tbh

Why have they waited until now to announce it then?

If you're right then having to drop it at this stage, and delay the entire game, is what I was worried about.

The signs, to me, suggest this game feels like it'll be half baked and buggy until patches start coming next year.

[themadsheep2001]

1 minute ago, RandomGuy. said:

Why have they waited until now to announce it then?

If you're right then having to drop it at this stage, and delay the entire game, is what I was worried about.

The signs, to me, suggest this game feels like it'll be half baked and buggy until patches start coming next year.

No idea. But as ive said previously, they're going from iteration to revolution, and revolutions are often bloody. It was never going to be seamless or painless, and we wont know till closer what we've got

[kevhamster]

Just now, RandomGuy. said:

I'd love them to improve it too, and think they will. I just don't understand, and worry about, why they've removed it entirely rather than keeping it as a basic mode when everything is already in place for it.

There's bound to be things that you and I aren't aware of that go on in the background that are needed to make it work that they haven't had the resource needed to get it right, and given how few people actually manage international teams, decided it would be better to just remove it completely for now.

It isn't exactly ideal, but I think we have to trust them to know what is working for the game and what isn't.

[saihtam]

Really think the price of the game will be huge factor. Break it or make it for them. You cant expect in clear faith bring out such a cut version of new version with same or higher price. I dont see them lowering it, but they seriously need to do it.  Steam pages and marketing should point out stuff that is pulled out until next iteration.

Also this 5% players playing international managment can not be real number.  I assume it does not count the ones who opt out. And still it feels low, there must be some time limit like 1-2 season played as international manager to count into it. Or they count it only as international manager and not both?  I assume most who do international manager, often just do it as side gig to club football as it boring.

[RandomGuy.]

1 minute ago, themadsheep2001 said:

No idea. But as ive said previously, they're going from iteration to revolution, and revolutions are often bloody. It was never going to be seamless or painless, and we wont know till closer what we've got

Some of the best games I've played are buggy messes, it can give things a charm/personality sometimes I think.

I hope this game is on that side of things rather than the other where it becomes unplayable and unpleasant. 

[kevhamster]

1 minute ago, saihtam said:

Really think the price of the game will be huge factor. Break it or make it for them. You cant expect in clear faith bring out such a cut version of new version with same or higher price. I dont see them lowering it, but they seriously need to do it.  Steam pages and marketing should point out stuff that is pulled out until next iteration.

Also this 5% players playing international managment can not be real number.  I assume it does not count the ones who opt out. And still it feels low, there must be some time limit like 1-2 season played as international manager to count into it. Or they count it only as international manager and not both?  I assume most who do international manager, often just do it as side gig to club football as it boring.

I can believe it's a low percentage seeing as the international management side of the game has had a reputation for being poor and half-baked for many years, so a lot of people don't bother with it.  People generally prefer FM for the squad building side of the game anyway, so I can imagine international management only appeals to a small part of the playerbase.

[themadsheep2001]

4 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Some of the best games I've played are buggy messes, it can give things a charm/personality sometimes I think.

I hope this game is on that side of things rather than the other where it becomes unplayable and unpleasant. 

Depends on what the bugs are agreed. Dont mind a slight quirky game, but jank is a problem. 

I think this is one where I'd definitely want to get my hands on the demo. Or they will need to go into real detail in the later dev updates  

[davehanson]

30 minutes ago, santy001 said:

It won't have just been the case though that everything made in FM22 onwards was made for both versions of the game though, that would just double the workload and not be feasible.

The team working on women's football for example, makes sense to assume they've only ever been working on the unity version of the game. So if the unity release had been kicked back to 2026 or 2027 it's pretty much a certainty that women's football would have gone with it. Along with any other features that were in the pipeline for the unity release. The titles still needed to be developed and tested for each release prior to FM25 so it's likely that teams were getting moved across and as a studio full production in unity will have only begun at the point FM24 development ended which would typically be somewhere around February/March. 

Studios don't often go through engine changes and there isn't exactly a template for how to do it. If you do pay attention the wider industry engine changes are frequently met with issues like this. It's not a case of making excuses but accepting the reality of the situation and hoping that the sacrifices this year pay-off come FM26/27/28 etc.

I would agree with most of what you put there, but wanted to pull up on this. We have already made sacrifices with FM24. I think the vast majority accepted that there wouldn't be massive amounts of new features or improvements to the game this year in exchange for FM25 being 'The Next Chapter- like nothing We have ever seen before'. That might still come, of course, we have not been told anything really about the new game yet - other than what is being taken out. 

[Craigus89]

2 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Depends on what the bugs are agreed. Dont mind a slight quirky game, but jank is a problem. 

I think this is one where I'd definitely want to get my hands on the demo. Or they will need to go into real detail in the later dev updates  

 

7 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Some of the best games I've played are buggy messes, it can give things a charm/personality sometimes I think.

I hope this game is on that side of things rather than the other where it becomes unplayable and unpleasant. 

Agree in general, but on a realistic world emulating simulation game bugs are usually a lot more problematic, and often game breaking. See: Any number of the issues raised in the bugs forum. This is very different to, say, an open world sandbox survival game, where jankiness can add to the charm. I'm not aware of a single example where bugs are tolerable in the kind of game we're discussing here though.

[sc91]

25 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

The basic version of international management is pretty rubbish. And it still requires work to have it in FM25. So you do enough to have it at the back end for the game world, without spending time porting the front end, where the player interacts 

Why spend more resources on it when you can move resources to make it better next year? 

That's the choice they have made. 

To turn that on it's head, I am sure SI will accurately reflect this in the games box price.

[RandomGuy.]

3 minutes ago, Craigus89 said:

 

Agree in general, but on a realistic world emulating simulation game bugs are usually a lot more problematic, and often game breaking. See: Any number of the issues raised in the bugs forum. This is very different to, say, an open world sandbox survival game, where jankiness can add to the charm. I'm not aware of a single example where bugs are tolerable in the kind of game we're discussing here though.

I'm a simple man.

Bugs that help me win = Acceptable

Bugs that make me lose = Game breaking

[santy001]

1 minute ago, davehanson said:

I would agree with most of what you put there, but wanted to pull up on this. We have already made sacrifices with FM24. I think the vast majority accepted that there wouldn't be massive amounts of new features or improvements to the game this year in exchange for FM25 being 'The Next Chapter- like nothing We have ever seen before'. That might still come, of course, we have not been told anything really about the new game yet - other than what is being taken out. 

It's a fair point, but I've been around games long enough to take everything with a pinch of salt and look at what actually happens elsewhere in the industry.

Bioware struggled tremendously moving over to the Frostbite engine for example, and the reality of games development and putting information out there it has to be incredibly positively skewed because an awful lot of people react far too negatively. You have to avoid Peter Molyneux levels of pushing a game but to me it made sense that once SI identified that an engine change was needed it was going to be a dicey few years. It comes back to the point that the change probably needed to be made around this time to avoid in a further 5-10 years time it being a problem they possibly couldn't remedy.

The most telling example in games development is probably when Bethesda finally bite the bullet and switch away from their internal engine. I'd argue their engine has been outdated since Oblivion and while it's gone under some further work it's clear their games can't match up to a lot of what comes out now in terms of physics and fidelity. 

[Craigus89]

Just now, RandomGuy. said:

I'm a simple man.

Bugs that help me win = Acceptable

Bugs that make me lose = Game breaking

Lol, reminds me of my FPS days, where anyone who I kill is a massive noob, and anyone who kills me is a sweaty tryhard.

[themadsheep2001]

4 minutes ago, sc91 said:

To turn that on it's head, I am sure SI will accurately reflect this in the games box price.

Dont think ive ever paid more than 29.99 for FM, getting a deal isnt hard, even at launch

[Costav]

 

15 minutes ago, davehanson said:

I would agree with most of what you put there, but wanted to pull up on this. We have already made sacrifices with FM24. I think the vast majority accepted that there wouldn't be massive amounts of new features or improvements to the game this year in exchange for FM25 being 'The Next Chapter- like nothing We have ever seen before'

The thing is that FM24, although for me it is still an improvement compared to the previous versions of the release, still had some issues that they declared to have been improved since, at least, FM22 (I'm talking about real limitations, such as long term AI squad building, AI youth development, Scouting issues, AI managers performance, OP gegenpressing...). And, at least for me, it was acceptable because they had to work on FM25, and this was seen as a "transitional" release (with full game price). The objective last year was to have a very good game with the "universe" well set up. No further features were required (although I understand that now-a-day if you don't create every year some new-amazing features you are considered as sh*t).

Now they're saying that they needed more time to develop the game properly (i.e. not buggy)...it sounds like a huge error in planning and translating the entire game on Unity.

That's what is disappointing.

I am not a big fan of criticizing SI (and I think that this is the first time I'm doing it), but I have the feeling that is all about marketing. Having a very solid work being done within time is not the most important thing. Creating extraordinary hype around something is THE THING (of course, SI is not the only one doing it...).

BTW, I am 99% sure I'll buy the game because I like it, but I would have preferred other kind of communications and other decisions from SI this year.

Edited September 5 by Costav

[wazzaflow10]

1 hour ago, Novem9 said:

(what Paradox Interactive and other studios do),

There's a clear difference in developing a game that doesn't have a yearly release compared to one that does. EA doesn't release gameplay trailers months in advance and they barely make any changes at all!

Paradox has a roadmap for the game and that same base game exists for 10 years. There's no pressure or significantly less pressure to release EU5 because no one is expecting it until its announced. Any delays or trouble with a feature go unnoticed until the game is either released and buggy or they tell you about it in a dev diary. And lets not forget CS:2 was a complete mess on release. It took them nearly a year to make modding available. They delayed releasing it for THREE years and delayed console release for consoles if they ever release it.

SI can't do that. From a money and license and fan expectation perspective that's untenable. Maybe they were too ambitious about what they could squeeze in to 25. I'm sure if they could rewind the clock two years the approach would be different. Maybe they delay the women's inclusion for 26 so they can really focus on the engine change over. Maybe they tell us upfront that international management and other fringe game modes will be removed for a year to focus on the core game. But as we know hindsight is 20/20. 

[Craigus89]

22 minutes ago, Costav said:

The thing is that FM24, although for me it is still an improvement compared to the previous versions of the release, still had some issues that they declared to have been improved since, at least, FM22 (I'm talking about real limitations, such as long term AI squad building, AI youth development, Scouting issues, AI managers performance, OP gegenpressing...). And, at least for me, it was acceptable because they had to work on FM25, and this was seen as a "transitional" release (with full game price). The objective last year was to have a very good game with the "universe" well set up. No further features were required (although I understand that now-a-day if you don't create every year some new-amazing features you are considered as sh*t).

Now they're saying that they needed more time to develop the game properly (i.e. not buggy)...it sounds like a huge error in planning and translating the entire game on Unity.

That's what is disappointing.

I am not a big fan of criticizing SI (and I think that this is the first time I'm doing it), but I have the feeling that is all about marketing. Having a very solid work being done within time is not the most important thing. Creating extraordinary hype around something is THE THING (of course, SI is not the only one doing it...).

BTW, I am 99% sure I'll buy the game because I like it, but I would have preferred other kind of communications and other decisions from SI this year.

Excellent post, and I agree almost entirely. 

There is stuff in FM24 which is essentially game-breaking that is overlooked (recruitment focuses not working in scouting for example) by most of the community (if they are even aware of it) in part because most of us knew there was a brand new game coming. The hype from that initial announcement about FM25 was pretty significant and bought SI quite a bit of leeway with some of the jank or half-baked features in FM24. 

But now, as I said before, the latest couple of updates read more like a "sorry, don't get your hopes up" type post, which is not doing them any favours with the fanbase. They could, and should, be taking these updates as opportunities to build hype and anticipation for the upcoming game. 

It's poor strategy on their part, if nothing else. I won't draw conclusions about anything else relating to the game, I for one am quite hopeful that it will actually be one of the best releases in years, as the series was getting very bloated with things like ******** interactions and promises which added no real depth or immersion, but instead added tedium. I have my fingers crossed.

[wazzaflow10]

53 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Some of the best games I've played are buggy messes, it can give things a charm/personality sometimes I think.

Yeah nothing like spending a few hours in a game then the save button doesn't work. That's the kind of charm I look for in a game.

[Costav]

3 minutes ago, Craigus89 said:

Excellent post, and I agree almost entirely.

Thank you!
Especially considering that we don't agree at all about the presence of weight in the next game! 

[grade]

1 hour ago, themadsheep2001 said:

The basic version of international management is pretty rubbish. And it still requires work to have it in FM25. So you do enough to have it at the back end for the game world, without spending time porting the front end, where the player interacts 

Why spend more resources on it when you can move resources to make it better next year? 

That's the choice they have made. 

But why now? Why this version?

We all know that the change to a new engine is always a challenge including those studios that develop the new engine in the first place. Why stretch the team so thine? I mean we have the same International Management for last 6 or more years, why they couldn't have for another year?

Those this new engine requires that drastic change what we have on club management and international management are so different? One that requires a new International Management model?

My head is having struggle with this one...

[davehanson]

35 minutes ago, Costav said:

 

The thing is that FM24, although for me it is still an improvement compared to the previous versions of the release, still had some issues that they declared to have been improved since, at least, FM22 (I'm talking about real limitations, such as long term AI squad building, AI youth development, Scouting issues, AI managers performance, OP gegenpressing...). And, at least for me, it was acceptable because they had to work on FM25, and this was seen as a "transitional" release (with full game price). The objective last year was to have a very good game with the "universe" well set up. No further features were required (although I understand that now-a-day if you don't create every year some new-amazing features you are considered as sh*t).

Now they're saying that they needed more time to develop the game properly (i.e. not buggy)...it sounds like a huge error in planning and translating the entire game on Unity.

That's what is disappointing.

I am not a big fan of criticizing SI (and I think that this is the first time I'm doing it), but I have the feeling that is all about marketing. Having a very solid work being done within time is not the most important thing. Creating extraordinary hype around something is THE THING (of course, SI is not the only one doing it...).

BTW, I am 99% sure I'll buy the game because I like it, but I would have preferred other kind of communications and other decisions from SI this year.

FM24 was polished, or a polished version of FM23 - which I think was what most of us were expecting once they announced FM25 switching to Unity.

[Novem9]

6 минут назад, wazzaflow10 сказал:

There's a clear difference in developing a game that doesn't have a yearly release compared to one that does. EA doesn't release gameplay trailers months in advance and they barely make any changes at all!

Paradox has a roadmap for the game and that same base game exists for 10 years. There's no pressure or significantly less pressure to release EU5 because no one is expecting it until its announced. Any delays or trouble with a feature go unnoticed until the game is either released and buggy or they tell you about it in a dev diary. And lets not forget CS:2 was a complete mess on release. It took them nearly a year to make modding available. They delayed releasing it for THREE years and delayed console release for consoles if they ever release it.

SI can't do that. From a money and license and fan expectation perspective that's untenable. Maybe they were too ambitious about what they could squeeze in to 25. I'm sure if they could rewind the clock two years the approach would be different. Maybe they delay the women's inclusion for 26 so they can really focus on the engine change over. Maybe they tell us upfront that international management and other fringe game modes will be removed for a year to focus on the core game. But as we know hindsight is 20/20.

I am not asking to copy the Paradox exactly. There are certain processes of working with the public. They were not created yesterday, they have been tested for decades and by many companies, I did not invent it. 

As a private company, SI has every right to its silence policy, but what's the point? They are not required to provide detailed reports or inside information. It's simple: June, hi guys, we've worked on this and that, this module should be great and we can't wait to reveal the details, this module looks promising, but maybe we'll move it to fm26. And so on, this is absolutely normal practice for companies that want to have contact with customers.

[whatsupdoc]

2 hours ago, davehanson said:

Okay, still a little confused, but it doesn’t matter.

 

everyone is always and will always be confused about this. At this point I don't even know whether to believe the manual.