(sic)

I really hope that's the case. But we simply don't know that. If there was any transparency, they could've just said it. It would put people at ease, knowing that there are big changes coming, which is the reason for lack of meaningful updates each year.

Besides some stuff like PPDA, Progressive Passes, xA, that were added to Data Hub, I couldn't care less about these "gameplay upgrades". I'm starting to lose hope, but they did say they have more updates, so I'm holding on to some hope at least.

Yes. Every year you get way more info about bugfixes, QoL improvements, small features that aren't headline worth it, etc. So far we've yet to receive that sort of stuff.

Yup, I've edited my previous comment, adding "if it does (communicate it) it's poorly done. I'm gonna use the above example, players will tire quicker in hot conditions. This is definitely an obvious thing, but also this is a game. We don't really know how in-depth and realistic it is, or if certain stuff like that exists or not. Which is why I think such info should be given out to the player, so they can make informed decisions based on that. Another example is muddy pitch, and short passing being more difficult in that situation. I'm not sure if it exists in game, but the assistant manager should advise you to go more direct in that game, and give you the reason why. It just improves how the game communicates that sort of stuff.

I won't say those things don't exist, but it's simply not visible to us. We don't know if they do exist, how they work and what impact they have. The game doesn't communicate that sort of info at all to us, or if it does, it's just poorly done.

Are they really producing "such a top notch product year after year"? The game itself is a top notch product, they don't produce a brand new game each year though. The no competition argument isn't "lazy" or "offensive". It's an absolutely valid argument. Imagine if a big game studio wanted to make their own version of football Management. Do you think it would be the same as FM? I don't think so. There could be many different and unique takes on it, maybe even some new and better features that aren't present in FM. FM has been the same for the past 20 years at its core, and obviously there won't be any changes to that. A brand new game coming from a different studio could have: 1. A more modern engine, allowing for much better and smoother experience, better and more realistic match engine, better visuals. 2. Overall a different take on certain features, like tactics, squad building, transfers, scouting, etc. 3. Generally a much different and better UI and UX, no more going through 20 inbox messages. 4. Overall a whole different feel to the game. Because, like I said, FM has been the same game at its core for 20 or so years, it's not something you can change easily, nor do I expect them to. FIFA Manager is a great example. It's definitely not a better game than FM, but it does things differently, it has some unique features, it does some things differently. It's a game that has a different feel to it, and it's a game that's different at its core. Imagine if they made that sort of game, but improved it massively. Hell I'd argue FIFA Manager 14 still has better UI in some areas than FM does. Edit: And I don't think those other currently available games are competition at all. I'm not even sure how many there are, but there probably isn't a single one that has a budget anywhere near SI's.

I generally agree with this, but you can also look at it from another side. They don't need to specify when something is getting released. The opposite of what you've said is what we have now. People are in the dark, "all hell breaking loose", people are outraged. All because something isn't added into the game, and especially because they don't know if it's being worked on, and if it's going to be implemented at all, ever. I'd much rather have people be annoyed because of one feature showcase where some feature is being delayed for a year, compared to people being constantly annoyed each year, because they don't see this new feature they've been asking for, and because they don't know if and when that feature will be released. Just by saying "we are working on it for the future versions", you're doing a great job of addressing concerns. Compared to what we have now, which is silence.

No more needs to be said, I think. It looks like it's 3D, but it's not. I'm not sure if their game engine would support true 3D. It all ties to the engine that's being used for this game. At its core, it's probably the same thing it's been for 20 years now. So it's no wonder the game is unable to move forward in a lot of areas. Low specs is just a result of this, not the core problem. Edit: Though making a new engine, and transferring everything to it is a MASSIVE task, and inevitably the min. specs would go up. But the answer to the question "Is FM being held back by low specs", is yes.

Just noticed something from a clip from the ME in action... There's still that "sliding" thing going on with players. It seems to happen when a player is accelerating. Player just seems to gain speed, but his feet/legs don't reflect that at all. Instead it seems like the running animation is the same. It looks like they're being pushed by wind

I do realize that. But the question is, for how long are they going to do it? Until people gradually stop using those old systems? Why should people change their laptops anyways, when they don't have to fear about system requirements going up? We might go into 2030 with same system requirements, graphics not looking much better, and the engine/ME holding the game back. It's 2022, and it's about time SI had made some radical changes, and revamping certain things like graphics, the engine, etc. We can't go on like this forever.

But if you were to cater to those people forever, the game wouldn't really progress anywhere. As we are seeing currently in some ways. At what point do you say, okay, we have to raise the minimum requirements in order to improve the game? As harsh as it may sound, I have no sympathy for those players. They need to upgrade their systems at some point if they want to continue playing. The game is releasing on PS5, for gods sake. Other games keep constantly improving, and constantly raising the requirements, yet all of us FM players should be held back, because we need to cater to people who use 10 year old laptops. Nobody cared about me not being able to run new games back in 2014 and 2015, so I bought a new PC in order to play those games. It's really simple.

I'd argue that even that isn't true. Minimum requirements are as follows: CPU = Intel Core 2 or AMD Athlon 64 X2 - First one launched in 2008, discontinued in 2012, while the second was launched in 2005, discontinued in 2009. GPU = Intel GMA X4500, NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT, AMD/ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3650 - All 3 being released in 2008. If that doesn't scream outdated then I don't know what else will. But let's get to the other point, the "entry level laptops". I'd say anything under £400 is an entry level laptop, so let's look at one. Doing a quick search, this is what I've stumbled upon. First off, the CPU has 8 cores. The problem is, FM just wouldn't utilize all of those cores, because it's outdated, and unoptimized to do so. Still, you should have a CPU that's way faster than something that came out, *checks notes* 14 years ago? The GPU is around 620% faster than Radeon HD 3650, according to the benchmarks. It also has 8GB of RAM, and an SSD. So the excuse of aiming for entry level laptops is also bs. Maybe it was a good excuse 5 years ago, but in 2022 it's not.

Yep, it definitely seemed easy to overachieve. Building a good tactic isn't an issue for me. Though I have relied more on tactical replications, which mostly weren't possible to 100% pull off in game, due to limitations to ME and tactical creator (roles, instructions, etc.). So I only ignored those features, but don't get me wrong, I don't dislike them. In fact, I hope more of the older stuff gets changed up and modernized, like what they seem to be doing currently. The fact that I always played with counterpress on, in a mid or high block, doesn't help either. But that's the sort of football I want to play, even though I won't always tell everyone to press like a maniac. At least that's how I want to defend. In attack, I used all sorts of styles, whether it's possession, counter-attacking, or more direct football, slow tempo or high tempo. Those details varied quite a bit. Whether it's gonna be any harder to overachieve in FM23, remains to be seen.

I don't think you are in a minority. Everyone plays the game differently. Just out of curiosity, how many hours have you put into FM22? You sound like someone that pays attention to detail, and likes to stick to one club/save for a longer period of time. I'm usually the opposite of that (seeing that I have managed 10-20 different clubs in FM22, usually for a few seasons only. I think my longest save was Tranmere, where I went on to play 6-7 seasons). Sometimes, I just want to speed through a season, just making a tactic, signing players, and then trying to win as many games as possible. So in that case, I might not pay attention to every single part/feature of the game. Often I'd find a lot of these features irrelevant, as they don't necessarily help me win. If I make a good tactic, and if I have a team with players good enough to carry out those instructions, I'm already 90% there. The game relies on player's attributes (including hidden attributes), after all. So attributes in combination with tactics (instructions, and roles/duties) has the most impact in how well my team will perform in a match. At least that's how I see it, and it has worked well for me so far. Club vision doesn't help me, for example. I'm making my own tactical style, regardless of what the board wants me to play. I always try my best to get the team to finish as highest as possible, so I don't care about their goals. Mostly, I overachieve anyways, so they're happy with how I'm doing. I find staff-advice useless, as it usually changes my tactical style and philosophy, which I like to stick to. I can absolutely see squad planner helping me, and being a big part of my gameplay moving forward. I'll have a much easier time of tracking down positions I need to strengthen. Same with recruitment revamp, it's gonna help me find exactly the type of players I need in my tactic.

That seems to be the thing currently. Though if they introduced all of those features in FM24, we would easily find 4 other things that are missing, and we would complain about them . For me, it's Tactical Creator (including set piece creator) and ME improvements (which should go without saying) in front of everything else. Just like what they've done with Out Of Possession instructions and defense this year, they need to revamp other areas, especially the In Possession instructions, as well as Player Instructions and Player Roles.

Sadly, that is the case. It's a large portion of the playerbase, and they seem to be unwilling to upset them by increasing the system requirements. But they will have to do it at some point, imo it should've been done already.

You said "could you imagine FM without". I could. I know these things exist, but I don't actively use, or pay attention to them. I'm not saying those are bad features, or that they aren't improvements, though they're hardly "headline" worth it in my opinion, as they don't generally improve the experience for every player. Quick chats are just annoying to deal with, players getting pissed off for no reason, etc. Once they do fix them, and add more variety to them, I'd gladly use that feature. I have no use for deadline day, as I like to conclude my transfers long before that. It is useful, and it certainly is an improvement over what already existed. Now, I can actually see myself using some of these new FM23 features, especially the squad planner. It's a great QoL feature, even though realistically, it's something that already kind of existed, just repackaged and done better. The thing is, it is true that they should mostly focus on revamping the already existing stuff, improving the ME, and hopefully revamping/improving other parts of the tactical creator. The reason people are getting pissed off, is because some features/revamps have been asked for years and years. They've been ignored. The graphics have gone from decent in FM17 to absolutely horrible after that. It's 2022, the game looks like it did 10+ years ago. SI seem to take the easy route, so rather than having larger revamps like a new set piece creator, new and better graphics, int. management, etc., they just focus on smaller stuff like "new fan experience".

Sadly, I don't think we can do much. Sure a few of us can "boycott" the game and not buy it. But in the end it achieves nothing. The casual player base is a huge majority, and they will happily buy a new game each year, regardless of anything. After all, that's their core audience. I'm not saying they don't care about the rest of us at all, but we're minority, and we won't really affect their profits much. I don't even use half of those, so that answers your question. Club Vision is irrelevant to me, Board Confidence is mostly irrelevant as well. Interaction and quick chats are annoying, so I avoid using them. Pre-match staff advice is mostly useless to me, so again, I don't use it. Deadline day, I've used it 2-3 times over 1000 hours I've put into FM22. Data Hub, useful, though I don't rely on it. When it comes to women's football. I couldn't care less. I'm not against them adding it, do whatever you want. It's probably a good thing. But personally, I don't know a single person who follows or watches women's football. There are so many football games going on, so many leagues to follow, that I can't see myself following women's football on top of that as well. Especially considering it's "inferior" in quality compared to men's game. It is raising in popularity, but I feel like it's still not on the level of other women's sports. Not in raw numbers, but in other ways. For example, athletics, volleyball, tennis, etc. Those are all popular sports, among both men and women, both in terms of the audience, and in terms of athletes competing. If you asked me how many people I know that watched women's athletics, volleyball, tennis, etc. I think all of them would say they do watch it. Sports like Football, Basketball, etc. (football more so) are simply male dominated, for whatever reasons that I wont go into. So I just doubt the introduction of women's football in FM will have a massive impact, both in terms of new players coming to the game, as well as existing players playing it over men's version.

As opposed to them buying everyone, stocking up on wonderkids and talents, while not playing them at all, and using an aging squad? As opposed to them buying yet another striker, when they already have 7 of them? Yes please.