Can a Two-Year Cycle Work? - Operation Sports

Feature Article

Can a Two-Year Cycle Work?

Submitted on: 03/17/2008 by Chris Sanner

We, the sports gamers of the universe, have grown accustomed to a very sour taste in our mouths the past few seasons, the result of unfinished buggy products that need patches just to work right.

Madden NFL 08. Major League Baseball 06, 07, and 08. NBA Live 07.

Ok, well maybe Live was just doomed from the get-go.

But you get my point - some big titles have needed patches to fix big flaws right out of the box. And some like Live 07 were so unfinished and terrible, there was no way the game should have came out.

But why do companies insist on releasing half finished products even if it means turning out a product that is of terrible quality?

The better question is, why is this becoming such a trend in the industry these days from both EA and 2k most notably?

I think the mere fact that companies are trying to meet a one year development cycle is the leading cause to this sort of problem. All things aside, it seems like only the Sony first-party baseball game MLB: The Show has been able to escape this problem so far, and that makes a little bit of sense.

But that still doesn't fix the problem EA and 2k are having developing for two very different consoles and trying to get sports games out in the same old 12 month period with no bugs or glitches.

As a result, I think its time the industry starts looking at how it conducts business. Here are three ideas I think could be used to increase quality on games in this brave new world:

1) Go the Call of Duty route and have two different studios develop the same game over a two year period. So one year you could have one studio release NBA Live 09 and the next year the other one could release NBA Live 2010. That way, you could let them spend two years developing the game. This would ensure a more complete development cycle and the companies would still get their yearly profits. And it'd also mean the game would feel pretty new every year.

Of course, the drawback to that is that the game would feel pretty new every year. That means you would have to relearn how to play a potentially radically different game each year, but with a bit of company control you could have enough similarity to ensure some manner of consistency. Activision does a good job with Call of Duty, 3 and 4 didn't feel too terribly different.

2) Just release a game once every two years and in the middle, release some downloadable extras that cost money (such as major roster updates, new uniforms, old stadiums, etc.). Some won't like this idea because it'd open the door to paying for all roster updates, but if it means I can play better games, I don't see it being a bad thing.

However, I don't see this as being as viable of an option as either one or my next one due to it's profitability. I just don't see a responsible company doing this any time soon.

3) What about increasing the production values on games? This would give us a yearly fix but make it more possible to catch bugs and innovate more and keep things rolling like they used to.

This is the easiest of the options as it wouldn't cost as much as the first one (as that would double production values) and it wouldn't cause you to lose half your profits over a two year period. If you increased developments teams even slightly to try and tackle the development more aggressively I believe that is the ticket.

And in the end, I believe the gaming companies would make more money if their games were of better quality as they'd have more crossover, so there is a chance a slight bump in production values could lead to more sales.

I'm not going to claim to be a CEO or anything close, but it’s very apparent that what companies are doing now just isn't working, and we are getting less innovation, more bugs and ultimately a loss in quality. There is no doubt the new systems require more time to produce games for, at least more time to produce quality games for.

Will we ever see the entire sports gaming lineup return to a quality not seen since the days of the PS2 and Xbox? My gut tells me there will be a company figure this out sooner or later. The question now is, who will be the first third party to step up?

Member Comments

# 1 savoie2006 @ 03/17/08 05:21 PM

I believe MLB The Show and NHL 08 are living proof that a one year cycle can work.It's just a matter of dedication by the developers.If there is a widely noted problem one year,a patch should be released or they should at least take the time to fix that issue before doing anything else.Most problem are small nagging problems not major.Developers need to spend less time trying to draw people in with fancy new features and worry about correcting any and all gameplay issues.

# 2 nxt @ 03/17/08 06:00 PM

Quote:


	But why do companies insist on releasing half finished products even if it means turning out a product that is of terrible quality?

money, and people are still buying the product regardless of how terrible it is. "if we build it. they will come."

# 3 jmood88 @ 03/17/08 06:17 PM

Of course a two year cycle would work but no company would ever think of doing that with a game that makes alot of money for them each year.

# 4 ehh @ 03/17/08 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by savoie2006


	I believe MLB The Show and NHL 08 are living proof that a one year cycle can work.

People forget that the MLB franchise was a mess for many years before 2005. That game hardly became great during a one year cycle.

Companies would have to figure out a way to make the off year profitable, either charge $60 for a roster update or charge $130 for the game every time it comes out and give free roster updates during the off year.

Money is the bottom line but things are slowly starting to change for many gamers I know. The five buddies of mine who are pretty hardcore with sports games haven't bought Madden in at least three years. I just sold my 360 and all my sports games in favor of a Wii. The sport-game industry is dooooooomed, IMO. It's sad when you compare it to other genre's on the next gen systems. So just from myself alone there's $200-$300 that EA and 2K won't be getting any more. More and more are going to bite, even if there still are a good amount of sheep left out there.

# 5 DaveDQ @ 03/17/08 10:19 PM

Most importantly, what we need to start seeing is the foundation of these games being more stable, without the immediate need to "fix" a specific game from the moment it's released. Madden 08 is an example example. The game is filled with more fluff and non-essentials that it's taxing the actual menus in the game. From the irrelevant Marshall Faulk pre-game babble, to the Josten's in game ring feature, it's just unnecessary. I'd much prefer a well polished game engine that is slightly imperfect than a broken game with fluff.

# 6 spankdatazz22 @ 03/17/08 10:29 PM

The two-year development cycle is one of several misconceptions many in the hardcore community want people to believe they want, but they don't. Why won't devs go to a 2-yr development cycle? Because there's too much money to be made from fans - pretty simple. The 2-yr development cycle belongs on the same pile as:

- "We want substance over hype" - hardcore fans are constantly begging to be hyped. And fault products that don't hype them enough

- "All that matters is gameplay" - maybe last gen, not this gen. Hardcore fans are more than willing to forgive gameplay faults or lack of depth if they feel the game is pretty enough

# 7 Lynsanity @ 03/18/08 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ehh


	People forget that the MLB franchise was a mess for many years before 2005. That game hardly became great during a one year cycle. Companies would have to figure out a way to make the off year profitable, either charge $60 for a roster update or charge $130 for the game every time it comes out and give free roster updates during the off year. Money is the bottom line but things are slowly starting to change for many gamers I know. The five buddies of mine who are pretty hardcore with sports games haven't bought Madden in at least three years. I just sold my 360 and all my sports games in favor of a Wii. The sport-game industry is dooooooomed, IMO. It's sad when you compare it to other genre's on the next gen systems. So just from myself alone there's $200-$300 that EA and 2K won't be getting any more. More and more are going to bite, even if there still are a good amount of sheep left out there.

I did the same thing with my PS3. I think a more complete game would be able to be a bi-annual purchase, but nothing like NBA live 2008 for wii. It lacked player lock, dynasty, create-a-player, and more. If you could somehow create a game that had most of the gameplay bases covered and monthly or annual updates, it would work.

# 8 DrJones @ 03/18/08 01:43 AM

Developers (as in, the people who actually make the games) would love a 2-year cycle. I've been lobbying for a 2-year cycle for years. Unless you can convince the powers that be at EA and 2K that they'd make more money with this system, however, it'll never happen.

One of the side effects of exclusivity you guys may be unaware of: EA and 2K are obligated to release X number of NFL and MLB titles per year on Y number of platforms. NO EXCEPTIONS. If Madden or MLB 2K missed a ship date, they'd have to pay huge fines to the leagues.

# 9 Cardot @ 03/18/08 12:04 PM

Just because a game comes out every year doesn't mean we are obligated to buy it. I try maintain a purchasing policy that resists buying games on consecutive years. I will make exceptions in those rare cases where a game makes a significant advance....or if it is offered at a very low price like 2K did a few years ago.

But I go back to Atari, so for me it is quite normal to play the same game for a few years. I know there are others who have a very different view. I have seen several posts of gamers that threatten to not buy a game if the release date is delayed or worse yet, if they don't get to see any preview screens in a timely fashion. I imagine those people would go bananas if they had to wait 2 years between versions.

# 10 BlyGilmore @ 03/19/08 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by savoie2006


	I believe MLB The Show and NHL 08 are living proof that a one year cycle can work.It's just a matter of dedication by the developers.If there is a widely noted problem one year,a patch should be released or they should at least take the time to fix that issue before doing anything else.Most problem are small nagging problems not major.Developers need to spend less time trying to draw people in with fancy new features and worry about correcting any and all gameplay issues.

While I can't comment from first hand knowledge, it sounds like this year's MLB The Show is last years with a few minor fixes and tweaks to the features. To me that's hardly proof you can develop great games year in and year out. If anything the knock on MLB The Show this year has been its basically just a roster update.

Perhaps The Show is the model though - just make a series of small additions each year and not really make any gambles.

(Then again they were also in the position of having a very good game to begin with. And by most accounts they nailed the game play aspect of baseball last year so there was no need for change. MLB The Show could rest on its laurels. A game like MLB 2k or Madden couldn't).

# 11 Nature_Boy @ 03/21/08 05:59 AM

Great article Chris. At this point and time, I really don't know what it's going to take for companies like EA to start producing quality games once again. Myself, i'm hoping the addition of Peter Moore to EA Sports will shake things up over there and get some rumps in gear.

# 12 ubernoob @ 03/22/08 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nature_Boy


	Great article Chris. At this point and time, I really don't know what it's going to take for companies like EA to start producing quality games once again. Myself, i'm hoping the addition of Peter Moore to EA Sports will shake things up over there and get some rumps in gear.

It depends on your definition of quality.

Do I think Madden is a football sim? No.

Does it have it's "Throw-the-controller-against-the-wall moments"? Of course.

Do I have fun playing it? Sure as hell I do.

It all depends on what mindset you're in. Buying Madden year in and out thinking it's going to be a sim is stupid. We all know what Madden is.

# 13 Tomba @ 03/22/08 03:20 AM

No not anymore.

IMHO good games take time.

# 14 A.M. Son @ 03/22/08 08:17 AM

All the 'money talks' responses are correct. Until the day that we fans don't buy 2M copies of the game each year, the game will continue to make minor upgrades and advances.

However, that doesn't happen in a vacuum. EA knows how the game is being perceived (aside from Moore's assertion that Metacritic ratings indicate a superior game). Although it may not always seem like it, they do pay attention to the message boards and professional and customer reviews- they know where the weaknesses are. That doesn't mean they're going to agree with what we perceive to be weaknesses- but as a general statement they do know what other games are "up to" and where they need to compete.

So, until we only buy 650K games per year, they won't change quickly... but they will change, albeit slowly and methodically.

And as another poster mentioned, they are bound by the exclusive licenses, which means they have certain requirements/ deadlines/ features that they can and cannot have in the game.

That's just my incredibly uneducated opinion.

# 15 A.M. Son @ 03/22/08 08:28 AM

And in any industry, you're traversing a slippery slope if you let customers solely dictate the creative directions your products take. It's like that in my business- me and my staff have ideas/ views/ plans for where we see our "product", and we do take into account what the "customer" wants, but we try to compromise and marry the two views where best appropriate. There's also logistical limitations to what can or cannot happen as well (in terms of the licenses).

But having said all that, I think EA has tended to forget about user input and opinion over the past few years. They seem to have stagnated and switched on cruise control. We gamers saw "next-gen" as an opportunity for sports games to make it to the next level, and as a whole EA has failed in any area to bring that wish to fruition.

So will a 2 year cycle help any of this? I doubt it. It seems that many of the issue of contention are design/ concept based, and not coding or execution issues. Yes, there's many bugs and literal shortcomings of the game, which would be aided by a 2 year cycle, but overall I think it's just that we and EA are at a huge creative impasse.

# 16 slickdtc @ 03/22/08 09:35 AM

I'd love a 2 year cycle. But I'm in the minority when I say I only have Madden 06, MVP 05, NHL 2k7, and NFL 2k5. Games that are all 2+ years old (with the exception of 2k7, which I would still have 2k6 if my disc wasn't run over... long story).

But just like everyone else, I agree no big time developer would ever be able to pull it off.

The only developers that would be able to do this would be a minor developer. If Microsoft got back into making their sports games, I think they could do it to start off. Or Nintendo. But once you hit the big time, which 2k, EA, and SCEA's baseball game all have, you can't get away with it. The fans want more. Now. If you can get more proft from 2 games in 2 years then you won't be making only 1 game in 2 years.

# 17 superjames1992 @ 03/22/08 12:50 PM

A 2 year cycle is just not practical. The companies would not make enough money doing it and it would be a stupid move for them.

# 18 BlyGilmore @ 03/24/08 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superjames1992


	A 2 year cycle is just not practical. The companies would not make enough money doing it and it would be a stupid move for them.

every other video game genre works on a two or three year cycle and seems to be doing OK.

with some creative moves, good DLC content and selling of updated rosters I bet the game companies could make up the difference in revenue they lose.

for instance one thing they could do is stagger releases. not everybody buys both NCAA and Madden each year. but if Madden releases in 2008 and NCAA in 2009, folks might buy both that normally wouldn't.

Same for NHL and NBA Live. or NHL 2k and NBA 2k.

not to mention sales are very likely to increase with a superior product.

# 19 Cardot @ 03/24/08 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlyGilmore


	every other video game genre works on a two or three year cycle and seems to be doing OK.

One big difference with the sports genre however, is that you have the year stamped right on the label. Unlike other genres that can seem pretty new for a couple years, NBA 2K8 looks a bit old on a shelf next to NBA Live 09.

The thing that makes this question tough, is that I don't know how educated the majority of the sports video games public is? I know that most people on OS are very educated. We understand the games, their competition and debate every nook and cranny between them. We understand that a 1 year old game with good downloadable content can be just as good as a new game.....But what percentage of the market does know that? What percentage of the market sees 2 games on a shelf and simply assumes the one with the later year on the label is the better game?

More Links