FM23

[forameus]

I can understand why, and they've said as much.  Probably the issues with the engine aren't just minor and would take more than 2 weeks (plus whatever time they likely already knew about them prior to the beta) to get right.  Not touching anything is always going to be a better option in that case than adjusting and potentially making things worse.

2 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

Id recommend people try the demo before purchasing, as youd be far better just getting a transfer update for FM22 and keeping your money.

That should always be the thinking with any product that still offers the seemingly impossible free and fully featured demo.  Too many people just buy blindly and then come back bitching about how awful the whole process is, when you could have probably given a pretty close guess as to what we'd get 6 months ago.  Small changes, largely fluff features, and bugs.  Just like last year, and the one before that, and the one before that...etc etc.

[Lyle Lanley]

5 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

Thats the full game released.

Almost nothing been fixed from the beta apart from moving some coaches about and fixing some data issues.

ME still the same and still has some game breaking issues.

Id recommend people try the demo before purchasing, as youd be far better just getting a transfer update for FM22 and keeping your money.

No point of releasing a beta if they can't fix any bugs that have been noticed by those who play the game. They are starting to get very lazy and they need competition. 

Edited November 8, 2022 by Lyle Lanley

[CM.]

Layton Stewart from Liverpool seems a good loanee for a lower league SPFL club where you don't need to contribute to any of his wages. 5 goals in 2 starts and 1 sub app for me for Clyde. Probably break his leg next game now.

Edited November 8, 2022 by CM.

[The Moonster]

15 hours ago, forameus said:

I can understand why, and they've said as much.  Probably the issues with the engine aren't just minor and would take more than 2 weeks (plus whatever time they likely already knew about them prior to the beta) to get right.  Not touching anything is always going to be a better option in that case than adjusting and potentially making things worse.

Alternatively they could stop this madness of bringing out a new game every year and concentrate on getting an actual working game on the market rather than a game that takes 6 months to be enjoyable, before bringing out another broken gane 6 months later. But folk keep buying new games despite knowing all these issues will be there so it's a neverending cycle. 

[Homer Thompson]

1 hour ago, The Moonster said:

Alternatively they could stop this madness of bringing out a new game every year and concentrate on getting an actual working game on the market rather than a game that takes 6 months to be enjoyable, before bringing out another broken gane 6 months later. But folk keep buying new games despite knowing all these issues will be there so it's a neverending cycle. 

Not me, not this year *smug face*

The really frustrating thing this year seems to be that, despite not actually changing the game from last year, they've made it worse and introduced a whole load of new bugs and issues. 

I think for years, most people have put up with bug's every year because we felt we were getting a genuinely new game. This year just feels like the worst of both worlds. 

[forameus]

1 hour ago, The Moonster said:

Alternatively they could stop this madness of bringing out a new game every year and concentrate on getting an actual working game on the market rather than a game that takes 6 months to be enjoyable, before bringing out another broken gane 6 months later. But folk keep buying new games despite knowing all these issues will be there so it's a neverending cycle. 

I honestly don't believe you'd get that different a product if you released every 2 years, every 4 years, whatever.  If you want to put two years worth of work into it, as opposed to 1, you're going to need roughly double the testing effort (or even more).  So your cycle of two years ends up being roughly the same as your cycle of one with every phase just doubling.  I don't think it's this magic bullet that people believe it would be.

The only way you get time to do as you suggest would be if you just sacked off putting anything new into the game, and even then the way the game is built, it's a near guarantee you wouldn't get something out the other end that plenty would call "broken".  And you'd also have people justifiably complaining about nothing changing.

But the last part is true.  People keep buying it, so it's implicit validation of the approach.  And it's been the same approach for fucking years.

[Homer Thompson]

1 hour ago, forameus said:

I honestly don't believe you'd get that different a product if you released every 2 years, every 4 years, whatever.  If you want to put two years worth of work into it, as opposed to 1, you're going to need roughly double the testing effort (or even more).  So your cycle of two years ends up being roughly the same as your cycle of one with every phase just doubling.  I don't think it's this magic bullet that people believe it would be.

The only way you get time to do as you suggest would be if you just sacked off putting anything new into the game, and even then the way the game is built, it's a near guarantee you wouldn't get something out the other end that plenty would call "broken".  And you'd also have people justifiably complaining about nothing changing.

But the last part is true.  People keep buying it, so it's implicit validation of the approach.  And it's been the same approach for fucking years.

But if you take longer to do things, there's more time to fix issues. If they gave themselves longer, they could iteratively work through development, testing, bug fixing, retesting etc. There might not be significantly more changes than now but it should be a far better product. 

And besides, if they double the testing they do now, zero doubled is still zero. 

All academic as there's no chance they'll ever move to only releasing every two years 

[Lyle Lanley]

10 hours ago, Homer Thompson said:

Not me, not this year *smug face*

The really frustrating thing this year seems to be that, despite not actually changing the game from last year, they've made it worse and introduced a whole load of new bugs and issues. 

I think for years, most people have put up with bug's every year because we felt we were getting a genuinely new game. This year just feels like the worst of both worlds. 

Think I’ve never seen this much criticism over FM before. This was always coming but think this year people have had enough with SI pathetic graphics and features. Same will happen next year and so on if they don’t improve it. 

[Homer Thompson]

17 minutes ago, Lyle Lanley said:

Think I’ve never seen this much criticism over FM before. This was always coming but think this year people have had enough with SI pathetic graphics and features. Same will happen next year and so on if they don’t improve it. 

But, as Moonster said, SI wont care if people keep buying it.

Its on Gamepass, so Im going to give it a go, see just how bad it is. Anyone know if the editor is available if you install from Gamepass?

ETA - never mind, I found it at the bottom of the page - £6.29!

Edited November 9, 2022 by Homer Thompson

[forameus]

To be honest though, it's not bad, it just isn't as good as it perhaps could be.  It remains a solid game that you could probably end up putting hundreds of hours into, nothing's really changed in that regard.  But then that's partly the problem, nothing's really changed.  

[djchapsticks]

2 hours ago, forameus said:

To be honest though, it's not bad, it just isn't as good as it perhaps could be.  It remains a solid game that you could probably end up putting hundreds of hours into, nothing's really changed in that regard.  But then that's partly the problem, nothing's really changed.  

Yeah. I'm quite enjoying it because I have started a proper St. Mirren save which I haven't done the last couple of years in favour of doing a journeyman type save.

But yeah, it needs overhauled from the ground up. It's evolved steadily since CM4 but that evolution has sort of just stopped in the last 4 or so entries. 

I agree there is not THAT much that needs changed in terms of the data presented but the interface, graphics, match engine and playable leagues offered as standard all need to be overhauled. A proper dynamic potential system as well would be nice but harder to implement.

Also the chances of a gem of a player coming through at clubs that don't have the highest youth facilities is practically nil in FM nowadays. This needs to be redressed a bit. High potential players come through lower leagues in real life all the time. FM is very much geared towards the same batch of clubs (youth recruitment 18 and up) getting the high potential regens and there maybe being a dozen good players spread elsewhere over a global youth intake of a season. The fact is in real life, they are then snapped up by the Bayerns, Man Citys, PSGs of the world but the game loves to cut that middle man out. 

They also need to genuinely fix the transfer system. AI clubs ridiculously lowballing on players and going off and spending daft money elsewhere has been a real problem in last 2 or 3 games now, as is the process of offering players out to clubs.

A system where scouts and analysts are put to proper use by using contact within the game would be amazing too. Say you have a young player at Dundee Utd...boy is out of contract in a year and won't sign on again...in FM your current options are to list him and hope for bids that usually don't come or offer to clubs for an amount they usually won't meet. I'd love a system where you can pull one of your analysts or scouts, tell them player X is leaving next season and you'd like to sell him now to get as much cash as possible.

Would make sense to send them out to discreetly find out which clubs might be looking for someone in his position that the player would fit, how much they'd potentially be willing to pay and if there are any other clubs who would potentially get drawn into a bidding war for his signature. Allow for proper targeted offering of a player based on a potential buyers needs rather than the current method of holding the player in the air and going 'who wants him?'.

[Homer Thompson]

3 hours ago, djchapsticks said:

Yeah. I'm quite enjoying it because I have started a proper St. Mirren save which I haven't done the last couple of years in favour of doing a journeyman type save.

But yeah, it needs overhauled from the ground up. It's evolved steadily since CM4 but that evolution has sort of just stopped in the last 4 or so entries. 

I agree there is not THAT much that needs changed in terms of the data presented but the interface, graphics, match engine and playable leagues offered as standard all need to be overhauled. A proper dynamic potential system as well would be nice but harder to implement.

Also the chances of a gem of a player coming through at clubs that don't have the highest youth facilities is practically nil in FM nowadays. This needs to be redressed a bit. High potential players come through lower leagues in real life all the time. FM is very much geared towards the same batch of clubs (youth recruitment 18 and up) getting the high potential regens and there maybe being a dozen good players spread elsewhere over a global youth intake of a season. The fact is in real life, they are then snapped up by the Bayerns, Man Citys, PSGs of the world but the game loves to cut that middle man out. 

They also need to genuinely fix the transfer system. AI clubs ridiculously lowballing on players and going off and spending daft money elsewhere has been a real problem in last 2 or 3 games now, as is the process of offering players out to clubs.

A system where scouts and analysts are put to proper use by using contact within the game would be amazing too. Say you have a young player at Dundee Utd...boy is out of contract in a year and won't sign on again...in FM your current options are to list him and hope for bids that usually don't come or offer to clubs for an amount they usually won't meet. I'd love a system where you can pull one of your analysts or scouts, tell them player X is leaving next season and you'd like to sell him now to get as much cash as possible.

Would make sense to send them out to discreetly find out which clubs might be looking for someone in his position that the player would fit, how much they'd potentially be willing to pay and if there are any other clubs who would potentially get drawn into a bidding war for his signature. Allow for proper targeted offering of a player based on a potential buyers needs rather than the current method of holding the player in the air and going 'who wants him?'.

Ever fancied a job at SI? 

[SJFCtheTeamForMe]

I'm going to put it out there. 

Stuff like "it needs an overhaul from the ground up" is impossible in a game released annually with a studio the size of SI. Employing more people doesn't necessarily improve quality or speed either. 

If they didn't release annually they'd probably close down. Publisher will demand it as well.

I've even read comments on YouTube etc with hundreds of likes demanding staff sacked etc. The level of entitlement and delusion shown by some grown men who play games is wild "fresh blood in the management"

Software is developed in an iterative manner so you'll get some small features that can be turned around in the period between games and you'll get longer term features that take multiple cycles. 

Edited November 10, 2022 by SJFCtheTeamForMe

[Homer Thompson]

11 hours ago, SJFCtheTeamForMe said:

I'm going to put it out there. 

Stuff like "it needs an overhaul from the ground up" is impossible in a game released annually with a studio the size of SI. Employing more people doesn't necessarily improve quality or speed either. 

If they didn't release annually they'd probably close down. Publisher will demand it as well.

I've even read comments on YouTube etc with hundreds of likes demanding staff sacked etc. The level of entitlement and delusion shown by some grown men who play games is wild "fresh blood in the management"

Software is developed in an iterative manner so you'll get some small features that can be turned around in the period between games and you'll get longer term features that take multiple cycles. 

Up until the last few years, each game was noticeably different and, with a few exceptions, better each year. They had less staff then and definitely didn't have the backing of a big player like Sega. 

You're absolutely right about the iterative nature of software. However, what's annoying people is that they are being asked to pay full price again for, essentially, FM22.3. If that's how they want to work the development cycle, fine but the pricing has to match. You can't tout a new release, and charge for one, every year and not deliver. 

I don't want people sacked but I actually think the series would benefit from new management. 

[forameus]

I'd be careful what you wish for with regards to new management.  SI is still significantly behind the curve on the sort of shithousery that now seems normal in the gaming industry with regards to monetising certain aspects.  They've dipped a toe with stuff on FMC, but have kept the main game clean of that.  As soon as they decide to change that, they'll probably then start to funnel you towards paying.  And f**k that.

I do wonder if they're keeping their powder dry for future versions.  They've said women's football is coming, and if they could deliver that properly and fully featured, and also roll out some long-developed improvements elsewhere, then that would make this release slightly less of an issue.  I would agree though, although there haven't been a huge number of changes in recent years, I think this is probably the least they've offered.  They won't have been sitting doing nothing I'd imagine, so maybe there's more stuff further down the line (not that that really makes much difference now).

[Homer Thompson]

1 minute ago, forameus said:

I'd be careful what you wish for with regards to new management.  SI is still significantly behind the curve on the sort of shithousery that now seems normal in the gaming industry with regards to monetising certain aspects.  They've dipped a toe with stuff on FMC, but have kept the main game clean of that.  As soon as they decide to change that, they'll probably then start to funnel you towards paying.  And f**k that.

I do wonder if they're keeping their powder dry for future versions.  They've said women's football is coming, and if they could deliver that properly and fully featured, and also roll out some long-developed improvements elsewhere, then that would make this release slightly less of an issue.  I would agree though, although there haven't been a huge number of changes in recent years, I think this is probably the least they've offered.  They won't have been sitting doing nothing I'd imagine, so maybe there's more stuff further down the line (not that that really makes much difference now).

All fair points. Does feel like Miles is accepting of the current pace of change and it could do with someone to actually drive things. 

Doesn't seem like women's football would be too difficult to implement. Add the league structure and data and its done. Can't see whys there would need to be any do any actual development. 

Let's hope they are splitting their time and working on long term developments as well as year to year releases

[forameus]

1 minute ago, Homer Thompson said:

All fair points. Does feel like Miles is accepting of the current pace of change and it could do with someone to actually drive things. 

Doesn't seem like women's football would be too difficult to implement. Add the league structure and data and its done. Can't see whys there would need to be any do any actual development. 

Let's hope they are splitting their time and working on long term developments as well as year to year releases

But that would be the cop-out way of doing it.  If they're going to do it really properly, they probably need at least a variant of the match engine, if not a completely new one*.  Potentially a separate economy to handle the far lower amounts of money sloshing around.  Potentially an altered attributes system so it's not just "here's a shit male player with a female name".  Just chucking in the league structures in data is barely more than EA did and would just be tokenism.  Luckily it seems they're doing it properly, making it more of an interesting proposition.

 

  * A new one could also bring a lot of benefit to the existing one.  Starting from a low point they can properly ask the hard design questions that they're too far gone with to ask about the current ME.  Fresh ideas, smart answers, all lessons learned for working with the existing one, and ones they probably wouldn't get the opportunity to even ask.

[Homer Thompson]

14 minutes ago, forameus said:

But that would be the cop-out way of doing it.  If they're going to do it really properly, they probably need at least a variant of the match engine, if not a completely new one*.  Potentially a separate economy to handle the far lower amounts of money sloshing around.  Potentially an altered attributes system so it's not just "here's a shit male player with a female name".  Just chucking in the league structures in data is barely more than EA did and would just be tokenism.  Luckily it seems they're doing it properly, making it more of an interesting proposition.

 

  * A new one could also bring a lot of benefit to the existing one.  Starting from a low point they can properly ask the hard design questions that they're too far gone with to ask about the current ME.  Fresh ideas, smart answers, all lessons learned for working with the existing one, and ones they probably wouldn't get the opportunity to even ask.

The only changes to the match engine would be cosmetic, to add new skins for female players. 

The game already copes with wildly varying finances from the EPL to lower leagues, why would womens football be any different?

Attributes is an interesting one. But, as there's no cross over, it doesn't really matter. The best women players could be graded the same as the best men. They're never playing each other or being transfered between the same clubs, so it won't matter. 

So, we're rally just back to competition structure and data. 

[forameus]

6 minutes ago, Homer Thompson said:

The only changes to the match engine would be cosmetic, to add new skins for female players. 

The game already copes with wildly varying finances from the EPL to lower leagues, why would womens football be any different?

Attributes is an interesting one. But, as there's no cross over, it doesn't really matter. The best women players could be graded the same as the best men. They're never playing each other or being transfered between the same clubs, so it won't matter. 

So, we're rally just back to competition structure and data. 

I disagree.  And seems SI do too, as if it was just as simple as that, they could and would have already delivered it.  But if they end up delivering it like that, I'll be the first to say I was wrong, and that SI have fucked it.

[Homer Thompson]

30 minutes ago, forameus said:

I disagree.  And seems SI do too, as if it was just as simple as that, they could and would have already delivered it.  But if they end up delivering it like that, I'll be the first to say I was wrong, and that SI have fucked it.

So, genuine question, why would the women's game need a totally new matching engine and economy? 

Eta - and for the record, using "that's what SI are doing" is not going to win any arguments

Edited November 11, 2022 by Homer Thompson