@ericdan12 wrote:
Annual releases, despite their flaws, often come with a fresh wave of features, improvements, and technological advancements. -- I am sure most of the community would think otherwise, just look at the forum
The forum is not indicative of the views held by a majority of the user-base. This is an area specifically created for people who have issues with the game to come and post about them, so there's no doubt a cursory review of the topics would give the impression of general negativity towards the game. In fact, it's expected.
@ericdan12 wrote:Developers might become complacent, relying on minor tweaks rather than pushing for groundbreaking enhancements each year. -- I don't personally know any developers but based on what I've read in recent years with over worked / over stressed development teams i would think that the additional time to create something new would inspire and motivate.
The point I'm trying to make here is that in the face of a technological leap with something like Frostbite - the features gleaned from said leap would be saved for major releases. Whereas minor tweaks would be the exclusive goal for the season-based iterations at the expense of introducing major upgrades earlier. For example, let's say the EA engineers build efficiences into Frostbite that result in major performance updates. Rather than implement them into a season-based iteration of the game, it's held out for 2-3 years in favor of generating sales for a new release.
@ericdan12 wrote:A live service model might create a fragmented player base -- I simply disagree with the second paragraph. I don't know many people that play the older games online and offline modes will always be available.
You may not know people personally, but they do exist. There's a reason EA keeps servers active for previous games for a certain amount of time.
@ericdan12 wrote:Sports games often serve as snapshots of their respective eras... -- Lets be honest sports eras are multiple years. and you can always download the original roster the game came with.
It's not just about rosters. Sometimes people prefer the gameplay. Look at this thread on Reddit where many users explain their love for older games and what they brought to the table that today's games may lack.
@ericdan12 wrote:..consumers are already experiencing subscription fatigue... -- Anyone that buys the game yearly is on a $70 subscription anyway, I'm recommending reducing the price
It's not a subscription though. I understand the point you're making (they're buying it every year) - but buying a game means you own that game. When I buy NHL 23, dont' want to buy '24 - I have that option. In the GaaS model, I'd be forced to subscribe just to have access to the game.
@ericdan12 wrote:GaaS models often incorporate microtransactions..,. -- This game is stacked with microtransactions anyway.
You're not wrong. My point being that if NHL switched to a GaaS model, there would be a sizeable decrease in year over year revenue in non-major release years. EA would HAVE to recoup that somewhere and the most likely avenue would be microtransactions.
@ericdan12 wrote:Continuous changes to the game mechanics, features, and rosters can increase the complexity and learning curve for players... -- its on the developers to ensure the game is learnable and the matchmaking online is fair. but ultimately life's tough get a helmet
I agree with you. But as these forums have indicated throughout this release cycle: Many people struggle with even the simplest changes to controls.
@ericdan12 wrote:Also let's pull the curtain back here. Yes, I used AI to rewrite my original post. Please don't ask AI to provide your counter argument.
You don't get to use A.I. to generate your OP and then decree it's unusable in any rebuttals.
