NHL needs a trello board
I think it’ll be a great idea for EA NHL to have a trello board, you’ve got one for Apex Legends and it’s a good way for us to see what’s being working on and what’s ready to be released and also wha...
Forum Discussion
Unfortunately I just don't see this working for the NHL series as long as they're slaves to the yearly release model. Instead of continuously updating their software as features and bug fixes are completed they're forced to try to develop a handful of "new", shiny features that can be used to entice people to buy the next release. There's no incentive to make these changes in the middle of the yearly lifecycle because you need them as bait for the next release. There's also reluctance to letting the player base know what's being worked on because they need to be able to market and "hype" these changes on a schedule that fits the next release date.
SaaS games like Apex can be more open about their development pipeline because they can add features and fix bugs in the game as those bug fixes and features become viable. If feature 'x' slips because it needs a bit more time in the oven it just moves to the next patch instead of the next yearly release. They're also not relying on one big set of changes to drive their revenue for the next year. Regular updates and changes can actually be a tool to keep the player base engaged instead of "wasting" next year's marketing material. I'm not saying SaaS is some magic panacea for game development, but if you want openness and transparency from a development team locking them into a yearly release cycle isn't the way to go.
@PlayoffError wrote:I'm not saying SaaS is some magic panacea for game development, but if you want openness and transparency from a development team locking them into a yearly release cycle isn't the way to go.
I think sports games would benefit the most from a SaaS model. The problem is what the suits think. Right now, you're getting (pure estimate) likely 350,000 - 400,000 base game sales.
Typically, SaaS games offer free entry - which means no base sales. You're relying entirely on subscriptions/season passes.
Can EA convince 350,000 - 400,000 users to shell out $10/month for access to World of Chel/HUT? If you make OVP/Ones/Drop-Ins free to play, how do you recoup base-game sales from that group? Maybe you start microtransactions for cosmetic items?
.. and would this even change the approach to development/bug fixes, or would there just be a massive 'patch' or 'update' released every October and then minimal updates throughout the year.. basically like we have now?
In any case, the current dev cycle is too short. But chances are, it's not only EA making the decision to put out a yearly game. The NHL itself is the biggest stakeholder here and there's no doubt they have an out-of-touch executive who may not have an understanding of the market to push EA to change things up.
- @KidShowtime1867 I'd imagine the primary concern would be how to keep HUT going without the yearly reset when the new game comes out. New game sales certainly play a part, but UT is where the real money is for EA's sports games.
I doubt the player base would be thrilled with having their collection wiped out or otherwise made useless without a "new" game to go with it. But EA would need to somehow keep people on that power creep treadmill indefinitely to keep them buying packs for new cards.
I doubt the monthly subscription approach would go over well. There's not a lot of that left in the industry. Probably a 'battle pass' approach would be more palatable, but they'd need to come up with some way of monetizing it. The cosmetics currently in the game are underwhelming to say the least. Although if it becomes a more primary revenue generator maybe they'd spend more time and money on them.
EA_AljoCommunity Manager
@PlayoffError wrote:
@KidShowtime1867 I'd imagine the primary concern would be how to keep HUT going without the yearly reset when the new game comes out. New game sales certainly play a part, but UT is where the real money is for EA's sports games.
I doubt the player base would be thrilled with having their collection wiped out or otherwise made useless without a "new" game to go with it. But EA would need to somehow keep people on that power creep treadmill indefinitely to keep them buying packs for new cards.
I doubt the monthly subscription approach would go over well. There's not a lot of that left in the industry. Probably a 'battle pass' approach would be more palatable, but they'd need to come up with some way of monetizing it. The cosmetics currently in the game are underwhelming to say the least. Although if it becomes a more primary revenue generator maybe they'd spend more time and money on them.I think if we set the expectation that teams would be reset annually, it wouldn't be as much of an issue. I like the battle pass approach though.
@EA_AljoI think there's a certain psychological hurdle to overcome if progress is reset without a 'new' game, but you could be right.
Are there any games doing that currently? I'm trying to think of an active game where people can spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on in-game 'power' just to have the game hit the reset button at set intervals and I'm drawing a blank.
- @KidShowtime1867 You know ea will never convince everyone to pay 10 a month with promises of support until they begin to fulfill promises on something we've already paid for. Plain and simple, how can we trust a thing they say at this juncture?
Maybe they do actually do better at support...it's going to take time and word of mouth for people to believe in that, so initial sales would be slow...and EA would NEVER give up a bit of revenue and have to actually earn trust from their customers because they know darn well what a hole they've dug for themselves.
