Sports games should be live service games
I truly believe that all sports games should adopt a live service model, spanning 3 to 5 years. With each new release, we often encounter discussions on forums lamenting the repetition and lack of in...
Forum Discussion
Annual releases, despite their flaws, often come with a fresh wave of features, improvements, and technological advancements. Shifting to a live service model might reduce the urgency for innovation, leading to a slower pace of meaningful upgrades. Developers might become complacent, relying on minor tweaks rather than pushing for groundbreaking enhancements each year.
A live service model might create a fragmented player base. Some players may purchase season passes, while others might not. This can lead to inconsistencies in player experiences, matchmaking issues, and a divided community, which can be detrimental to the multiplayer aspect of sports games.
Sports games often serve as snapshots of their respective eras, preserving the rosters, teams, and statistics of a particular season. Annual releases create a historical record that players can revisit and enjoy. This aspect of nostalgia and historical context could be lost in a live service model, where the game continuously evolves and changes.
With the proliferation of subscription-based services across various industries (streaming, software, etc.), consumers are already experiencing subscription fatigue. Adding sports games to this model could exacerbate this issue, making it less appealing to players who are tired of managing multiple ongoing payments.
Sports games have a significant market in physical copies, especially for gift-giving occasions like holidays and birthdays. A GaaS model, which relies heavily on digital updates and season passes, diminishes the appeal and practicality of buying and gifting physical copies, potentially reducing sales and market reach.
GaaS models often incorporate microtransactions and other forms of monetization to sustain their revenue streams. This can lead to predatory practices where players are nudged into spending more money on cosmetic items, gameplay advantages, or essential features, which can create an uneven playing field and a pay-to-win environment.
Continuous changes to the game mechanics, features, and rosters can increase the complexity and learning curve for players. New and casual players might find it hard to keep up with the changes, making the game less accessible and less enjoyable for those who don't have the time or inclination to stay constantly updated.
GaaS models often prioritize online multiplayer experiences and updates, potentially neglecting the single-player modes that many players enjoy. This can result in a diminished single-player experience, with fewer updates, less content, and lower overall quality compared to the multiplayer aspects of the game.
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
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.
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.
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.
..consumers are already experiencing subscription fatigue... -- Anyone that buys the game yearly is on a $70 subscription anyway, I'm recommending reducing the price
Sports games have a significant market in physical copies -- This just seems like a poor argument. everything is going digital
GaaS models often incorporate microtransactions..,. -- This game is stacked with microtransactions anyway.
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 just fully disagree with your last paragraph.
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.
EA_AljoCommunity Manager
@ericdan12 wrote:GaaS models often incorporate microtransactions..,. -- This game is stacked with microtransactions anyway.
Obviously, we have microtransactions. I wouldn't call it stacked though. When it comes to WoC, these are almost all entirely esthetic so they're totally optional. Of course there are custom builds that can be purchased, but these are hardly P2W.
With HUT, all you can do is buy points that can be spent on packs. I wouldn't call this stacked with microtransactions though. This mode is still very playable without spending anything extra.As far as the idea of a subscription instead of purchasing the game goes, I'm intrigued by it for sure. What @KidShowtime1867 mentioned about subscription fatigue is a very real concern though. I have more subscriptions than every for various streaming services as well as gamepass. Adding another to the mix isn't really appealing. However, with as much time as I spend on this game, I'm sure it would be worth it. Especially if the updates released year to year significantly improved the game and it wasn't just tuners, bug fixes and roster updates.
@EA_Aljo ok maybe "stacked" is the wrong adjective but they are there so the other guy's point was weak.
I would just be curious what would happen if this style was adopted by the industry. Personally, I would play NHL 24 for another 2 years with roster updates and tweaks to the tuners for a fee, if in a few years I got a familiar but NEW felling game with unique changes to all modes. Let's be honest though its mostly about the $$ and if enough people continue to buy for $70 each year (like a subscription...) then we will welcome NHL 25, 26, 27, etc.
@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.
So, there are things you agree with, and you understand my point with some rebuttal but ultimately we will not see eye to eye on this. As I said to @EA_Aljo I understand that cash is king and if $70 games yearly are making the EA board happy then trying something new is not in the cards. Although the way you were coming to the defense of EA there is making me wonder if you are shooting for Aljo's community manager job...
but if you wanna solve this like men then 1v1 me!
@ericdan12 wrote:So, there are things you agree with, and you understand my point with some rebuttal but ultimately we will not see eye to eye on this. As I said to @EA_Aljo I understand that cash is king and if $70 games yearly are making the EA board happy then trying something new is not in the cards. Although the way you were coming to the defense of EA there is making me wonder if you are shooting for Aljo's community manager job...
but if you wanna solve this like men then 1v1 me!
I'm not intending to 'defend EA'. I'm just coming at your idea with a realistic perspective. I'd be glad to 1v1 you, although I'm uncertain how this resolves our GaaS disagreement lol
Featured Places
