The devs could add all the stuff we want if they had the time and budget
This statement is not based in reality. I understand that it's somewhat unreasonable to expect everyone on this forum to grasp the complexity of developing a videogame - especially the younger crowd who thinks adding a feature to a game is just a matter of pressing a button that says, 'add this feature'.
The truth of the matter is, adding a new game feature can trigger changes across physics, AI, animation, networking, UI, and sound, often requiring new assets that must be created, tested, optimized, and seamlessly integrated. Designers must balance the feature through multiple test cycles, and if it impacts multiplayer, ensure smooth network synchronization without lag or exploits. In large studios, the process also demands careful coordination across multiple teams to avoid disrupting production schedules.
That’s why nothing really changes, even when fans threaten boycotts.
I've been around this game and its community for longer than I want to admit. Every single year there's a subset of the community who feel personally attacked by EA because their very specific needs aren't being met. Sometimes it's a bug that's plagued the series for a while, sometimes it's a mechanic they haven't taken the time to fully understand. These people insist on creating threads, tweets - anything they can to generate some kind of 'viral' campaign to 'boycott this year's game'. It never works because aside from our typical gripes year after year, EA continues to put out a hockey game that the majority gravitate to.
The best sports games ever made happened because of dedicated human devs with the freedom to go all-in
Again with the AI generated replies. You need to prompt the AI to include what you would consider one of the "best sports games ever made" in order for it to formulate a coherent point. Without providing an example as a standard to hold EA to, you're just saying things with no substance.
The only way I see that happening is if the business model changes so EA actually makes more money giving us everything at once
Again - this statement holds no water. "If the business model changes, EA makes more money and we get everything we want".
Yes and if NASA just figured out zero point energy, humanity would no longer be held captive to burning fossil fuels. Like what's NASA even waiting for? Do they even want to make money? I think we should boycott NASA until they just change their business model to invent zero point energy. It's so weird they just dont' do it already.
If they made the perfect NHL game today, half the player base could skip buying next year.
I know right? Why don't they just make the perfect NHL game? What are they thinking?
That’s where the yearly subscription idea comes in, it guarantees them the same (or more) revenue while letting the dev team keep improving the same game all year instead of drip-feeding us just enough to sell the next one.
As EA_Aljo mentioned, even in a subscription based model, you'll still see similar development timelines with full feature releases still likely being 12-18 months apart.
KidShowtime1867 I'm 39 and have been playing this game since NHL94 every single year. I've likely been around this game just as long as you have...
Community Manager
