They just go back to the way hut used to work. You have your cards and each card can accept a limited amount of games via contract cards and once the games expire the card goes away.
Number of games played has its own problems though. In particular without any sort of forced expiration date, it means that any card they release probably needs to exist forever in the auction house and every other part of the game. You also run into problems where maybe someone holds onto a bunch of cards with old synergies, and then combines them with cards a few years later to get some enormous team boosts that weren't planned for. Perhaps the biggest reason though is that it let's EA remove high rated cards on a regular basis, and keeps people buying packs on a regular basis.
A three month (or variable) expiration date makes the most sense to me though, because it keeps users buying packs, it means EA doesn't need to worry about old synergies after a few months, they can release fun cards even just for a week or two (99 John Scott), and they don't need to buy perpetual rights to legends' rights for cards. They could also do some fun things like have basic cards never expire, and get updated each year to whatever they player's new base value is for the next season (so not upgrading with TOTY, Milestones, and such). That means picking up a future all-star could be a huge win, but even the best base cards like Crosby and McDavid would easily be beat by most special cards available at the time.
I think it would be far more interesting if HUT was structured like this. You wouldn’t have to restart every year.
It be much more immersive in the sense that you would feel like a GM: re-signing players to new contracts, dealing with players who are injured.
Ya but the problem is that the yearly release creates deadlines that would spread the dev team thin. As mentioned earlier, right now you would expect that the team is working on basic maintenance and bug fixing for 18. Pretty soon they will be working on 19 and they will need to start thinking of new features that they can market to sell the game. If they start on 19 by December or January that gives them 9 months until the annual September release date.
If there was no yearly release the dev team could provide updates on an ongoing basis without the pressure of the September deadline.
I’m just speculating as I don’t really know what the dev team’s deadlines and pressures are, but it makes sense.
Most importantly, getting rid of a yearly release would benefit the users too as there would be more players online to play with.
My worry is that even if they go to every 2-3 years it doesn't mean that the management group that decides what the devs work on will use that time wisely. It doesn't mean that any of the major bugs will be fixed or that the input lag will be fixed. All it means is that it will give them more time to work on whatever they want to work on. Look out for the new improved zamboni racing or the mascot intermission sumo wrestling.
I understand and know from experience that they have to support the old game for a few months and then their time for the new game is limited. Having said that I cannot understand why the management team has not taken a few devs to figure out the input lag or the looping and any other of the game breaking issues that players have been screaming about for years. Every year pick an issue, pick a couple of devs and slam it out of the park in the 4-5 months they have. Let the other devs add debatable features. One thing that tears me up is that I still see the same actual bugs from NHL 2016??
Lastly, I worry that a 2-3 year release cycle will actually shrink the community not make it bigger. Even if players won't be on different games I fear that into year 2 of the game people will be bored. You already notice a huge drop off in March. Imagine the same game the following October?? Unless they release stuff throughout the life of the game to bring players back.
IMO the subscription service with many updates (bugs, features, DLC) would be the best for sports titles. I hope they actually go through with it.
Lastly, I worry that a 2-3 year release cycle will actually shrink the community not make it bigger. Even if players won't be on different games I fear that into year 2 of the game people will be bored. You already notice a huge drop off in March. Imagine the same game the following October?? Unless they release stuff throughout the life of the game to bring players back.
IMO the subscription service with many updates (bugs, features, DLC) would be the best for sports titles. I hope they actually go through with it.
Not sure where the 2-3 year release cycle is coming from. Release one game and provide ongoing maintenance.
Counterstrike was released in 2012. They don't release a new one every year or even every couple years. This game is over 5 years old and people come back to it religiously.
Listen, if you're game is good enough, people won't get bored of it.
You provide DLC and microtransactions that don't affect gameplay, but enhance some asthetic things once in awhile to keep things interesting.
The game is already operating as a subscription service essentially. You are paying $80 every year to play the newest NHL which is essentially a roster update and a new patch. Don't kid yourself into thinking you are buying a brand new game every September just because they slap a new cover picture and number on the front of it.
CSGO and Rocket League are the two biggest examples of games that this series should follow. One game supported by micro transactions allows the devs to perfect the bugs and game play while still making money off of it.
Im shocked by how many of you are ok or even promote microtransactions. This is not free to play game right ? Its the same scam yearly release is. You all get that ea is sitting on about 4 billions in cash. Understand that injecting more money wont make the game better.
Im shocked by how many of you are ok or even promote microtransactions. This is not free to play game right ? Its the same scam yearly release is. You all get that ea is sitting on about 4 billions in cash. Understand that injecting more money wont make the game better.
The main reason this game is bad is bcs micros.
I am promoting micro transactions because I say they should make the game either f2p or a one time fee.
Im shocked by how many of you are ok or even promote microtransactions. This is not free to play game right ? Its the same scam yearly release is. You all get that ea is sitting on about 4 billions in cash. Understand that injecting more money wont make the game better.
The main reason this game is bad is bcs micros.
I am promoting micro transactions because I say they should make the game either f2p or a one time fee.
Im reading that not only ppl want to be able to have Micros in game but on top of that, that it would have a reset and erased after a year... seriously. i dont know what to say.
I have read the whole Thread . And can not believe there actually people who openly state they are willing to throw even more money at EA, think more money = better Game .
You guys just don't get it. Foreal .
EA is clearly on a "minimally viable product" MO with NHL . To put it very simply, they aim to make the most amount of money with the least effort possible . Throw more money at them...they will take it, and sell you the next Roster Update ( = "this Year's all NEW Game ) with the same unaddressed issues sine '16 again. And then again the following Year . If enough Sheep INSIST in wanting to give them more money, they may even start to charge for the Roster updates they come up with in the weeks after the yearly release .
What they will NOT do is throw any significant amount of money or effort into actually fixing the Game, as long as overall revenue is growing . And it is for their Sports Titles, despite decreasing initial Sales, du to UT.
Stop being naive people . EA is NOT a Game Company . Its a "Make Money" Company.
Replies
I think it would be far more interesting if HUT was structured like this. You wouldn’t have to restart every year.
It be much more immersive in the sense that you would feel like a GM: re-signing players to new contracts, dealing with players who are injured.
HUT would benefit just as much as eashl imo.
My worry is that even if they go to every 2-3 years it doesn't mean that the management group that decides what the devs work on will use that time wisely. It doesn't mean that any of the major bugs will be fixed or that the input lag will be fixed. All it means is that it will give them more time to work on whatever they want to work on. Look out for the new improved zamboni racing or the mascot intermission sumo wrestling.
I understand and know from experience that they have to support the old game for a few months and then their time for the new game is limited. Having said that I cannot understand why the management team has not taken a few devs to figure out the input lag or the looping and any other of the game breaking issues that players have been screaming about for years. Every year pick an issue, pick a couple of devs and slam it out of the park in the 4-5 months they have. Let the other devs add debatable features. One thing that tears me up is that I still see the same actual bugs from NHL 2016??
Lastly, I worry that a 2-3 year release cycle will actually shrink the community not make it bigger. Even if players won't be on different games I fear that into year 2 of the game people will be bored. You already notice a huge drop off in March. Imagine the same game the following October?? Unless they release stuff throughout the life of the game to bring players back.
IMO the subscription service with many updates (bugs, features, DLC) would be the best for sports titles. I hope they actually go through with it.
Not sure where the 2-3 year release cycle is coming from. Release one game and provide ongoing maintenance.
Counterstrike was released in 2012. They don't release a new one every year or even every couple years. This game is over 5 years old and people come back to it religiously.
Listen, if you're game is good enough, people won't get bored of it.
You provide DLC and microtransactions that don't affect gameplay, but enhance some asthetic things once in awhile to keep things interesting.
The game is already operating as a subscription service essentially. You are paying $80 every year to play the newest NHL which is essentially a roster update and a new patch. Don't kid yourself into thinking you are buying a brand new game every September just because they slap a new cover picture and number on the front of it.
The main reason this game is bad is bcs micros.
I am promoting micro transactions because I say they should make the game either f2p or a one time fee.
You guys just don't get it. Foreal .
EA is clearly on a "minimally viable product" MO with NHL . To put it very simply, they aim to make the most amount of money with the least effort possible . Throw more money at them...they will take it, and sell you the next Roster Update ( = "this Year's all NEW Game ) with the same unaddressed issues sine '16 again. And then again the following Year . If enough Sheep INSIST in wanting to give them more money, they may even start to charge for the Roster updates they come up with in the weeks after the yearly release .
What they will NOT do is throw any significant amount of money or effort into actually fixing the Game, as long as overall revenue is growing . And it is for their Sports Titles, despite decreasing initial Sales, du to UT.
Stop being naive people . EA is NOT a Game Company . Its a "Make Money" Company.