Why do Gamers Still Accept Yearly Sports Sequels?
 

I guess the title says it all really, but this isn't about sports games sucking or whatever.

I'm just curious why in a day and age when games get gig and half updates. New modes and characters and levels via DLC. That sports games can't be held to the same standard.

Would it be that difficult to update last year's game with a DLC pack of new characters. Another for arenas. And I'm sure patches could take care of new rules and the likes.

So why don't gamers care? Or do they?

Re: Why do Gamers Still Accept Yearly Sports Sequels?
 

Companies do it to make money. It was the norm in the days before DLC and the internet because they needed roster updates. i have no idea why we do. I guess it's because the devs make such a big deal over the new features that come.

Re: Why do Gamers Still Accept Yearly Sports Sequels?
 

Well these days not everyone has internet, plus there's 50-60ish new NBA players added per year, and 200+ NFL players. There is new commentary added for each game, and new content gameplay wise usually. For pro sports I think it's worthwhile to change it every year... I try to imagine if there was no NBA 2k10 or madden 2010, and we had to deal with the 2009 gameplay another year, it'd have been kinda lame. So I don't blame pro sports for doing it.

As for college sports, however, I think those should be every other year. Which is exactly what EA is doing with march madness... but the problem is that March madness sucks, and they need to bring 2k back. So for college basketball they should just stop making games and wait for another 2k game.

Re: Why do Gamers Still Accept Yearly Sports Sequels?
 

I don't buy that though.

There's no rule against patching in features that improve a game. Tons of companies do it. Hell, I still don't think Epic has worked out just how they want Gears of War 2 multiplayer to work 2 years after the game was out.

And again, I realize there are new players, but we have companies that put out gig or two worth of DLC for a single game. This is a single download. And you are telling me that with a graphics engine in place already, EA or 2k couldn't fit new roster members into an update that size?

My whole point is, there are many ways to improve the game on the table right now without releasing yearly sequels. And they can still charge for the DLC and turn a profit.

The only point I will concede is that not everyone has internet, but again if gonna charge for DLC, they can charge for a disc with the content to install on your hard-drive.

Re: Why do Gamers Still Accept Yearly Sports Sequels?
 

Why don't they? I could see a system where DLC would be a viable option, so it's a good question.

Probably because they feel they can charge more by selling a brand new game than they could by selling just an update. Why charge $20-$30 for a DLC update when they could charge $60 for the same thing but as a brand new game? Not to mention, my guess is most sports game players fall into the "casual gamer" realm and so the developers think they are more accustomed to buying things off the shelf rather than downloading updates. But just my guess.

Why do gamers? I don't know, except that they don't know any other way. Or are given any other option.

Re: Why do Gamers Still Accept Yearly Sports Sequels?
 

I'm a big NHL player (EA's NHL) and the Be A Pro mode online is just insane. Not only the best sports game experience I ever had but the best multiplayer experience I ever had, all game types included. And I will gladly pay 60$ per year for the new version.

I don't say that they couldn't improve it with DLC but I don't think that the franchise would evolve as much that way. Having a version every year forces EA to get the game better all the time, more so than with DLC.

Re: Why do Gamers Still Accept Yearly Sports Sequels?
 

Isn't that backwards though?

If you gave them 2 years in between release to really focus on the gameplay and improving the graphics engine. Instead of forcing them pretty much into this cyclical 12 month cycle. Where Madden 11 is out today and sure started work on Madden 12 already.

And holy cow at you coming out of lurker status haha

Re: Why do Gamers Still Accept Yearly Sports Sequels?
 

You have a good point but I think that a game evolves quicker on a yearly basis then over 2 years, but then again, NHL is the only game that I buy every year (excepted for circa 2000-2006 where I had switched for 2K Sports version of NHL)

Hehe yeah, I don't post often but I like to read you guys.

Re: Why do Gamers Still Accept Yearly Sports Sequels?
 

I really do wonder what the development costs are for the projects, since they have so much already done. I assume they could get away with selling cheaper than other games, but why would they?

Re: Why do Gamers Still Accept Yearly Sports Sequels?
 

NHL games tend to revamp gameplay year to year. Like this year's new physics engine!

I don't mind new games each year since NHL is mostly all I play.

Re: Why do Gamers Still Accept Yearly Sports Sequels?
 

Because people buy them. That's why they're still made, and that's why they still sell. People buy them because the majority of people that play sports games generally only play sports games. I would say they make up for 70% of the sports game players and buyers.

Not to say they don't play other games, but still.

Re: Why do Gamers Still Accept Yearly Sports Sequels?
 

The reason it worked in the 90's was that a lot of the teams [for generally every sport] were either moving cities, or new cities were getting teams. Not to mention there was no DLC then.

As for now - people want the updated rosters, and updated everything. The goal of a sports game is to give the best possible immersion into the game itself, while still being fun.

I view each sports game that's ever been released as a better version of the previous. Each one has been improved upon every single year, aside from 'just having new rosters'.

It's like "Why do they release the same cars every year?" Partly because they can because people always want whats new, and partly because they're aiming to make it better.

As for EA's NHL, there is a total revamp of the engine itself, as for new teams, and new modes. That can't be accomplished with DLC alone.

But I will point out that they do release roster updates as DLC. So the draw to buy new sports games isn't solely for new rosters.

Re: Why do Gamers Still Accept Yearly Sports Sequels?
 

From my understanding, most sports games have a 2 year development cycle too.So even though Madden 2011 just came out, it's highly likely that they're starting work on 2013.

I'm not buying Madden this year though, my interest in football games has almost completly died. The NBA 2k games are much more fun. And this thread has gotten me a bit hyped about NHL too lol

Re: Why do Gamers Still Accept Yearly Sports Sequels?
 

Roster updates stop at some point long before the other game is released. FIFA 11 comes out next month, but FIFA 10 hasn't updated rosters in many months, so they are completely out of date for the current MLS season and didn't match the world cup squads either (because they released the World Cup game).

Re: Why do Gamers Still Accept Yearly Sports Sequels?
 

You JUST said it!
Literally 2 sentence before you said they pretty much only play sports games.


How does that work? I was almost certain that the same team worked on every version of the game. Like doesn't EA Tiberon or whatever do Madden?

And to further my point I guess, in the other thread Gearbox just announced new DLC for Borderlands almost a year after the game came out. This will be the 4th DLC pack released for the game, and if memory serves me correct, each was $10 bucks. So for a huge fan of Borderlands, GearBox was able to obtain an additional $40 bucks after the initial 60 dollar purchase.

And they really didn't have to create a whole new game for it. LEt they've added new modes, increased the max level, new enemies, new weapons, new vehicles.

And somehow sports games can't update a roster, add new rules and stuff via DLC. And be on an every other year pattern?