Jackswastedlife

The fundamental problem these microtransaction models have is that they're built on the notion that's ok to do two things:

- Sell Features that Were Previously Free
- Sell an Unchecked Competitive Advantage

The thing is, neither is all that fun for the average gamer.

And yeah, while I get that finding new ways to make money is important, there's definitely a fine line you have to walk if you want to do so without making people want to punch a baby. The problem here comes in when you consider that, at this point, Madden has a massive user base with expectations that are fairly entrenched. As the comments here clearly show, you can’t just go and make changes to that formula without carefully considering how to go about it. Things can and should go wrong when product “enhancements” aren't handled with kid gloves.

In the end, it all comes down to understanding what gamers love about you game, and why they love it.

EA's approach when I was working at Tib in '06 was to "test the waters" to see what people would pay for, and they ended up going the route of "pride" items like alternate uniforms, but the things highlighted in this article represent a radically different philosophy, and they definitely set some troubling precedents for how to gracefully extend a product's potential profits.

While there are some interesting ideas here, the core problem comes down to this:

No one wants to feel like they have to spend a significant amount above and beyond the base pricing model for something that is necessary to a full, fair game experience. For example, I don't want to pay for Online Franchise or a Hard Difficulty in a product that has featured these elements for the better part of a decade. It just doesn’t vibe well with the model they’ve been pushing for so long.

Aside from that basic issue, there's the deeper problem here that merits discussion, and that's the fact I don't want to forced to pay for the ability to compete...or that, conversely, I don't want to know that other folks can just run around doing this while I spend hour after hour trying to actually get good at the game.

I guess a simple way to put it is that I don't want to pay to systematically destroy gameplay checks and balances. If that's how it's gonna go, what's the point?

As a guy with a hectic job and a lot of outside obligations, I get that it's nice to be able to "cheat" past things like retirement, a lack of skill on the sticks or piss-poor play calling — but as a game player and gamer designer, I also get that these elements are ESSENTIAL to a genuine game experience, and you have to be careful to police those things when you make changes of this nature.

If you don't, you're endangering the root of the whole product, and again, clearly a lot of folks think that is a baaaaaad thing.

And trust me, I am right there with 'em. Working on a game that also offers “micro-transactions” to our players, we struggle with the same issues. I won’t get into the ins and outs of our own decisions here, but I will say that the thing we’ve found to be key is to place an importance on how these kinds of changes impact the gamer. There are definitely ways to give consumers the opportunity to make upgrades and add features without ruining the core experience or offending the gamer's sense of fairness.

We'll see where we end up as a product on that front, but given all the hard work that goes into making these games great, you’ve at least gotta try.

It’s not exactly rocket science. It’s just a commitment to approaching these additions like they do any other gameplay feature. That means asking what the feature means to the product, how it changes the game they already have, and how to work it in while maintaining some semblance of balance and fairness to gamers who can't keep up with an endless spend.

If they're not doing that, I hope most gamers have the sense to pass, because otherwise, they will get EXACTLY what they pay for.

Brandon Justice
Design Director, Quick Hit Inc.

While I appreciate the passion and the notion that my nod to the changes in presentation were a bit generous (though I was mainly referring to the half and post-game shows, which I feel are much much sharper), I feel like you're a touch wounded and nit-picking in a vague attempt to put me in my place.

All appologies for upsetting you.

Seriously.

That said, you're obviously somewhat familiar with 2K5, but my humble opinion is that calling gameplay "the same as 2K5" is just plain misleading.

Things like defensive line play, the pocket and its role in gameplay, open-field blocking, mid-game blocking adjustments, double-teams, sideline catches, catches in general, pass defense, momentum related to tackling and player size and pre-tackle momentum, QB AI (evasion, especially), route running (both good and bad), defensive angle AI (again, good and bad), and the general passing mechanic...they're markedly better than they were in 2K5, both in their level of realim and in the way they play.

What's more, those all shine in ways their counterparts in both 2K5 and Madden 07 never did. Maybe those things aren't "football" to you and that's cool, but it seems like you're not really giving credit where it' due. Not because you don't like football games, but because you're more focused on slamming small bits of the game for effect and mocking my typos.

That stuff is funny, but doesn't make that article or the shoddy reviews I'm reading any less annoying.

; - )


p.s. - The player differentiation models I was referring to are not player sizes, I mean the additional mechanics added to help convey different player types ("abilities"). Not to mention how the game is once again centered around its talent pool, not a bunch of exploits - though I'm sure there's debate on that topic.

After spending the last two evenings with the product, calling the gameplay a copy-paste is either some marketing stooge's idea of guerrilla marketing or the observation of a causal football fan or someone who has yet to play the game.

Nearly every aspect of the game (aside from its problematic player swapping code) has been redone. The core movement model, the animation blending system, the core mechanics on the offensive and defensive line, the player differentiation models across positions, the open-field blocking code, the animation and gameplay systems behind tackling, the DB AI, the passing game, the running game's internal systems, the commentary, the presentation system, and many other aspects have all undergone heavy revisions that are, with the exception of the new kick meter, revolutionary additions to the sport in video gaming.

If you'd like more details, feel free to ping me, but that comment is a bit misinformed, in my opinion.

Agreed. Much like the 1up review itself (which was based on a retail copy less than 48 hours after the game shipped - this shows in the review), I have to wonder what the rush was for this article.