PDA

View Full Version : And It Has Begun... (EA serves notice in Madden anti-trust suit)



CLW
04-06-2011, 08:24 PM
E-Mail I received today:


EOFFREY PECOVER and ANDREW OWENS v. ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.
U.S. District Court (N.D. Cal. - Oakland Div.)
Case No. 08-cv-02820 CW

If You Purchased Certain Electronic Arts Brand Football Video Games
Between January 1, 2005 to the Present
You May Be a Class Member.

Membership as a class member in the Electronic Arts Litigation is the result of a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland Division (Case No. 08-cv-02820 CW).

What Is This Class Action About?
The class action lawsuit alleges violations of California's antitrust and consumer protection laws in connection with the sale of certain football video games. Plaintiffs, purchasers of Electronic Arts' football video games, claim that Defendant Electronic Arts entered into a series of exclusive licenses with the National Football League (NFL), National Football League Players' Association (NFLPA), National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA), and Arena Football League (AFL), which Plaintiffs claim foreclosed competition in an alleged football video game market. Plaintiffs allege that this series of exclusive licenses caused customers who purchased certain football video games to be overcharged.
Defendant Electronic Arts has denied any liability and all allegations of misconduct. The Court has not decided whether the Defendants did anything wrong, and this Notice is not an expression of any opinion by the Court about the merits of any of the claims or defenses asserted by any party to this litigation.

Who Are Class Members?
The Class includes all persons who, during the period January 1, 2005 to the present, purchased the Madden NFL, NCAA Football, or Arena Football League brand video games published by Electronic Arts with a release date of January 1, 2005 to the present. Excluded from the class are purchasers of software for mobile devices, persons purchasing directly from Electronic Arts, persons purchasing used copies of the relevant football video games, and Electronic Arts' employees, officers, directors, legal representatives, and wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or affiliated companies.

What Should I Do? (Getting Further Information)
If you believe that you may be a class member (see above "Who Are Class Members"), you should get more detailed information about the class action and its potential effect on you and your rights. Further information can be obtained by going to the following website: www.easportslitigation.com. Additional information about the lawsuit may be obtained from Plaintiffs' Counsel website at www.hbsslaw.com, or by calling Plaintiffs' Counsel at 1-206-623-7292.

To Remain a Class Member
If you are a class member and you do nothing, you will be bound by the court's rulings in the lawsuit, including any final Settlement or Judgment.

To Exclude Yourself from the Class
(Deadline to Request Exclusion: June 25, 2011)
If you are a class member and you want to exclude yourself from the class and keep your right to sue Defendant, you must take further action before June 25, 2011. By that date, you must request exclusion in writing to this address:
Electronic Arts Litigation Exclusion
P.O. Box 8090
San Rafael CA 94912-8090

Or submit a request for exclusion electronically at the following website: www.easportslitigation.com

For further information about excluding yourself from the class go to the following website:
www.easportslitigation.com

Please do not telephone or address inquiries to the Court.
April 6, 2011. By Order of the U.S. District Court (N.D. Cal. - Oakland Div.).

:smh:

Coachdenz
04-06-2011, 08:25 PM
yep just seen that in my inbox as well.

CLW
04-06-2011, 08:44 PM
yep just seen that in my inbox as well.

i'm seriously EMBARRASSED to be a lawyer. the jokes used to be funny but in the past few years we have become the jokes and society just keeps feeding the beast. every ill in this world is someone else's fault and they must pay.

gschwendt
04-06-2011, 08:47 PM
What's sad is that they don't seem to realize the facts A) NBA 2k10 was $60 despite having competition and B) APF 2K8 was $60. I'm not sure what they think they'll even accomplish out of this.

CLW
04-06-2011, 08:49 PM
What's sad is that they don't seem to realize the facts A) NBA 2k10 was $60 despite having competition and B) APF 2K8 was $60. I'm not sure what they think they'll even accomplish out of this.

SIMPLE. Run up EA's legal fees which will be in the millions. EA can either eat that cost and fight (and likely lose out there in wacky liberal land of CA) or pay them the defense cost (or slightly less). The plaintiffs lawyers take their 1/3 (likely millions) and each of the "class" gets $50 bucks.

morsdraconis
04-06-2011, 09:18 PM
I quickly deleted that garbage. What a fuckin' joke...

baseballplyrmvp
04-06-2011, 10:38 PM
i'm not understanding this entirely....was this email made in an effort to get us to join sam keller's side?

gschwendt
04-06-2011, 10:41 PM
i'm not understanding this entirely....was this email made in an effort to get us to join sam keller's side?
Totally different lawsuit. This one is by other guys that are mad because on last gen, 2K sports games were much cheaper ($30 I think) while EA's were the standard $50. They are assuming that if competition were still intact and 2K were to make a football game, then they would charge less than the industry standard $60.

JeffHCross
04-06-2011, 10:47 PM
Totally different lawsuit. This one is by other guys that are mad because on last gen, 2K sports games were much cheaper ($30 I think) while EA's were the standard $50. They are assuming that if competition were still intact and 2K were to make a football game, then they would charge less than the industry standard $60.Worse. That was only for one, maybe two, years. Every other year 2k's game was full price, just like EA's. They're taking the last year of competition -- 2004 -- and assuming that it was the beginning of a trend, rather than a one-off.

Here's Pasta's break down of the claims (http://www.pastapadre.com/2010/12/27/class-action-lawsuit-still-little-threat-to-madden-or-exclusive-licenses) from December

cdj
04-06-2011, 11:41 PM
Also, here is GameSpot's article from today (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6307274.html) on the matter.

I OU a Beatn
04-07-2011, 04:02 AM
I, for one, am thrilled to hear this is finally happening. They have absolutely no chance in Hell of winning, but it's about damn time someone called EA out on their bullshit when it comes to football games. It's been a long time coming as you can not continually pump out minimally improved games year after year after year, especially when you have an exclusive license...and except to not piss anyone off. Hopefully it gets them off their asses and gives them a little motivation to develop something as good as they were able to do during the PS2 days.

EA Sports and Activision are the two huge jokes this generation. The difference? I can buy a good shooter somewhere else if theirs sucks. I've been forced to play below average quality football games for over 4 years now. They either need to step it up and listen to the people who know what they're talking about, or get rid of the exclusive license and let someone else try. There's NO excuse as to why the same things are broken year in and year out.

steelerfan
04-07-2011, 02:24 PM
Really?

:facepalm:

I OU a Beatn
04-07-2011, 03:31 PM
On another note, I didn't even get the email. :(

Solidice
04-07-2011, 08:09 PM
it was also posted on the NCAAFB site.

http://www.ea.com/ncaa-football/blog/ncaa-litigation

JeffHCross
04-07-2011, 10:28 PM
I, for one, am thrilled to hear this is finally happening. They have absolutely no chance in Hell of winning, but it's about damn time someone called EA out on their bullshit when it comes to football games.Look at the suit again. They're not suing because of quality or anything like that. They're suing because Madden and NCAA are the same price as every other game. Which isn't the same thing as not saying it's worth that much. Basically they're accusing EA of price-gouging. Which is completely different from using an exclusive license to lower quality, which is your argument.

Besides, it's not the first time EA's been sued, so "finally" is a little melodramatic, lol.

NatureBoy
04-07-2011, 11:00 PM
If I were the judge on this case, I would rip these guys a new a-hole in wasting the court's time with such nonsense.

I OU a Beatn
04-07-2011, 11:21 PM
Look at the suit again. They're not suing because of quality or anything like that. They're suing because Madden and NCAA are the same price as every other game. Which isn't the same thing as not saying it's worth that much. Basically they're accusing EA of price-gouging. Which is completely different from using an exclusive license to lower quality, which is your argument.

Besides, it's not the first time EA's been sued, so "finally" is a little melodramatic, lol.

Doesn't matter, they have no chance of winning regardless of the complaint. I just thoroughly enjoy when someone calls them out on the bullshit that they've been pulling.

Oh well, like I said before, a lawsuit isn't going to make a difference. However, that hit they took in sales last year with NCAA Football may have been enough to send a message. It still baffles me that we're approaching our 5th iteration of NCAA Football on this generation of consoles and we're still missing key features that were prevalent on hardware with much lower abilities.

JeffHCross
04-07-2011, 11:27 PM
I just thoroughly enjoy when someone calls them out on the bullshit that they've been pulling.Except they're ... not. The only ones pulling bullshit regarding this complaint are the actual complainants.

I OU a Beatn
04-08-2011, 12:28 AM
If you read the complaint, it basically says that we're getting overcharged year in and year out because of exclusivity. Obviously, that would not happen unless customers were upset with how the game is being developed. I realize none of you are going to understand where I'm coming from, but none of you play online competitively against other human players, which is where the game is truly broken.

I've paid the same $60 the past however many years only to find out that the main portion of the game that I bought it for...the online...is pretty much unplayable. On numerous occasions, I've listed about 10 game breaking issues for each iteration of the game, so I'm not going to go into detail as to how it's broken.

BUT, from that aspect, it IS because of exclusivity that players like myself are indeed getting overcharged. I'm basically paying $60 for a game that doesn't function as it should.

JBHuskers
04-08-2011, 09:14 AM
Really?

:facepalm:

:fp:

Jayrah
04-08-2011, 12:11 PM
If you read the complaint, it basically says that we're getting overcharged year in and year out because of exclusivity. Obviously, that would not happen unless customers were upset with how the game is being developed. I realize none of you are going to understand where I'm coming from, but none of you play online competitively against other human players, which is where the game is truly broken.

I've paid the same $60 the past however many years only to find out that the main portion of the game that I bought it for...the online...is pretty much unplayable. On numerous occasions, I've listed about 10 game breaking issues for each iteration of the game, so I'm not going to go into detail as to how it's broken.

BUT, from that aspect, it IS because of exclusivity that players like myself are indeed getting overcharged. I'm basically paying $60 for a game that doesn't function as it should.

But....we're not getting overcharged. It's the same price as every other crappy game out there, and great game out there?

I OU a Beatn
04-08-2011, 12:19 PM
You're missing the point. Call of Duty is a shitty game, but I'm not forced to to buy it to get my fix for a FPS. Where else am I supposed to get my football fix since they have the exclusive rights to make the game and no one else can? That's the entire point.

The point of it is very simply that they have a lock on an entire genre, and they're not producing sufficient quality of products to cater to certain people. Those people are going to buy the game anyway because it's the only place they can get a football game, and if it continues lacking in quality, then yes, it should be lowered in price.

JBHuskers
04-08-2011, 12:25 PM
You're missing the point. Call of Duty is a shitty game, but I'm not forced to to buy it to get my fix for a FPS. NCAA Football, IMO, is a shitty game...but where else am I supposed to get my football fix since they have the exclusive rights to make the game and no one else can? That's the entire point. They've had the exclusive rights for years and they've abused it. Just like the bullshit I can tell they're going to pull this year. They released a blog 2 or 3 weeks ago about the improvements to grass. GRASS! Where's my line interaction improvement? Where's my zone defense improvement? Where's my run blocking improvement? Where's my defensive pursuit AI improvement?

The point of it is very simply that they have a lock on an entire genre, and they're not producing sufficient quality of products to cater to certain people. Those people are going to buy the game anyway because it's the only place they can get a football game, and if it continues lacking in quality, then yes, it should be lowered in price.

In regards to your first paragraph, there is still THREE+ months til release.

JBHuskers
04-08-2011, 12:34 PM
In regards to the 2nd paragraph, it's a difference of opinion. Or as Lebowski says, that's just your opinion, man.

CLW
04-08-2011, 12:42 PM
In re: this "argument"

#1 I agree with IOU that the exclusive license has been a bad deal for us as consumers. Competition/choice/free markets ALWAYS lead to better products for us the consumer. I do disagree with 11. It is not PERFECT by any stretch of the imagination but I have found it ENJOYABLE to play.

#2 However, what EA/NCAA/NFL done is totally legal and they have every right to make/license their intellectual property to only one company (EA). EA is very smart for making sure it is the only supplier by paying the NCAA/NFL for the exclusive license rights.

#3 The answer for us as consumers isn't in the courts. Rather, if you don't like EA's product do not buy it. If enough people hold the view EA will either improve the product or eventually lose $ and drop the license which will allow a new company to come into the fold. I did not buy 09 or 10 b/c I hated the demo and rented the retail version first and concluded the game was not enjoyable for me. IMHO 11 was a marked improvement and I deemed the game worthy of $60 from my disposable income.

Each of us has the power to decide for ourselves and the chips will fall where they may.

I OU a Beatn
04-08-2011, 12:51 PM
In regards to your first paragraph, there is still THREE+ months til release.

This is true, and trust me, I'm definitely not condemning it yet. I'll buy it like I do every year, but it does annoy me when I see stuff like Season Showdown and the perfection of grass being implemented when there's issues with the actual game play.

steelerfan
04-08-2011, 12:56 PM
NCAA Football, IMO, is a shitty game

Why is it that you belong to this site? If you hate the game so much, what's the point? I'm not trying to be an ass, but I have never understood this logic. I love football (I assume you do too), I think the Cleveland Browns put out a consistently "shitty" product. I'm sure there are a ton of Cleveland Browns Football forums, but I don't join them.


but where else am I supposed to get my football fix since they have the exclusive rights to make the game and no one else can?



Wrong. No one else can get NCAA or NFL licensing, but anyone can make a football game. The "People's Champion", Backbreaker, showed the world how easy it is to make a football game. What a great game that was! :rolleyes:


Just like the bullshit I can tell they're going to pull this year. They released a blog 2 or 3 weeks ago about the improvements to grass. GRASS!

I'm still amazed that people who have been part of the community for years try to pretend that they have no idea how EA releases game improvements and/or new features. The small stuff comes first. You are not that stupid.


The point of it is very simply that they have a lock on an entire genre, and they're not producing sufficient quality of products to cater to certain people. Those people are going to buy the game anyway because it's the only place they can get a football game, and if it continues lacking in quality, then yes, it should be lowered in price.

:fp: No game will ever satisfy everyone, and no one is forcing anybody to buy anything.

steelerfan
04-08-2011, 01:04 PM
This is true, and trust me, I'm definitely not condemning it yet. I'll buy it like I do every year, but it does annoy me when I see stuff like Season Showdown and the perfection of grass being implemented when there's issues with the actual game play.

Do you realize that there are different people who have different areas of the game they work on? The "grass guy" doesn't have anything to do with game play. Read the credits sometime, lol. In your logic, the guy who made the grass look better shouldn't do anything at work until the game play guy gets his area up to your standards.

I OU a Beatn
04-08-2011, 01:31 PM
I don't have hate for the game. Between '04 and '07 on PS2, I played well over 2,000 online games. I think I've earned by right to provide feedback about where they have gone erroneous when it comes to developing on this generation of systems. That's precisely why I'm a member of a lot of NCAA Football sites. Feedback, if read and taken into consideration, is often times the difference between a bad game and a good game.

First of all, I want a true experience. I want to play with real college teams with real college rosters. Second of all, Backbreaker was an abortion. I'm not one of these people who just bashes EA for the sake of bashing them. If it's a bad game, I'm going to give my feedback on it, and from the time I spent on BB, it was terrible and not worth the $20 I spent on it.

Apparently I am that stupid. I've been waiting 5 years for improved line interaction and has never happened, so I have to assume it's not going to happen at all. Did you play online last year? The zone defense was so bad that you were basically conceding a touchdown just by picking a zone defense. Man defense was TOO good. The DB knew the route and would cut in front of the wide receiver before they patched it, which only made things marginally better. I have no problem whatsoever with them implementing small features like grass, season showdown, or whatever. HOWEVER, when there are BLATANT issues with the game play then they need to be addressed first and foremost.

The logic of "no game will satisfy everyone" works with shooters. It does NOT apply to football or sports games. If it's developed the way it should be developed, then everyone who enjoys the sport should enjoy the game, and there is no bigger college football fan than myself. It's because of my love for college football that I'm upset with how the game has been developed. I want to run a spread option offense, but I can't, because the run blocking from shotgun is 100% useless. I want to be able to run a zone blitz scheme, but can't, because zone defense doesn't even remotely work.

I mean, I know 99% of the members on this site don't play online competitively against random players, but I have since online was incorporated in '04. It worked great in '04. It worked great in '05. It worked great in '06, and it worked great in '07. As soon as they made the jump to this generation of consoles, there were a ton of problems and they still haven't been able to fix them. It's missing the balance that existed during the last generation of consoles. If you want the list of issues wrong with the game, I'll gladly post it for the 12th time. Either that, or just go play online and you'll quickly realize the problems that exist.

Yes, I'm fully aware that they have different teams. It makes no difference. Whenever a game has problems in the core game play and ANY team is focusing on grass, it's going to get on my nerves.

steelerfan
04-08-2011, 02:57 PM
Feedback, if read and taken into consideration, is often times the difference between a bad game and a good game.

That's true. If it's contructive. Saying "NCAA is a shitty game" is not the best way to get your voice heard though. It's doubtful IMHO that being a vocal supporter of lawsuits against EA is the best approach to having feedback be taken into consideration. I don't play Madden anymore. The last Madden I bought was 09. I speak up about what I think needs to be done with Madden, but I don't come in here and say "Madden is a shitty game, it's about time someone sued them". I just don't buy it.


Second of all, Backbreaker was an abortion.

Agreed. Maybe programming a football game isn't so easy after all.


Did you play online last year?

Yes, and you have reasonable opinions. We'll see what 12 is like. I don't play randoms though. Shooters and sports games can't be treated the same. Randoms will ruin any sports game, if you subject yourself to them.


If it's developed the way it should be developed, then everyone who enjoys the sport should enjoy the game

How doesn't this apply to shooters? If it's developed properly, and you like the genre, shouldn't you enjoy it?


The logic of "no game will satisfy everyone" works with shooters. It does NOT apply to football or sports games.

Remind me which game, in the history of video games, has satisfied everyone.



I have no problem whatsoever with them implementing small features like grass, season showdown, or whatever. HOWEVER, when there are BLATANT issues with the game play then they need to be addressed first and foremost...... Yes, I'm fully aware that they have different teams. It makes no difference. Whenever a game has problems in the core game play and ANY team is focusing on grass, it's going to get on my nerves.

So, because the first thing they released were visual improvements, you KNOW for a fact that no one is touching game play? Have you ever stopped to consider that the game is a WIP? It's not a finished product waiting to be shipped in July. I would venture to say that screenshots are released first because video would show an incomplete game (particularly from an AI/game play perspective). Would it make sense to put out a screenshot and say "We fixed zone coverage!"?

Again, graphics people don't work on making the game play better, they make it look better. So you'd like the art guys, who may or may not know enough about football to program game play, to fix game play? Or would you prefer that the game look exactly the same forever, and they just fire the guy who made the grass look better?

I OU a Beatn
04-08-2011, 03:24 PM
For years I've watched a large number of people given constructive feedback to EA about legitimate issues surrounding the game, and they constantly get ignored. I'm 99% sure I know why, but it does not legitimize the fact that it's still broken. I would bet any amount of money that the problems that exist today(bad zone defense, bad line interaction, bad run blocking from shotgun, overpowered psychic man defense, poor defense pursuit angles, etc..) are issues with the engine they're using. It's the only thing that makes sense. It worked extremely well past generation and hasn't work yet on this generation and they're in their 6th year to attempt to correct it. I can't help but think all these issues are because of the engine being used and that they're not going to be fixed until a new engine is made. If they would just come out and say it instead of ignoring it, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Never said it was easy. They had no problem making amazing games with NCAA Football '04-'07 on PS2, so I'm confident they have the ability.

Normally I would agree, but these aren't issues being taken advantage of by random players. I'm about a sim as they come and it's kind of hard to not abuse the issues. Just like when someone runs a zone defense. What am I supposed to do? Not throw the wide open post route and take a sack? Watch any video on youtube. There is literally one, maybe two stops a game defensively combined, and that's because of flaws in the defense that have existed in every game this generation. Some of it has to do with when the ball is on the hash marks, and some of it has to do with bad AI and play design, but it still needs fixed. Online is basically unplayable because of it.

Just like how powerful toss plays and outside running plays are. It's not because the person calling them is good, it's because the defensive AI is not tuned correctly to pursue the ball at the correct angle. It's a flaw in design. There's a million other things that come into play. I can identify these extremely easy because I've played on the tournament scene and I know what players look to exploit when the game comes out. If EA wants a successful game, they'll fix them.

It doesn't apply to shooters because each shooter is a bit different. The controls are different, the animations are different, different perks, different maps, etc...You can like one shooter and hate the other. Football games shouldn't be like that. If they're made to be realistic and there's not glaring bugs, seemingly everyone who likes football should enjoy the game.

No game has, no game ever will. However, like I said, if it's developed correctly and plays as it should, then everyone who likes college football should enjoy the game.

I used to have the mentality that you do in your last 2 paragraphs. I used to sit there when the first screenshot was released and think "this is going to be the year they get it right." I've done that for 5 years now, and I've been burned every single year. '08 was the rocket catch and super effective man blitzes. '09 was the complete lack of a pass rush. '10 was the year where the pass rush still sucked and it was impossible to play online because Quarter defense could shut down the pass and the power run all at once. '11 was the year where man defense knew your route, where running plays on the edge were near unstoppable, where zone defense is putrid, and for the 3rd year in a row...it was the lack of pass rush and blitzes.

I don't judge a game until I play it. I'm voicing my opinion with 100% legitimate issues and I've yet to see anyone prove to me that the issues I'm mentioning aren't legitimate issues. If EA were to release a game that is as good as I expect it to be, I'd be the first to sing their praise, just like I did back on the PS2 days. However, as long as there are legitimate issues negatively impacting the result of the game, I feel the need to give them feedback on it.

steelerfan
04-08-2011, 04:15 PM
I would bet any amount of money that the problems that exist today(bad zone defense, bad line interaction, bad run blocking from shotgun, overpowered psychic man defense, poor defense pursuit angles, etc..) are issues with the engine they're using.

How about making a nice donation to TGT if they fix any of those things this year, lol.

I fully agree that there are issues with the AI, don't misunderstand. I just take exception when someone blasts EA and gloats about them getting sued. If I wanted to be a part of that kind of forum, I would still be at the one I was at for almost 10 years before this one started. I like TGT's vision of wanting to provide feedback in a way that EA will be receptive to. With the history of the admins of this site, I have no doubt that they know how to get feedback to EA. When I see that other sites are directing people to TGT for things like band locations and the use of cannons etc. it leads me to believe that there is an organized direction for that happening. I want to be part of a forum that can get my opinions to EA. When someone puts their frustration ahead of the vision of this forum, and thereby puts my ability to have my feedback heard at risk, I go on the defensive. I won't stand by and let anyone sour EA's relationship with TGT.

From TGT's guidelines....


- With the ability for instant feedback on the internet and the relatively new policy by EA Sports allowing/encouraging members of the development team to post on community sites, The Gaming Tailgate will encourage and work towards making this site welcome for dev team members. For the vast majority in the NCAA Football community, they want to have this direct line of feedback. Any members who put their individual bias above the goals of the site and community will not be welcome.

morsdraconis
04-08-2011, 04:27 PM
I'm a negative-nancy too when it comes to EA and their video game creation process and I agree that, while it sucks that time is being spent on items that I will never use or don't really care about (Season Showdown, "prettier" grass, Mascots, Cannon locations, Band locations, etc) and I think that any type of resources (no matter how small) being used on those aspects of the game would be better spent getting a gameplay aspect to work as it should work (aka as close to real life as possible), I also understand that, sadly, I'm not the main target audience for their football video games. I want as real as possible (even if that means only having 1.5 to 2 seconds to throw the ball before getting creamed by the pass rush) but not everyone would enjoy that for what it was so, therefore, there has to be some compromise on both ends.

steelerfan
04-08-2011, 04:43 PM
Just to make sure I'm clear on what I mean, I have no problem with constructive criticism. I have criticized parts of every version of NCAA ever produced. NCAA 11 is far from perfect, but it's closer than 10 was. Hopefully 12 will be closer than 11. I just want this forum to continue to be a "friendly" place for the developers of NCAA. They can handle feedback, they can handle criticism. I don't expect them to read through posts bashing them or saying their work is "shitty" just to try and find the constructive posts. Please don't mistake me for someone who will not call a spade a spade. I absolutely will. But, I make every effort to say things in a way that I would be willing to have someone criticize my work. If someone called my work "shitty" and was happy I had a lawsuit brought against me, I wouldn't give a fuck what they thought I could be doing better.

I OU a Beatn
04-08-2011, 05:00 PM
How about making a nice donation to TGT if they fix any of those things this year, lol.

I fully agree that there are issues with the AI, don't misunderstand. I just take exception when someone blasts EA and gloats about them getting sued. If I wanted to be a part of that kind of forum, I would still be at the one I was at for almost 10 years before this one started. I like TGT's vision of wanting to provide feedback in a way that EA will be receptive to. With the history of the admins of this site, I have no doubt that they know how to get feedback to EA. When I see that other sites are directing people to TGT for things like band locations and the use of cannons etc. it leads me to believe that there is an organized direction for that happening. I want to be part of a forum that can get my opinions to EA. When someone puts their frustration ahead of the vision of this forum, and thereby puts my ability to have my feedback heard at risk, I go on the defensive. I won't stand by and let anyone sour EA's relationship with TGT.

From TGT's guidelines....

I'm not letting my frustration get in the way of anything. You're not going to see me cussing and calling out people for their beliefs. I also don't see how I would put the site in jeopardy of not being heard when I'm stating issues that they've heard before. The issues I'm pointing out are nothing new, and they've been pointed out by hundreds of people before me.

Like I said before, the only thing I want is a functional game that works the way it should. As soon as they are able to do that, I'll be the first one to say "good job." But until they get to that point, users like myself who play the game are going to have to provide feedback so that they know what we want and what's wrong with what they have.


I'm a negative-nancy too when it comes to EA and their video game creation process and I agree that, while it sucks that time is being spent on items that I will never use or don't really care about (Season Showdown, "prettier" grass, Mascots, Cannon locations, Band locations, etc) and I think that any type of resources (no matter how small) being used on those aspects of the game would be better spent getting a gameplay aspect to work as it should work (aka as close to real life as possible), I also understand that, sadly, I'm not the main target audience for their football video games. I want as real as possible (even if that means only having 1.5 to 2 seconds to throw the ball before getting creamed by the pass rush) but not everyone would enjoy that for what it was so, therefore, there has to be some compromise on both ends.

Bingo. As with virtually all games these days, developers are starting to develop games with the casual players in mind rather than the "hardcore" players who have been supporting their products for years. It's a little less of an issue in sports games because it can still provide a realistic and fun experience. EA just hasn't got NCAA to that level yet where it is a fun experience for those players seeking a truly realistic experience.


Just to make sure I'm clear on what I mean, I have no problem with constructive criticism. I have criticized parts of every version of NCAA ever produced. NCAA 11 is far from perfect, but it's closer than 10 was. Hopefully 12 will be closer than 11. I just want this forum to continue to be a "friendly" place for the developers of NCAA. They can handle feedback, they can handle criticism. I don't expect them to read through posts bashing them or saying their work is "shitty" just to try and find the constructive posts. Please don't mistake me for someone who will not call a spade a spade. I absolutely will. But, I make every effort to say things in a way that I would be willing to have someone criticize my work. If someone called my work "shitty" and was happy I had a lawsuit brought against me, I wouldn't give a fuck what they thought I could be doing better.

It's not like they even need to follow a whole ton of feedback.


Zone defense needs improved
Man defense needs improved(improving it does not mean programming the AI to know the route)
Run blocking from shotgun needs improved
Timing on hand off in Shotgun needs improved
Defensive pursuit AI needs tuned to better recognize an outside run
Better blitz AI. Blitzes rarely ever get home, and when they do, it takes way too long
Improve the pass rush. It's been improved over '10, but it's still way too ineffective


If they were to fix those things, I'd instantly shut up. Unfortunately, save for the zone defense and man defense(they take turns being bad some years and good the others), they have been issues with every single game they've released.

steelerfan
04-08-2011, 05:26 PM
I, for one, am thrilled to hear this is finally happening.
it's about damn time someone called EA out on their bullshit when it comes to football games.
Hopefully it gets them off their asses and gives them a little motivation to develop something as good as they were able to do during the PS2 days.
EA Sports and Activision are the two huge jokes this generation.
I just thoroughly enjoy when someone calls them out on the bullshit that they've been pulling.
NCAA Football, IMO, is a shitty game


I'm not letting my frustration get in the way of anything.

Well you certainly fooled me.

I OU a Beatn
04-08-2011, 05:38 PM
I don't see how it's frustration when it's the truth. :D

It would probably be frustration if I actually made myself continually play it when I didn't enjoy it, but I don't. With NCAA '08-'11, I've bought the game on release day and simply traded it in towards Madden when the time rolled out. I refuse to be frustrated all the time simply because a game is not made how I expect it to be made. Life is way too short to waste it away being frustrated over a game.

FYI, I went ahead and edited out every thing I've said that I did not consider to be constructive before your last post, so considering it's pretty obvious we're never going to agree, there's really no point in continuing this argument. Your perspective is from one that is mostly against the CPU and maybe some online dynasties against players you know, while mine is strictly from an online perspective where I'm playing random people or whoever wants to play and even tournaments. You're not going to see the issues that I see, and considering I haven't played the CPU since '05 on PS2, my lone solution would be for EA to fix the issues that exist.

steelerfan
04-08-2011, 07:33 PM
Your perspective is from one that is mostly against the CPU and maybe some online dynasties against players you know, while mine is strictly from an online perspective where I'm playing random people or whoever wants to play and even tournaments. You're not going to see the issues that I see, and considering I haven't played the CPU since '05 on PS2, my lone solution would be for EA to fix the issues that exist.

I agree with you, for the most part, about the issues you've listed, and, yes, I've seen them. I'm sure I've commented on most/all of them on this forum. I just believe that how you say something is as important as what you say. I spent a good 4 or 5 years on NCAA forums wishing EA would listen to our ideas. Now that the community has their attention, I want to make sure I do my part to get my message across without making any developer think "any therapist would advise against me reading this hateful nonsense, screw these people and their opinions."

ram29jackson
04-08-2011, 07:54 PM
ultimately, video games are over priced. They should be no worse than maybe $39.99 new

JeffHCross
04-08-2011, 07:56 PM
You're missing the point. Call of Duty is a shitty game, but I'm not forced to to buy it to get my fix for a FPS. Where else am I supposed to get my football fix since they have the exclusive rights to make the game and no one else can? That's the entire point.No, it's not. That's not the argument they're making. That may be the argument you want them to make, but that's not what they're arguing.

They're arguing that EA entered into exclusive agreements with the NFL, NCAA, etc, and solely because of those agreements, they now charge $60. They're ignoring that every other year of the PS2 generation, Madden and NCAA both cost $50. They're ignoring that every other game out there costs $60. They're ignoring that NBA, NHL and MLB games, which have competition (or at least have recently), cost $60.

They are saying nothing about bang for buck or quality. They're accusing price-gouging.

You want to argue that the game isn't as good, dollar for dollar, as the previous generation? Fine by me. I might even agree with you to an extent. But that's not what the suit is arguing.


Remind me which game, in the history of video games, has satisfied everyone.I, for one, have never heard a negative comment about Pac-Man. Or the Turtles arcade game.

JBHuskers
04-08-2011, 08:03 PM
Once again in regards to grass, bands and cannons...a COMPLETELY separate set of developers, programmers, etc. do these from gameplay.....COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

steelerfan
04-08-2011, 08:17 PM
I, for one, have never heard a negative comment about Pac-Man. Or the Turtles arcade game.

I hate Pac-Man. I've never heard of Turtles.

morsdraconis
04-08-2011, 08:27 PM
Once again in regards to grass, bands and cannons...a COMPLETELY separate set of developers, programmers, etc. do these from gameplay.....COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

This we know JB. But why couldn't those assets be used on something else with different developers, programmers, etc? I mean, they're still WAY far away in the presentation aspect from where they could be (there's no doubt about that) but spending those resources on little things to upgrade the presentation instead of pooling those resources towards a ginormous increase in presentation just doesn't make any sense to me. Why spend all that time on small things (grass, bands, cannons, etc) instead of taking all the time spent on those little things and upgrading the visual presentation for dynasty aspects (creating a more in depth offseason setup), or something else a bit more substantial?

Again, it just seems to me that their modus operandi is a bunch of little things that all add up to a bunch of nothing.

JeffHCross
04-08-2011, 08:32 PM
Why spend all that time on small things (grass, bands, cannons, etc) instead of taking all the time spent on those little things and upgrading the visual presentation for dynasty aspects (creating a more in depth offseason setup), or something else a bit more substantial?
Nothing outside of the first blog post, which talked about HDR and the grass, has been officially announced, not even cannons. Well, except the highlighted new plays, I guess. There's still plenty of time for announcements.


I've never heard of Turtles.I'm guessing you just didn't put three other words in front of it.
http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/resources/2007/03/TMNTArcadegame.jpg

steelerfan
04-08-2011, 08:35 PM
I'm guessing you just didn't put three other words in front of it.

Actually, you didn't. :P

I never played the arcade version of TMNT. I wasn't crazy about the NES version though.

JBHuskers
04-08-2011, 08:38 PM
This we know JB. But why couldn't those assets be used on something else with different developers, programmers, etc? I mean, they're still WAY far away in the presentation aspect from where they could be (there's no doubt about that) but spending those resources on little things to upgrade the presentation instead of pooling those resources towards a ginormous increase in presentation just doesn't make any sense to me. Why spend all that time on small things (grass, bands, cannons, etc) instead of taking all the time spent on those little things and upgrading the visual presentation for dynasty aspects (creating a more in depth offseason setup), or something else a bit more substantial?

Again, it just seems to me that their modus operandi is a bunch of little things that all add up to a bunch of nothing.

Each game has a budget in the development cycle. So taking someone away from presentation and adding someone to gameplay a) really doesn't help things anyways and b) is more expensive. The gaming development world just doesn't work that way. If you take away everything else and focus on one area, that isn't going to give them anything to market. You, Mors and Beatn are the lowest common denominator when it comes to how they market and make the game profitable. If they market to the lowest common denominator, you end up developing a game like Backbreaker and only sell 60k copies. In order to get the things that we have wanted over the years, the game has to be profitable, in order for the game to be profitable, it has to be marketed to the widest spectrum of an audience.

Now you're making a completely different argument with the comparison with dynasty aspects instead of the argument of gameplay from before. The budget cost for an entire visual presentation over is going to be pretty high. So is the risk of breaking things. So making these minor adjustments into what is already a great presentation is probably the smartest way to go about working with your budget.

I OU a Beatn
04-08-2011, 08:43 PM
I know what they're suing for. It's stupid on their part and they have no chance of winning. I've said that numerous times. If they had any sense they would've used the angle I'm coming from, which probably wouldn't have gotten anywhere, either...but it at least makes more sense.

I OU a Beatn
04-08-2011, 08:47 PM
Each game has a budget in the development cycle. So taking someone away from presentation and adding someone to gameplay a) really doesn't help things anyways and b) is more expensive. The gaming development world just doesn't work that way. If you take away everything else and focus on one area, that isn't going to give them anything to market. You, Mors and Beatn are the lowest common denominator when it comes to how they market and make the game profitable. If they market to the lowest common denominator, you end up developing a game like Backbreaker and only sell 60k copies. In order to get the things that we have wanted over the years, the game has to be profitable, in order for the game to be profitable, it has to be marketed to the widest spectrum of an audience.

Now you're making a completely different argument with the comparison with dynasty aspects instead of the argument of gameplay from before. The budget cost for an entire visual presentation over is going to be pretty high. So is the risk of breaking things. So making these minor adjustments into what is already a great presentation is probably the smartest way to go about working with your budget.

I don't completely buy that. The games on PS2 didn't have the issues that I listed earlier, so I don't think it's really that hard to program correctly. Like I said, I'm more or less sold on the fact that they are issues with the engine and outside of creating an entirely different engine(which they're obviously not going to do), they're not really sure how to take care of them. The AI is what needs the work, and as soon as they get that solved, they're on the road to having themselves a great game. Good AI is a benefit to casual, hardcore, and all players alike, so it should be near the top of their agenda as far as I'm concerned.

JBHuskers
04-08-2011, 08:48 PM
I don't completely buy that. The games on PS2 didn't have the issues that I listed earlier, so I don't think it's really that hard to program correctly. Like I said, I'm more or less sold on the fact that they are issues with the engine and outside of creating an entirely different engine(which they're obviously not going to do), they're not really sure how to take care of them. The AI is what needs the work, and as soon as they get that solved, they're on the road to having themselves a great game. Good AI is a benefit to casual, hardcore, and all players alike, so it should be near the top of their agenda as far as I'm concerned.

LOL developing on the PS3 is just a tad different.

JeffHCross
04-08-2011, 09:07 PM
I know what they're suing for.Alright. Sure didn't seem like it, but alright.


LOL developing on the PS3 is just a tad different.It is, JB, but not substantially. It doesn't explain everything on his list.

ram29jackson
04-09-2011, 02:48 AM
i'll take 50 bucks....

I OU a Beatn
04-09-2011, 10:33 AM
LOL developing on the PS3 is just a tad different.

Normally, I'd buy that. However, it's also being developed on 360, too, which is much similar to the PS2...and the issues still exist there. Besides, EA is a huge development/publishing team. One of the biggest in the world. They have access to the best in the industry. This isn't a one year problem. This has been a constant problem(for some of the issues) for going on 6 years now. Besides, most of the issues I have a problem with is with the AI, which shouldn't be all that different than what was present on the PS2 versions. Between '07-'11 on PS3 and 360, they have YET to get run blocking from shotgun correctly programmed. They have YET to get the pass rush/blitzes to where they should be. '08 was way too fast and easy to get pressure. '09 there was none at all. '10 there was slightly more than none. '11 there was just slightly more than '10 with blitzes rarely ever getting home and the only hope of pressure is to rush the DEs to the far outside.

Just like the zone coverage. They were better in '09 and '10 than they were in '11. That's not an issue with developing on hardware, that's an issue with their programming. It's even been narrowed down to a cause. When the ball is snapped from one of the hashes, the defense does not react to the proper zones. That's 100% a programming error with the AI. Another issue that has been going on this entire generation is the over effectiveness of outside runs. '08 started that trend. EVERYONE ran sweeps, off tackle, counters, and stretches to the outside because it was unstoppable. I remember instead of people throwing a Hail Mary at the end of a half/game, they'd run a freakin' toss play and actually succeed. That was still an issue in '09 and '10, although a lot less of one, and then it because a bigger problem in '11 because the defense doesn't react correctly to an outside run as they ALWAYS get sucked into the LOS or the pulling lineman. Every time.

I have no doubt these issues can be fixed, but my only lingering question is will they and how long will it take?

Jayrah
04-09-2011, 11:38 AM
I'm a negative-nancy too when it comes to EA and their video game creation process and I agree that, while it sucks that time is being spent on items that I will never use or don't really care about (Season Showdown, "prettier" grass, Mascots, Cannon locations, Band locations, etc) and I think that any type of resources (no matter how small) being used on those aspects of the game would be better spent getting a gameplay aspect to work as it should work (aka as close to real life as possible), I also understand that, sadly, I'm not the main target audience for their football video games. I want as real as possible (even if that means only having 1.5 to 2 seconds to throw the ball before getting creamed by the pass rush) but not everyone would enjoy that for what it was so, therefore, there has to be some compromise on both ends.

You said you want as real as possible, and (save for SS) all of those things add to a more realistic game. So that logic that youll never use or dont care about it is flawed.

You ARE part of the main target audience! But when you say I want EA to hear me, I have all the fixes, and then go off about how stupid the game plays while they are posting graphic improvements you lose credibility. (not necessarily you specifically mors, I am talking generally speaking).

Go read the article about why line play will never be realistic in football games again. Apparently on BB the line play was the best, most realistic line play to date, and yet did you get it??? Do you play it??? Would you play it if it had ncaa team branding on the helmets??? Its about more than realistic gameplay. Its about the entire experience. Its ALL about the small stuff! And the big stuff too. Wait till gameplay stuff comes out to bash gameplay if it happens that its not what you wanted. Thats ok. Bashing gp while graphics are being talked about (and good ones at that), is just simple minded babble.

ram29jackson
04-09-2011, 04:01 PM
You said you want as real as possible, and (save for SS) all of those things add to a more realistic game. So that logic that youll never use or dont care about it is flawed.

You ARE part of the main target audience! But when you say I want EA to hear me, I have all the fixes, and then go off about how stupid the game plays while they are posting graphic improvements you lose credibility. (not necessarily you specifically mors, I am talking generally speaking).

Go read the article about why line play will never be realistic in football games again. Apparently on BB the line play was the best, most realistic line play to date, and yet did you get it??? Do you play it??? Would you play it if it had ncaa team branding on the helmets??? Its about more than realistic gameplay. Its about the entire experience. Its ALL about the small stuff! And the big stuff too. Wait till gameplay stuff comes out to bash gameplay if it happens that its not what you wanted. Thats ok. Bashing gp while graphics are being talked about (and good ones at that), is just simple minded babble.


football games were made for people who like football. Better blocking will always beat better grass as a choice...quite frankly, I still want 1970s astroturf as a choice.

Jayrah
04-09-2011, 04:53 PM
football games were made for people who like football. Better blocking will always beat better grass as a choice...quite frankly, I still want 1970s astroturf as a choice.

You don't need a choice for astroturf, thats what we have! :)

The point is that blocking WAS improved last year, and I am willing to bet it will be improved again this year, if only by the upgraded animations and movement through the engine making it better. Regardless, we wont know till gameplay talk comes out.

EA COULD wait until June to start releasing info and start with gameplay so that everyone who wants gameplay can get that info first, and not complain about the small additions that make the game more than just stick figures on a blue screen playing "real" football. But instead we get a glimpse of the game in March and April, before they are even close to done with gameplay improvements. They are still working! They arent done with the game and just leaking info bit by bit. They arent done improving blocking, or coverage or any of it.... Why would they tell us about unfinished improvements???? We'd still be bashing them!!!!

Jayrah
04-09-2011, 05:18 PM
Also, if you are a real fan of ANY sport, and football especially, then you are a fan of the small stuff. All the little stuff that makes football what it is. Interactive Pylons, interactive Grass, splashing water, skid marks in the snow, real looking jerseys, realistic lighting, etc, are all part of what makes football special, without that stuff, I don't care how good the gameplay is, it's going to take away from the atmosphere of football saturdays.

steelerfan
04-09-2011, 07:23 PM
I agree with 98% of what Jayrah said. Well said, man. :nod:

I OU a Beatn
04-09-2011, 07:59 PM
The small stuff is great...IF the core game play(which I'm confident we can all agree is the most important part) is up to standards. Like I said earlier, the really annoying thing is that they're just a few fixes away from having a really awesome game(and have been since '09), but they just can't seem to get those particular 4 or 5 issues ironed out.

A small thing that has always bugged me is the lack of atmosphere. For example, whenever I'm the home team and I'm on a breakaway touchdown run, I expect the crowd to get louder. I just don't talk about it because I do want to see the core game play fixed first.

JeffHCross
04-09-2011, 08:13 PM
I just don't talk about it because I do want to see the core game play fixed first.Well, maybe I'm being an optimist, but so far there's no indication on whether or not the core gameplay fixes that we still need (and I agree with you that they're needed) have been made. They've said nothing about gameplay. Some people have taken that to mean that this is the 'fluff' year. I think those people are just jumping overboard at the first sign of water. They've only made one announcement so far (ignoring the 25 plays), and cannons wasn't even it.

I guess what I'm saying is that people (not looking at you, I_OU, you just happened to say something similar) need to stop treating cannons as an announced feature and more as community involvement for accuracy.

JBHuskers
04-09-2011, 10:25 PM
well, maybe i'm being an optimist, but so far there's no indication on whether or not the core gameplay fixes that we still need (and i agree with you that they're needed) have been made. They've said nothing about gameplay. Some people have taken that to mean that this is the 'fluff' year. I think those people are just jumping overboard at the first sign of water. They've only made one announcement so far (ignoring the 25 plays), and cannons wasn't even it.

i guess what i'm saying is that people (not looking at you, i_ou, you just happened to say something similar) need to stop treating cannons as an announced feature and more as community involvement for accuracy.

:nod: :nod: :nod: EXACTLY

But it's fodder for those who love to bitch, to bitch.

steelerfan
04-09-2011, 11:59 PM
:nod: :nod: :nod: EXACTLY

But it's fodder for those who love to bitch, to bitch.

Bitchers??

I OU a Beatn
04-10-2011, 12:20 AM
Well, maybe I'm being an optimist, but so far there's no indication on whether or not the core gameplay fixes that we still need (and I agree with you that they're needed) have been made. They've said nothing about gameplay. Some people have taken that to mean that this is the 'fluff' year. I think those people are just jumping overboard at the first sign of water. They've only made one announcement so far (ignoring the 25 plays), and cannons wasn't even it.

I guess what I'm saying is that people (not looking at you, I_OU, you just happened to say something similar) need to stop treating cannons as an announced feature and more as community involvement for accuracy.

I don't care about the cannons. I never once said a word about the cannons. I know you're not pointing me out directly, and although I rarely say anything about it...I do, for the most part, have the same mentality as the "bitchers." Why? Because I've been waiting on these fixes for 5 years, so I don't have to wait to hear about the game play changes before I realize that the things I've been waiting years to get fixed...probably aren't going to be fixed. That may be the negative Nancy in me, but oh well. :D

steelerfan
04-10-2011, 01:19 AM
I don't care about the cannons. I never once said a word about the cannons. I know you're not pointing me out directly, and although I rarely say anything about it...I do, for the most part, have the same mentality as the "bitchers." Why? Because I've been waiting on these fixes for 5 years, so I don't have to wait to hear about the game play changes before I realize that the things I've been waiting years to get fixed...probably aren't going to be fixed. That may be the negative Nancy in me, but oh well. :D

My best suggestion, in all honesty, if you find no enjoyment playing NCAA Football - don't buy it at release. Wait for reviews, community feedback etc. I am still playing and enjoying NCAA 11 (I don't trade it in before it's ever even patched). My experience with 11 wasn't so good early on because of some dynasty issues, had I traded it in for Madden, I wouldn't have enjoyed 11 (patches fixed some dynasty issues). As someone who only plays randoms online, why subject yourself to what you are sure won't be right until you have some feedback? If the feedback is good, buy it. If not, look for post-patch feedback and evaluate the situation again.

Jayrah
04-10-2011, 01:22 AM
I don't care about the cannons. I never once said a word about the cannons. I know you're not pointing me out directly, and although I rarely say anything about it...I do, for the most part, have the same mentality as the "bitchers." Why? Because I've been waiting on these fixes for 5 years, so I don't have to wait to hear about the game play changes before I realize that the things I've been waiting years to get fixed...probably aren't going to be fixed. That may be the negative Nancy in me, but oh well. :D

I believe it was just before the Locomotion engine last season was announced, that everyone was whining about how terrible the movement and cutting and momentum was, because there was no good engine out to support that. And BAM! Locomotion came out as an announced feature! Now all of that stuff is a much bigger, better part of the game. You give up hope too easily without a real base, due to the massive improvements and changes to the dev team last year. Yes, I suppose you have that right, but it doesn't make sense.

Madden then talks about improving their zone and core defense, and NCAA owned Madden's booty last year by incorporating everything Madden had in it and much MUCH MORE! Why wouldn't you think that NCAA is working on fixing the game up with the issues that you've addressed? There is talk amongst the devs on this very site that zones aren't good and they know it's an issue, and that man is overpowered and that's a known issue. They admit it needs fixing, why wouldn't you think they'll try and fix it? And don't tell me "well they've known it for years and they haven't done anything blah blah". That's not at all fair. They never admitted that was a problem (yeah I know they knew it was), but they wouldn't openly admit that as a problem if they weren't planning on looking into fixing it, they would deflect to other problems that they were looking at. That's how I would do business anyway.

Line interaction was worked on quite a bit last year, and defense is already being improved with new plays. I am more optimistic than I ever have been this gen on defense becoming a more serious part of the ball game. Is it going to get perfected this year? Nope, prolly not close by our standards. But I think it's getting closer (heck even if it WAS just new plays being inserted it's a good step), and that's all my $60 ask.

Also there's no possible way that they were only a few fixes away from a great game in 09 or 10....We finally got a cycle with several fixes last year and we're still on em that it's not close to right.

xMrHitStickx904
04-10-2011, 01:25 AM
lol at this ridiculous argument. I got the email, and deleted it. sorry, but I prefer tax dollars to go to someplace else. I don't complain about money spent for a game, the chance of it being bad is the chance you take when you.. buy it. I hated 08, 09 and partially 10 ... so I played 2K, COD or something else. Not very hard to ignore a bad football game, EA has not and will not force me to play their product cause it's the only football game on the market. For the record, I got Madden 11 more than 3 weeks before release, realized that it sucked, but I had fun getting it early.

I OU a Beatn
04-10-2011, 06:47 AM
My best suggestion, in all honesty, if you find no enjoyment playing NCAA Football - don't buy it at release. Wait for reviews, community feedback etc. I am still playing and enjoying NCAA 11 (I don't trade it in before it's ever even patched). My experience with 11 wasn't so good early on because of some dynasty issues, had I traded it in for Madden, I wouldn't have enjoyed 11 (patches fixed some dynasty issues). As someone who only plays randoms online, why subject yourself to what you are sure won't be right until you have some feedback? If the feedback is good, buy it. If not, look for post-patch feedback and evaluate the situation again.

Because I'm a college football junky that needs my fix. This is the one game, good or bad, that I will buy every year. I also play randoms because it's what I find fun. I haven't been able to get a challenge out of the CPU since online came out in '04. I can put it on Heisman and it still isn't a challenge for me. The challenge for me is tournaments, online games against randoms, etc...I like the head to head chess battle as well as whoever has the best "user skills."

I just grew up with that. Like I said, between '04 and '07 on PS2, I logged close to 2,500 COMPLETED online ranked games.

Besides, the random players aren't the issue I have. You don't have to be a random to expose a zone defense that isn't properly programmed, or bad outside run pursuit angles by the AI.

@Jayrah, new plays isn't going to fix the defense. Zone defense has been a huge problem pretty much every game this generation. The AI is just completely messed up, and it has nothing to do with the play. If the ball is on the hash, the defenders will literally go to the wrong spot on the field which creates these massive throwing lanes and makes defense against a capable human player impossible.

steelerfan
04-10-2011, 10:33 AM
My point was not who/how you play.

I OU a Beatn
04-10-2011, 11:04 AM
My point was not who/how you play.

I know what your point was. Your point was to wait until the game come out and listen to the reviews. That's flawed for 2 reasons:

1. The reviews for the game have been great the past few years because reviewers only pay attention to the casual stuff. None of them pay attention to how line play is, or how well zone coverage is designed, etc..I could listen to other users, but again, that is so subjective that it's almost not worth my time to even read it.

2. As I said, I'm a football junkie. As it is, there's only ONE place every year I can attempt to get that fix. EA Sports has a complete lock on the college football/NFL game market. Compare that to shooters. I got Black Ops and it was terrible. You know why that didn't bother me one bit? Because I have a billion other different choices from different developers that have designed something that might work a little better. That's why I don't like that EA has a lock on things. $1,000 says that if they did lose the exclusivity for college football and there was competition, we would've seen all those issues fixed probably 2 or 3 games ago.

Jayrah
04-10-2011, 11:45 AM
@Jayrah, new plays isn't going to fix the defense. Zone defense has been a huge problem pretty much every game this generation. The AI is just completely messed up, and it has nothing to do with the play. If the ball is on the hash, the defenders will literally go to the wrong spot on the field which creates these massive throwing lanes and makes defense against a capable human player impossible.

I know brotha-man! Im not sayin you're wrong, and I dont disagree with you on the issues of gp. Im sayin let the news for the correct issue play out a little bit before you get all worked up that its not in this seasons rendition and never will be because we've never seen it. Something on defense is being worked on for the first time in years, so it stands to reason there will be some gp work done to accompany that.

JBHuskers
04-10-2011, 12:01 PM
Bitchers??

:D yes that's my word :P

steelerfan
04-10-2011, 12:13 PM
1. The reviews for the game have been great the past few years because reviewers only pay attention to the casual stuff. None of them pay attention to how line play is, or how well zone coverage is designed, etc..I could listen to other users, but again, that is so subjective that it's almost not worth my time to even read it.


Or, like I said, get community feedback. Let it simmer a couple of weeks (don't go on the initial OMG!!! posts). I'm sure there must be someone who has an opinion you'd trust on this.

However, with your point #2, it's obvious that a) you know it will suck and be broken, b) you will buy it anyway, c) you will shelf/trade it before any patches are released (sadly, this is a huge mistake with any sports title nowdays and I'm not suggesting that patches fixed everything last year, lol). That's certainly your right.

I OU a Beatn
04-10-2011, 01:44 PM
I know brotha-man! Im not sayin you're wrong, and I dont disagree with you on the issues of gp. Im sayin let the news for the correct issue play out a little bit before you get all worked up that its not in this seasons rendition and never will be because we've never seen it. Something on defense is being worked on for the first time in years, so it stands to reason there will be some gp work done to accompany that.

This is true. It's just something that's been wrong for so long that I can't help but be a little skeptic it's going to get fixed. I'm not going to judge the game until it's released. Everything I've said so far is based on past releases, not NCAA '12. Like I said, I'm not one of those people that bitch about it just for fun...I actually WANT the game to be improved. After all, I buy it every year on release day, so I definitely want it to be as good as it can be.


Or, like I said, get community feedback. Let it simmer a couple of weeks (don't go on the initial OMG!!! posts). I'm sure there must be someone who has an opinion you'd trust on this.

However, with your point #2, it's obvious that a) you know it will suck and be broken, b) you will buy it anyway, c) you will shelf/trade it before any patches are released (sadly, this is a huge mistake with any sports title nowdays and I'm not suggesting that patches fixed everything last year, lol). That's certainly your right.

I didn't actually get rid of it until all the patches/tuner sets had been released and I was sure I wasn't going to get any enjoyment out of the game. That applies to all games I buy, actually, not just sports titles(except BB...I wanted nothing to do with that).

Like I said, the only reason I buy it every year regardless of the quality is because of how much I love football video games. I usually do get my $60 worth out of it, I just want something that I WANT to play for the entire year until the next release rather than a month or two.