Version 2.5

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Version 2.5

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Sports] >> Maximum-Football 2.0 >> Version 2.5

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Version 2.5 - 5/28/2008 11:50:15 PM

Marauders

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline

David Winter Posted 05/14/08:

Version 2.5

Version 2.5 is the paid update some of you may have heard me mention a few weeks ago. Version 2.5 will have a few new features built into the game, and some enhancements to existing features. The current list of features being worked on are;

- A couple of new Stadiums with better details.

- Improved existing stadiums with new lighting effects for night games.

- Playbook specific play folders with play category sub folders. This should allow for better organization of plays. Playbooks will be migrated automatically. You just have to start the game and it will do the job of moving things around. It also speeds up the loading of the PDS dialogs and makes finding plays easier.

NOTE: Everyone sharing version 2.5 playbooks will need to be using version 2.5.

- Simple Trades AI. I've been working on a very basic trade system for the game. It is being designed for 1 player for 1 player trades (no draft picks that's for a future version), any position for any position. CPU teams can trade between each other and with the human teams. Human teams can propose trades to CPU teams. The game will have a user defined trade deadline, or you can not allow trades in your league at all (some people don't like trades so they can turn that feature off). At the moment there is no "Tender Offer" system but that is being looked into, it may get into 2.5 or it may not.

How much will this cost?? At the moment, I don't know. Matrix and I will need to discuss that. My hope is that we can keep the cost low.

Thank you again for your continued support.

David

Post #: 1

RE: Version 2.5 - 5/28/2008 11:57:07 PM

Marauders

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline

therhino posted 05/14/08:

Thank you so much David for all your hard work on this game and I can't wait for 2.5. Trades will be great along with the night lighting and stadiums. Any time table on when 2.5 will be released?

redwolf posted 05/14/08:

The 2.5 paid update sounds very interesting and has many enticing features for me. Would love some simple trades integrated into the game! I know you intend on a basic system, but please don't rush it - if the AI is poor in this regards it could a have a very detrimental impact on the leagues. Take your time, make it basic, but give it good solid AI - it will be worth the wait.

Thanks for your continued dedication.

chad56s posted 05/14/08:

Sweet. The offerings in 2.5 make it clear that it is something I will buy. Thanks again.

(in reply to Marauders)

Post #: 2

RE: Version 2.5 - 5/29/2008 12:02:44 AM

Marauders

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline

Scott_War posted 05/15/08:

quote:

- Playbook specific play folders with play category sub folders. This should allow for better organization of plays. Playbooks will be migrated automatically. You just have to start the game and it will do the job of moving things around. It also speeds up the loading of the PDS dialogs and makes finding plays easier.

NOTE: Everyone sharing version 2.5 playbooks will need to be using version 2.5.

If I am in a league and some people have 2.5 and some don't, will that be an issue?

Marauders posted 05/15/08:

quote:

If I am in a league and some people have 2.5 and some dont, will that be an issue?

From what I know of this, the league will have to be 2.5 or pre-2.5.

Scott_War posted 05/15/08:

So, if a league updates to 2.5 then everyone in the league must update, and if they dont update then nobody in the league can update. If thats the case it is a serious problem for leagues. Paid updates should NEVER be incompatible with those who choose not to buy the update. Its never a good idea to split the community.

garysorrell posted 05/15/08:

All league members will have to be using the same version.

(in reply to Marauders)

Post #: 3

RE: Version 2.5 - 5/29/2008 12:10:34 AM

Marauders

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline

Mykal posted 05/16/08:

Does this mean if I choose to update, my old playbooks wont work
or can I simply migrate the old playbooks into the new update ????????

Sorry if this sounds dumb...........but I've gotta know, cos dead playbooks will cripple my solo league

Mykal posted 05/16/08:

quote:

- Playbook specific play folders with play category sub folders. This should allow for better organization of plays. Playbooks will be migrated automatically. You just have to start the game and it will do the job of moving things around. It also speeds up the loading of the PDS dialogs and makes finding plays easier.

Dumb Question, one of my Homer Simpson days ... panic before reading properly, hahahahahaha

Marauders posted 05/16/08:

quote:

Maykal asked: Does this mean if I choose to update, my old playbooks wont work, or can I simply migrate the old playbooks into the new update?

This is a change that would affect the file and folder system used to store playbooks, it would not be a radical change in the way plays are created, so it would be a migration.

Maximum Football 3.0 will likely have major changes in the plays themselves, but that product is a long way off.

This is a change that has been asked for by community members for a very long time, and this was a break in versions that could finally allow it. This will make playbooks more self contained and will make scrolling through plays quicker. It will make finding plays a little more difficult, but that is the trade-off that is made.

Mykal posted 05/16/08:

Cheers for the reply Marauders,

... although I did realise the answer to my question before you replied and edited my post accordingly.

(in reply to Marauders)

Post #: 4

RE: Version 2.5 - 5/29/2008 12:16:08 AM

Marauders

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline

dreamtheatervt posted 05/16/08:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marauders
This will make playbooks more self contained and will make scrolling through plays quicker. It will make finding plays a little more difficult, but that is the trade-off that is made.

Without having seen the update, I think folders will make finding plays much easier. I see it as win-win.

David Winter posted 05/16/08:

quote:

quote:

This will make playbooks more self contained and will make scrolling through plays quicker. It will make finding plays a little more difficult, but that is the trade-off that is made.

Without having seen the update, I think folders will make finding plays much easier. I see it as win-win.

Folders will make it more efficient in that loading plays for a specific playbook, while using the PDS, will be faster. I may make sharing playbooks easier because you just have to zip up the playbook database and the appropriate folder containing that playbooks plays. The sharee just unzips and he's done.

What this will do however is duplicate information. When the game does the automatic migration, the playbook folders are generated then the plays in that book are copied from the current single folder into the appropriate playbook folder. In other words, if you have PlayXYZ, there will be a distinct and separate copy of that play for every playbook that uses it. Editing a play in one playbook does not edit that play for the others. That's one of the major trade offs with the split folder approach.

There are a lot of advantages to having all the plays in a single folder, and one of them is that you only needed to edit a play once, and that change was instantly propagated to all playbooks that used it. With this system, you will be making changes to plays on a per playbook basis.

Marauders posted 05/16/08:

quote:

quote:

Marauders stated: This will make playbooks more self contained and will make scrolling through plays quicker. It will make finding plays a little more difficult, but that is the trade-off that is made.

dreamtheatervt stated: Without having seen the update, I think folders will make finding plays much easier. I see it as win-win.

Finding plays within a given playbook will be. If one is in league play and only wants to deal with one's own playbook, it will allow the team owner to go through just one's own plays.

quote:

David Winter stated: There are a lot of advantages to having all the plays in a single folder, and one of them is that you only needed to edit a play once, and that change was instantly propagated to all playbooks that used it. With this system, you will be making changes to plays on a per playbook basis.

That is correct, but it will also allow team owners to modify default plays of a base playbook without having to save it with a different name and change the gameplan, as it will only change in the one playbook.

There are positives and negatives to this.

(in reply to Marauders)

Post #: 5

RE: Version 2.5 - 5/29/2008 12:24:39 AM

Marauders

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline

local8h posted 05/16/08:

Would we be able to use custom build stadiums with the paid update?

Thank you in advance.

David Winter posted 05/16/08:

Your existing stadiums should still work the same as before.

thanks
David

Marauders posted 05/27/08:

Custom stadiums will not be automatically updated to any new stadium features.

(in reply to Marauders)

Post #: 6

RE: Version 2.5 - 5/29/2008 12:31:37 AM

Marauders

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline

David Winter posted 05/16/08:

quote:

So, if a league updates to 2.5 then everyone in the league must update, and if they dont update then nobody in the league can update. If thats the case it is a serious problem for leagues. Paid updates should NEVER be incompatible with those who choose not to buy the update. Its never a good idea to split the community.

Leagues will all need to be using the same version. I'm sorry. I just can't support both and people have been asking for this change for a long time now. The update will not be the same cost as the original game. People needing to use the same verison has been a requirement of leagues since the very beginning. Everyone must have the same version or they can't share files.

thank you
David

Marauders posted 05/16/08:

quote:

Scott stated: So, if a league updates to 2.5 then everyone in the league must update, and if they dont update then nobody in the league can update. If thats the case it is a serious problem for leagues.

That will likely be the case for 2.5 and leagues unless the game. Playbooks will automatically migrate into the correct folders, but unless it will do this each time, all league owners will need to update.

There will be updates to 2.2 prior to 2.5 for bugs and other issues. 2.5 will be part of the future expansion pack.

quote:

Scott stated: Paid updates should NEVER be incompatible with those who choose not to buy the update. Its never a good idea to split the community.

Maximum Football has not required a paid upgrade since version 1.2 was released two years ago. Do Madden 2006 files all work with Madden 2008? Do players in Everquest or WoW that did not pick up the latest expansion get to go into the latest zones with their guild members that did? I understand your point, but in order to do this, there had to be a break some place.

David wants this to be an inexpensive expansion pack, but in order for Wintervalley Software and Matrix games to continue development of Maximum Football, there has to be a point at which upgrades will not all be free. Maximum Football 3.0 is too far out to not have any paid expansion product on the market. It is because this is a paid for expansion that David wants to add some extra game features to give it more value, and this is one of the features mentioned often in community feedback from veteran game owners and novices alike. This is an opportunity to enhance the 2.0 product that poll feedback has shown the community wants. The alternative is to lock down 2.x totally and wait a year and a half for 3.0.

Scott_War posted 05/18/08:

Sadly, I guess I am finished with Max football if the last remaining league I am in goes with the paid update. Im not paying for an update when the only thing in the update I want, the playbook thing, SHOULD be free, since its a change and NOT an addition. If the playbook system is so bad this is needed, then it should be free. If its not needed, then it shouldnt be added in a manner that is garaunteed to split the comuunity.

I must say, I think this is very short sighted. You really need to stop and think about this David. There are already too few leagues, and this is only going to help make them smaller, and could possibly be the beginning of the end for the few leagues still going. I only bought max for league play, if thats goes away, I have no reason to play the game, and will be VERY hesitant about buying the next major version, since its possible this could hapen with it also.

Hoop27 posted 05/18/08:

I can't completely disagree with Scott here. None of the new features are what I would consider 'pay worthy' (that being said I'll probably get it lol) For me personally the Stadium lighting fix would be nice but really it's nothing that justifies a pay with the ability of the mod community.

The basic trade AI again is nice but if it's only 1 for 1 trades then it really isn't adding that much to the experience.

New Stadiums, again is a nice thing but really with the mod community it isn't something I'd be rushing out to buy.

The playbook setup is indeed a major announcement I'm excited about but I have to agree with Scott that it is a "patch" and not a major addition.

I'd be very concerned about "splitting the community" as Scott said. perosnally I'd get the patch if it's reasonably priced but there is a legitimate concern from people about a paid patch that may not enitce everyone, since this game relies so heavily on word of mouth and an online community to push sales even if this costed you 20% of you current market it may not be worth it in the long run.

< Message edited by Marauders -- 5/29/2008 7:13:12 AM >

(in reply to Marauders)

Post #: 7

RE: Version 2.5 - 5/29/2008 12:33:09 AM

Marauders

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline

David Winter posted 05/18/08:

Scott,

I'm sorry you feel this way. I have to ask, why do you think all this should be free? How much more of my time and effort must I give away for free?

The way I see it is "Change" vs. "new feature" is semantics, the end result for me is the same. Work being done to an existing part of the game does not always qualify that work as a "change". As one example out of many, people wanted the ability to sort their playbook profiles. Both playbooks and profiles already existed in the game. Nor was this a feature that was necessary. Follow the guidelines for play profile creation and sorting wasn�t needed. That was not a change. That was a new feature.

I suppose when you come right down to it, any new feature could be considered 'just a change to the game'.. So, should everything be free? Every new bit of functionality added is a change to the existing code base so does that means it's all free? No, of course it is not. If someone is asking for functionality that has never existed before, that's a new feature, not a simple change. Companies make 'changes' to their products all the time. They do not give away those changes to existing customers for free. I'm not aware of any that do anyway. Certainly none that stay in business very long.

Something that majority of people don't realize is that "changes" to existing functionality are usually more work than adding new features.

At the end of the day, I simply can not afford to continue to spend literally days, weeks and months, on customer requested new features and changes to existing features only to give it away free.

People asked for new features to playbooks. They got it for free.

One or two people asked for more stats. That alone took weeks of new design, coding, and testing. They got it for free.

People asked and received AI changes and enhancements. Yes, some of that was bug fixing, but other work was new features because the functionality never existed before. Again, those were provided free.

You yourself pushed for major new functionality to the way playbooks processed profiles and that work took many, many hours to complete, and longer to test. Much of that development time went into writing code to make the change as seemless as possible. Few other people wanted it. Many other community members tried to explain to you how the system worked and how they thought it made sense and didn�t need to be changed. This was not a simple enhancement. What you asked for, and received, was a major rewrite to a system that already worked, just not how you personally wanted it to work. It was not a patch to fix a bug with this particular system. It was a completely new feature. It was free to existing customers.

People want yet more changes to the organization of the playbook files, even though the current system works (although not to their personal liking). That work will take weeks of development and longer than that to test. If the work takes two or three months to complete then that's too long and people demand it faster. But it should be free as well???

Changing the playbook structure is not a patch. The playbook file system works as designed. You can create playbooks. You can share playbooks. You can edit plays and have those changes migrated instantly to every playbook. You can manage the plays that are only in your playbook (another customer requested feature that was provided at no extra cost). You can export just the plays you have in your playbook. You can import plays from other playbooks. Understanding the current file system is fairly straight forward, all plays go in one place.

But that�s not what customers want it seems. Based on customer feedback, a much more complicated system is desired. A system that is not only going to take significant work to build, but will have higher support costs.

Other customers want more animations in the players. That's great. It's something I'm working on. But just because the game already has animated players, does not qualify additional ones as 'a change to animations so should be free'.

Customers have been asking for Trade AI in the game for a long time. Although it will be basic in it's approach, it's something I'm working on for 2.5. This is completely new functionality. It's a completely new feature. Even a basic trade AI is a huge amount of work and should not be free.

People are requesting new features for the game and that's great. I try to accommodate the best I can. But why should it be free work? That work costs time and money. My time is worth something and I need to at least recoup my costs.

As it is, when a customer buys the game for $40, a rather significant amount of that goes to the costs of doing business. Another portion goes to Matrix so they can pay their staff and stay in business. I get the left overs and from that I have to cover my costs of doing business. And yes, even one-man-army Indy developers have costs of doing business, even if you take development time out of the equation.

Should I add customer/technical support into that equation?

I have not spoken to Matrix yet, but as they are a 'for profit company', I know they're becoming frustrated with all these new features to the game being given away for free. I'm sure they'll want to have some say in the final cost to customers.

That said, I would like to keep the cost of the 2.5 update minimal.

This next patch (new build of 2.2) has a couple of additional new features (some customer requested) and again, that will be free. But after that I have to say enough is enough.

So again, I'm sorry Scott, and others, if you feel this way. I would obviously prefer it if you stayed in the community and enjoyed the game for what it is. A game. I don't think the few dollars I'm asking for the paid update is going to break anyones budget. But I simply can not continue to give away my time and effort.

Thank you
David

(in reply to Marauders)

Post #: 8

RE: Version 2.5 - 5/29/2008 12:38:11 AM

Marauders

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline

dreamtheatervt posted 05/18/08:

Scott,

Maybe thinking of it this way will help:

EA releases a new game for every sport every year, and they only get a major overhaul every 6 years or so. They offer no "loyalty discount", every year for the past 11 years I've shelled out full price for NCAA football, not only that I have to start from scratch every year. I don't know what they are going to ask for money wise, but I'm certain it's not going to be full price, and you won't have to start from scratch.

One of the nice things about this game is we do have an open line of communication with the developer. David takes our constructive critism graciously and to heart, even when it is harsh. The NCAA community has had the same complaints about the series for years, and EA largely ignores the community and tends to recycle old, failed ideas as new add-ons.

therhino posted 05/18/08:

Thanks, David, for your reply.

I don't think we should be complaing about a $10 update. David gave us 2.0 for free if we already owned 1.0 instead of charging $40 for everyone. It's David's game and he has the right to make money off it. If he wanted to charge $40 for a minor update it would be a different story, but he isn't. So many other games charge for EVERY update even bug fixes so why complain about one.

Like Dreamtheatervt said, I would much rather have Davids system than EAs. EA sometimes adds stuff even if people don't really want it, but David listens to us which is so much better. That is one of the reasons I play Maximum Football I don't feel like the devolopers are on the moon.

(in reply to Marauders)

Post #: 9

RE: Version 2.5 - 5/29/2008 12:45:35 AM

Marauders

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline

Mykal posted 05/19/08:

quote:

I have to ask, why do you think all this should be free? How much more of my time and effort must I give away for free?

I could quote more of your post that should really be addressed but I think I can make my point with just the one sentance

For Me Personally:

Fixing of bugs, errors in the game and such like, should be free, although many software companies release games with errors and never fix them or wait a year and release the next gen (for cash) with the bugs fixed.

I would personally like to thank you my friend for being gracious enough to fix bugs and game errors free of charge
it is most decent of you, I wish others would be the same.........fix things that are wrong

Onto paying for updates: if your bringing something totally new to a previous release, in my mind you have every right to charge for it, now I realise some wont agree but they've had there say and this is mine (sorry brothers if that offends..not meant too), alot of what gets added to the game is at our own personal request, we all sit about asking for this and that to make the game better in our eyes

But you are the one who sits for god knows how long each day, week or month making it happen
if I go to a hot dog stand and buy a hot dog but want extra sausage.........will the guy charge me for it? of course he will and thats it plain and simple.

So in answer to your question (although not asked of me) "Nothing more", time is money in anyone world, you do more than enough for us already and are always on hand to answer our questions etc................now when was the last time someone from EA answered one of my questions, hahahahahahaha, I'll leave you to guess that answer.

Later David brother man, Mykal

elmerlee posted 05/19/08:

I have no problem paying for whatever seems best included in 2.5. Without a doubt enough time has passed that you are due this.

Of course there is a "however". Bugs need to be fixed NOW and then I will be more than willing to pay for an update. Even up to full price.

Max football has come a long way in two years. But lets be honest it had a long way to come.

(in reply to Marauders)

Post #: 10

RE: Version 2.5 - 5/29/2008 12:48:21 AM

Marauders

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline

Scott_War posted 05/20/08:

David, I completely understand the need to justify the amount of work with income. That isnt a problem at all. The problem is charging for something that will create group of people that have the update and a group that dont, that will not be able to play in leagues together. ANYTHING that causes this is a bad thing.

My comment about being finished with the game is true if the league I am in decides to update and I decide not to. The update really doesnt contain anything that interests me. However, considering the hours I have spent playing around with the game, especially the leagues, I might need to reconsider if for no other reason but to support the game. I still stand behind the idea that splitting the community is a bad thing, so if there is any way possible to make it so those without the update can play in leagues with those with the update that would solve the issue.

quote:

David, I completely understand the need to justify the amount of work with income. That isnt a problem at all. The problem is charging for something that will create group of people that have the update and a group that dont, that will not be able to play in leagues together. ANYTHING that causes this is a bad thing.

The update really doesnt contain anything that interests me. However, considering the hours I have spent playing around with the game, especially the leagues, I might need to reconsider if for no other reason but to support the game. I still stand behind the idea that splitting the community is a bad thing, so if there is any way possible to make it so those without the update can play in leagues with those with the update that would solve the issue.

Marauders posted 05/20/08:

Scott, I understand your premise, and that is that an expansion pack, rather than a complete new season release, should not contain items that will force those who purchase it and those who do not to have incompatabilities with game files. It is a valid point.

The counterpoint to that premise is that Matrix Games would want the expansion pack to have more value by adding actual in-game updates along with other items. These are added items that would not have been considered because of time constraints and limited resources otherwise. 2.2 is locked down, and any further development of 2.x needs to go into the expansion pack. 2.2 will have service updates, which should adress the issues that elmerlee has given, but adding content is no longer an option.

As a general rule, I don't like expansion packs for some games like MMORPG's because I am already paying a monthly fee to play. I am also not fond of the pay for items model that forces a game owner into having to pay a couple bucks for horse armor if one want it, but in this case, having a small charge for additional content isn't a problem for me because some sort of upgrade charge is overdue, and the only way to get to 3.0 is to make sure that the game development cycle is healthy for both the game purchasers and the game developer.

Those that have been on this forum since it was opened, and even many of those who have been here just a short time, know that I value a strong and vibrant game community. I view feedback as important and constructive criticism as a critical element of quality control. I would not like it if an expansion pack would split the community or harm the game in any way. While I agree with the basic premise that an expansion pack should not be required, I do believe that it is the only way to bring in these additional features to game owners prior to 3.0, and that is a long way out. League members will have to decide which way they want to go with this, but I would hope that most game owners would consider the expansion pack as a way to get additional features and content now rather than later.

- Marauders

(in reply to Marauders)

Post #: 11

RE: Version 2.5 - 5/29/2008 7:47:51 AM

Marauders

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline

Brockleigh posted 05/20/08:

Getting back to the point of this thread, I have no objection with 2.5 being a pay-for update. All the man-hours Dave has put into the game are well established, but how many times have we seen Dave do an update, and not only are most things we asked for in the game, but all kinds of goodies as well that make just about everyone that posts on these forums go "THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU". Even if you don't think that the features in 2.5 are worth paying for, at least one of the updates we have downloaded should have been.

It's long overdue for Dave to make a little more scratch off this game that we all have been pretty loud in asking for additions to. The semantical issue of "free patch" against "paid Expansion Pack" is completely totally moot. We've gotten everything we've asked for from this game, gratis. All our bills are Past Due.

Dave, Erik, Marauders, when 2.5 is released, send me an e-mail. I don't know if I'll be first in line to buy and pay for it, but I'll be close.

Hubbard posted 05/21/08:

Unbelievable!

I can't believe we have people in this forum "trippin" on having to pay for an upgrade/expansion pack.

This dude has taken time out of his life to create a game that no one else could or would do. And you have the audacity to complain because he wants to make a little money in the process.

One of these days someone is going to piss him off and he's going to pull the plug.

David, if I have the money I will gladly pay!

Marauders posted 05/21/08:

quote:

I can't believe we have people in this forum "trippin" on having to pay for an upgrade/expansion pack.

To be fair, most Maximum Football owners have no problem with a for-pay expansion pack. The issues at hand are that the game still has a few items to clean up for 2.2 and that the addition of game code features, rather than just game items like stadiums and uniforms, could mess up some leagues if only some of the league members purchase the expansion pack. Both are legitimate issues, and it is hopeful that they can be addressed with the final 2.2 patch and the relatively low price for the expansion pack.

quote:

David, if I have the money I will gladly pay!

Thank you for the vote of confidence!

Mykal posted 05/21/08:

like everything in life

you cant please everyone all the time (and some none of it)
but like its stated above, most of us have no issue with it and 100% commited to the game
its forums and community alike

So many of us spend time tweeking what David gives us to play with, well worth the money & then some

(in reply to Marauders)

Post #: 12

RE: Version 2.5 - 5/29/2008 5:16:10 PM

Bobolini

Posts: 64
Joined: 2/6/2007
Status: offline

I see nothing wrong with paying for these enhancements. Year in and year out EA charges full price for a game that essentially adds new feautures and mysteriously removes others. David, I appreciate all your support as the majority of us here do.

(in reply to Marauders)

Post #: 13

RE: Version 2.5 - 5/30/2008 8:36:58 AM

long_time_fan

Posts: 93
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline

I can understand why there are those who a leery about shelling out more money for an update, especially if there will be a new version 3 out. However, I've watched this game transform from version 1.xx to it's current incarnation and by all rights David should've been getting money for that change. As long as its reasonable for the changes made (i.e. not the price of a new game), I could see myself putting out a few more dollars. I feel like I owe it to you for your (otherwise uncompensated) work. However, I'm more than happy with the game as it is and I'm looking forward to a version 3.

Thanks Dave,
Long Time Fan

(in reply to Bobolini)

Post #: 14

RE: Version 2.5 - 5/30/2008 8:54:33 AM

Marauders

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline

Just to note here that 2.5 is slated to be part of a future expansion pack. As things stand now, it would not likely be out until later in the year.

Maximum Football 3.0 would not be out until Autumn of 2009 at the earliest.

Most of the testing in beta at this time is on cleaning up issues in 2.2, and that is where the emphasis should be for game players.

Enjoy the game now, as the decision to purchase 2.5 with the expansion pack won't have to be made for at least a few months.

(in reply to long_time_fan)

Post #: 15

RE: Version 2.5 - 6/4/2008 6:13:55 PM

quixian

Posts: 151
Joined: 2/16/2007
Status: offline

Might be a stupid question, but - once Matrix / WinterValley decides on the price point for the expansion pack, would it be made available for pre-order? That way, those of us who want to go ahead and purchase the expansion regardless of the release date can go ahead and support the upcoming expansion pack and hopefully, the continued development on MaxFB.

(in reply to Marauders)

Post #: 16

RE: Version 2.5 - 6/4/2008 9:26:35 PM

redwolf1

Posts: 366
Joined: 5/13/2005
From: Maple Ridge, B.C., Canada
Status: offline

Just my opinion here, but we are well past the early adopters stage. I think it is in the best interest of Matrix, David, and the future of Maximum Football to get the game into as many hands as posible at this point. Make the expansion rather cheap for existing users (I'd say around $14.99 is a good price point)...

...but also repackage Maximum Football with 2.5 included for those that have not purchased the game yet and are sitting on the fence, sort-of-speak, and make it at a nice low price point (say, $24.99) - it is priced too high at this point, IMHO. I believe many more consumers would jump onboard with an attractive deal like that (Maximum Footbll with the 2.5 expansion for an enticing $24.99!). Pretty much those willing to pay $40+ have already purchased the game. Get it in the hands of more consumers, bring the price point down. In the end it will benefit all, I think.

< Message edited by redwolf1 -- 6/4/2008 9:35:28 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to quixian)

Post #: 17

RE: Version 2.5 - 6/4/2008 10:01:07 PM

therhino

Posts: 844
Joined: 2/12/2008
Status: offline

Thats a great idea Redwolf1. I have a friend who won't pay $40.00 for 2.2, but would pay $30.00 for 2.5 with 2.2. I just wonder how many people are on the fence about MaxFB. Almost everyone says if we had "Madden Graphics" they would get it, but that isn't gonna happen. What I mean is how many people will buy Maximum Football if it didn't have the graphics update. Maybe someone should do a poll at Football Freaks or something like that.
TheRhino

(in reply to redwolf1)

Post #: 18

RE: Version 2.5 - 6/4/2008 10:54:18 PM

David Winter

Posts: 5158
Joined: 11/24/2004
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: quixian

Might be a stupid question, but - once Matrix / WinterValley decides on the price point for the expansion pack, would it be made available for pre-order?� That way, those of us who want to go ahead and purchase the expansion regardless of the release date can go ahead and support the upcoming expansion pack and hopefully, the continued development on MaxFB.

It's not a stupid question.

I don't think a pre-oder would be something I would do. Preodering puts a lot of additional pressure on the process (meaning mostly me). When the project is being built by one person then the number of things that impact the delievery are magnified many times. Heck a simple flu could add a week to the timetable. It just wouldn't be right to accept preorders when, when it comes right down to it, I can't 100% guarantee that something gets shipped. Life happens and that makes preorders something I'm not comfortable accepting.

But I thank you for having the confidence in me for offering to preorder :)

< Message edited by David Winter -- 6/4/2008 11:09:46 PM >

(in reply to quixian)

Post #: 19

RE: Version 2.5 - 6/4/2008 10:58:32 PM

David Winter

Posts: 5158
Joined: 11/24/2004
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline

redwolf.

I think 2.5 would superceed 2.2 anyway. For those that haven't owned the game before they would just buy 2.5 straight out.

$15 for the expansion/upgrade/new version (whatever we end up actually calling it) is a good price for my side of the fense. It's a bit more than what I'd thought about charging the consumer.. but if you're willing to pay more that's good too :) But seriously, you can get whole games for $15 so it might be a bit high for what I'm trying to accomplish.

(in reply to David Winter)

Post #: 20

RE: Version 2.5 - 6/4/2008 11:16:02 PM

quixian

Posts: 151
Joined: 2/16/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Winter

quote:

ORIGINAL: quixian

Might be a stupid question, but - once Matrix / WinterValley decides on the price point for the expansion pack, would it be made available for pre-order?� That way, those of us who want to go ahead and purchase the expansion regardless of the release date can go ahead and support the upcoming expansion pack and hopefully, the continued development on MaxFB.

It's not a stupid question.

I don't think a pre-oder would be something I would do. Preodering puts a lot of additional pressure on the process (meaning mostly me). When the project is being built by one person then the number of things that impact the delievery are magnified many times. Heck a simple flu could add a week to the timetable. It just wouldn't be right to accept preorders when when it comes right down to it I can't 100% guarantee that something gets shipped. Life happens and that makes preorders something I'm not comfortable accepting.

But I thank you for having the confidence in me for offering to preorder :)

Thank you David, for responding to my question. Believe me, I completely understand the situation - I run into enough time contstraints just trying to update a roster on a timely basis, much less all the coding and testing involved in putting a full program together.

There are very few developers that are one-person operations out there, and the few others that I've done business with have expressed the same concerns with putting anything out there that would constitute a "release date" - the mobs with pitchforks and torches would gather outside the gates of the developer's (virtual) castle as soon as it seemed like there was a delay. If only the expectations of release dates were tempered by understanding the realities of LIFE - not to mention the fact that after all, it is just a GAME we are all waiting for (not the cure for cancer, or a better mousetrap) - everyone would be a lot better off. That being said, it's hard not to be anxious to start playing the latest and greatest version as soon as possible!

In the meantime, I'll keep checking this space for the release of the 2.2 issues rollup patch and the release announcement of 2.5. Thanks again!

(in reply to David Winter)

Post #: 21

RE: Version 2.5 - 6/5/2008 12:47:19 AM

mbsports

Posts: 275
Joined: 1/7/2007
Status: offline

I'll be near the first to shell out for the upgrade/expansion but I'm not entirely thrilled with the contents of the package.

There's just so many holes in what MFB outputs at this point. The gamelogs and statistics on their own are near useless in my opinion. I'm running a league on MFB and updating it so that the stats are actually decent for the GMs is a pain at this time. Add in that the rosters output into a somewhat junky format as well and it really is a detriment for a commish running a league with it. Now the options that MFB lets us use are fantastic and that's why I support it now and will continue to do so. I'm just a little disappointed that guys who run leagues, which are probably Dave's biggest fan base, are having to dig thru MS Access just to get a leaders page that doesn't contain every single player on it.... or are god forbid trying to look at a box score, which at this point should be more refined.

So for what MFB does today I give it a 7.5 and with the expansion that'll move up to an 8. I'm happy to part with 10-15 bucks for it, I think that's fair, but eventually the output has got to get better and it looks like we're a year/two out<3.0> from seeing that happen.

This is where I guess I'm just going to have to suck it up and learn how to write SQL and php queries more effectively.

Thanks,

Mb

(in reply to quixian)

Post #: 22

RE: Version 2.5 - 6/5/2008 3:01:44 AM

garysorrell

Posts: 2176
Joined: 1/29/2005
Status: offline

Im with you on the stats output mbsports. I mentioned it a few times to David in the past, but i know he has more pressing things to look at. Although, im pretty happy with the boxscore.

That being said, I am pretty sure that if JD can, he will have something like that in his editor, eventually. I know he is a busy guy but heres hoping.

Until then, im also trying to learn to do it myself in Access.

_____________________________

(in reply to mbsports)

Post #: 23

RE: Version 2.5 - 6/5/2008 3:19:43 AM

Marauders

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline

Well ... we can ask J.D. now that school is out.

(in reply to garysorrell)

Post #: 24

RE: Version 2.5 - 6/5/2008 4:07:24 AM

David Winter

Posts: 5158
Joined: 11/24/2004
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline

I've made a couple of minor changes to the game reports for this up coming patch.

The export files were at one point plain text (version 1.0) and everyone wanted HTML.. so they were switched. The stats themselves are in a format targeting speed and compactness, not ease of exporting. A reporting system (sort of like a Crystal Reports.. for those that know what that is..) has always been on the to do list, but as Gary mentioned, there always seems to be another #1 priority.

thanks
David

(in reply to Marauders)

Post #: 25

RE: Version 2.5 - 6/5/2008 6:23:08 AM

Deft

Posts: 299
Joined: 9/17/2005
Status: offline

Arggghhh.. I have made an excel file that extracts data out of the gamelog files. If your format changes, I might as well stop.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1824196&mpage=1&key=�

< Message edited by Deft -- 6/5/2008 7:53:15 AM >

(in reply to David Winter)

Post #: 26

RE: Version 2.5 - 6/6/2008 8:05:41 AM

mbsports

Posts: 275
Joined: 1/7/2007
Status: offline

Can't wait to try it deft but losing my old stats was not really something I was looking forward to so I built a DB to house them and link in to the new.

fingers crossed on that working.

(in reply to Deft)

Post #: 27

RE: Version 2.5 - 6/13/2008 12:23:16 AM

red07

Posts: 27
Joined: 9/15/2007
Status: offline

"David wants this to be an inexpensive expansion pack, but in order for Wintervalley Software and Matrix games to continue development of Maximum Football, there has to be a point at which upgrades will not all be free."

I totally agree and will gladly pay for the update. David works hard on Max-FB and gives us football lovin' gamers what we want AND he listens to us, unlike that horrid company that is EA. Long live Max-FB!

Red

(in reply to mbsports)

Post #: 28

RE: Version 2.5 - 6/13/2008 5:47:08 PM

Mykal

Posts: 1777
Joined: 4/3/2008
Status: offline

Well actually I'm in two minds now,

I agree with paying for updates that bring new features to the game
But.........................
The stats bug & the canadian player generation bug have to be fixed first
at present with all the bugs in the game it is actually unplayable
(if you want the stats to actually reflect what happened in the game anyway, instead of duplicating yardage on scoring drives).

I appreciate all the hard work of both David and his testing team and certainly arnt getting in anyones face over things
but like everyone else, I bought this game to play it, not to sit around waiting for a fix for this and then a fix for that
(Hope I aint sounding rude, cos I'm certainly not intending too).

Anyway all that said, when the bugs are fixed and the game is stable enough to actually play,
I'll be more than happy to pay for updates that bring game extra's.

One things for certain though, bugs or not, David and his team are certainly doing a better job making a game than I could.

Mykal

Attachment (1)

(in reply to red07)

Post #: 29

RE: Version 2.5 - 6/14/2008 9:13:57 AM

redwolf1

Posts: 366
Joined: 5/13/2005
From: Maple Ridge, B.C., Canada
Status: offline

Mykal, I agree with your sentiments on all counts. Still lots of little issues that need smoothing out.

David and his beta testers have done a fantastic job, especially considering the limitation of a one man programming team...

I would really like to see a bit of $ (or more of it, anyway) dropped into this sim so it can be expanded and be worked on by a team of developers. If capital generated by the sale of an expansion pack will lead to this, then I am even more in favor of it. I fear the potential of this title may never truely be reached with a single developer, even though David is very dedicated (God bless his soul). I'd like to see David quarterbacking a development team.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mykal)

Post #: 30