When Ignorance becomes a Point of View
Average Rating: 8/10 Hits: 499 Submitted: Nov 6, 2007
Here you can find an interesting article looking at the attitude taken by many fans towards Sports Interactive, in regards the early problems found in Football Manager 2008 and the subsequent necessity for the game to be patched, as it was apparently unplayable without one.
Recently, I took part in an online debate questioning the ‘easiness' of studying humanities versus the ‘difficultness' of following a career in the sciences. The crux of the matter was that the majority of British school children were choosing the easy option, preferring to write essays based on unsubstantiated opinion rather than rigorous fact-based understanding. I stood firmly in the pro-humanities camp, believing that well-taught arts-based subjects could and should provide an ethical balance against moral-free objective scientific enquiry. As to whether humanities are being well-taught I took no stand on the basis of practical ignorance; I am not a humanities scholar, do not know one and have no friends or acquaintances teaching humanity-related subjects. To defend the quality of humanities education without intimate knowledge of the subject matter would have been farcical. However, such value-based judgements mattered little to many of the debaters, who felt it quite within their remit to damn humanities as being badly taught and worthless in educational terms, despite never having studied them.
All of which brings me, rather messily, to my main point. FM08 was released ten days ago to much condemnation and complaint from a section of the fan base. As we know, there was significant bug in the match engine, which affected closing down. SI, to their credit, admitted culpability, proffered a work-round solution for the short-term and promised a patch to remedy the situation, which they duly delivered. This did not appease the critics though. Many continued to whine and moan about the situation. Some of it was considered and constructed, most of it was not. A huge proportion of the criticism was based on ignorance, not just of software programming convention, but of market forces and competitive requirements. If this ignorance was questioned, the common refrain was, "I'm a paying customer. I have a right to my opinion. Piss off!" I don't think that is acceptable, either in terms of basic civil behaviour or as an intellectual argument. If you don't know anything about a subject it is best to listen and learn rather than shoot from the hip. It's not just that you have no idea what you are aiming at; it's that the recoil is likely to cut you in half.
Whilst not trying to defend SI releasing a game with a major bug, I would like to offer a defence in terms of industry knowledge, educated guesses and reading between the lines in the SI forums.
Firstly, I would like to combat the suggestion that SI are lazy, greedy or resting on their laurels. Each version of FM, from 05-07, was revolutionary from the previous in terms of engine development. The whole concept of tactical theory changed from 05 to 06, and then again from 06 to 07. The engine improved in leaps and bounds. Many people will feel that it didn't, and that it went backwards, but I would like to counter those arguments with a simple one of my own. The engine changed so that decision making, reacting to situations or proactively predicting them, became key to success, rather than the ability to design a super-tactic. Failure to come to terms with that would produce the illusion that the engine wasn't as good as previously. However, if you did see the light and learned to make the relevant decisions, you would be rewarded not just by results, but by an appreciably greater understanding of the engine and how it does better represent real football. With 07, SI had produced an engine that needed fine tuning rather than rebuilding. Hence, as they stated, FM08 is an evolution. They are looking to stabilise prior to moving forward, to perfect what they have achieved already rather than aim for new and more grandiose goals. They are likely to come, but to argue that because they haven't in FM08 SI are lazy is unfair. From day one they stated this version would be evolutionary. It is not surprising that those who don't like the game are producing the same commentary as in 07. If they hadn't learned the new methods of playing FM for 07, it is unlikely they were going to change overnight with 08.
The sheer complexity of the task is also overlooked in this argument. SI are not trying to produce an arcade game in which learning specific moves and performing them faster or better than the PC guarantees victory. They are designing a management simulation that is trying to accurately code human behaviour, including cultural variations, within a football specific context. The engine has to react to a series of user commands that could range from the exceptionally well-thought out to the ridiculously sub-standard, and do so in a way that is at least on a par with reality. That they manage to do that year-in, year-out, is an outstanding achievement. I research management theory and have yet to encounter any simulation that so accurately reflects the frustrations, tribulations and joys of management. Each layer of complexity they add indicates an increased awareness of the management experience and a step closer to a perfect simulation. It is not going to be an easy game; it is certainly not an arcade game, but in an era of dumbed down entertainment, that is kind of the point. SI are at the forefront of the thinking gamers' market. Long may they continue to be so.
I'd now like to look at the specifics surrounding the bug. SI stated that the last engine build prior to going Gold (which is the production code) contained a tweaking of closing down. This was because closing down had been overly applied in the previous build and was causing problems. Unfortunately, this was overcompensated and closing down was being applied too rarely. Again, I am not going to argue that changing the code prior to the release build with no time for testing was not naïve. It was. However, it was done with the best possible intention; to sort out a recently discovered bug that caused playability problems. Had it worked, all would have been fine. But it didn't. The response? Masses of criticism, stating that SI should have pulled back the release date, that people had wasted 30 quid on a half-finished game, that people without the internet wouldn't be able to ever play FM, whine, moan, blah, blah, blah.
To suggest that SI could have altered production is nonsensical. Contracts would have been signed, dates agreed, deadlines drawn up. In terms of production, there is nothing they would have been able to do. The counter-argument is common and equally flawed: they should spend more time on the game and put the release back to November from the start. Firstly, that assumes an omniscient relationship with deadlines; secondly, it fails to take into consideration the nature of the sports simulation market, which, in its EA dominance, pretty much dictates titles must be released by late October or risk being passed over. Despite SI and FM being the market leader, it only takes one good review of a competitor's game to put that position under theat if the release dates are significantly different. Imagine FIFA Manager getting great reviews and knowing you have to wait 4 months rather than two weeks to get FM. Tempted? Even if you're not, SI can't risk it. As for the money argument, the game was only ‘broken' for the first 5 days of a likely 330 day relationship with it; secondly, there was a ‘try before you buy' demo that negated any possible surprises. As for the internet/not knowing about the concept of patching argument, I just find it faintly ridiculous. All software gets patched. It is industry standard. Why should FM be any different?
There are plenty of valid arguments to make in relation to the release state of FM08. One could unpick consumerism in order to throw light on the developer, producer, retailer relationship and the demands of the paying customer and critique from that perspective, but one would assume what we end up blaming might hit too close to home for comfort. One could, quite rightly, regard SI as naïve and foolish for making a last-minute change to the product before release. But I'd prefer to play games designed by a naïve company that cared than one from obvious cash cows. I like that fact that they put all their eggs in one basket and threw the dice. A little gentlemanly amateurishness in an age of hard-nosed corporate bean-counting makes a refreshing change. Yes, they got burned. But they explained, said sorry, and went about fixing it, yet still got abused, often in the worst possible language. I just find that sad, that so many people can find the time and energy to vent their spleen over something that gives so much pleasure to so many, and at a company that actually listens to its consumer base, a rarity in this day and age.
We know that within two to three weeks of release FM will be patched to make it as playable as possible. We can help that process by offering constructive criticism by reporting bugs and suggesting improvements. Yet so many of us don't! People snipe and moan, name-call SI and their defenders, all because poor ickle whoever has a game he can't play perfectly the day he buys it. The argument doesn't hold water. Nothing is released without requiring a patch. Yes, we'd all love perfect games that work exactly as planned from day one, but that is not software industry practice. To expect SI to operate in a different manner to all other companies in their market is a tad foolish, as doing so would be extremely uncompetitive. A little tolerance and understanding is called for. First, realise that SI operate under commercial pressures above and beyond your 30 quid. You can argue the pressures are unfair, and I'd agree with you, but it is not SI that makes them. Secondly, understand that patches are commonplace in the software industry and all releases are flawed at first. Again, you can argue that this practice sucks and wouldn't find a complaint from me, but once more, SI are only following industry practice. We cannot expect them to be holier than thou! Finally, accept that the complainers would all have a point only if SI did nothing to fix issues. But they do and then some. So, instead of moaning in self-righteous ignorance, try to help the game's development. Worry less about your God-given consumer rights and more about the overall playing populace who want to enjoy as good a game as possible. Work towards that! That way everybody wins.
All of which brings me, rather messily, to my main point. FM08 was released ten days ago to much condemnation and complaint from a section of the fan base. As we know, there was significant bug in the match engine, which affected closing down. SI, to their credit, admitted culpability, proffered a work-round solution for the short-term and promised a patch to remedy the situation, which they duly delivered. This did not appease the critics though. Many continued to whine and moan about the situation. Some of it was considered and constructed, most of it was not. A huge proportion of the criticism was based on ignorance, not just of software programming convention, but of market forces and competitive requirements. If this ignorance was questioned, the common refrain was, "I'm a paying customer. I have a right to my opinion. Piss off!" I don't think that is acceptable, either in terms of basic civil behaviour or as an intellectual argument. If you don't know anything about a subject it is best to listen and learn rather than shoot from the hip. It's not just that you have no idea what you are aiming at; it's that the recoil is likely to cut you in half.
Whilst not trying to defend SI releasing a game with a major bug, I would like to offer a defence in terms of industry knowledge, educated guesses and reading between the lines in the SI forums.
Firstly, I would like to combat the suggestion that SI are lazy, greedy or resting on their laurels. Each version of FM, from 05-07, was revolutionary from the previous in terms of engine development. The whole concept of tactical theory changed from 05 to 06, and then again from 06 to 07. The engine improved in leaps and bounds. Many people will feel that it didn't, and that it went backwards, but I would like to counter those arguments with a simple one of my own. The engine changed so that decision making, reacting to situations or proactively predicting them, became key to success, rather than the ability to design a super-tactic. Failure to come to terms with that would produce the illusion that the engine wasn't as good as previously. However, if you did see the light and learned to make the relevant decisions, you would be rewarded not just by results, but by an appreciably greater understanding of the engine and how it does better represent real football. With 07, SI had produced an engine that needed fine tuning rather than rebuilding. Hence, as they stated, FM08 is an evolution. They are looking to stabilise prior to moving forward, to perfect what they have achieved already rather than aim for new and more grandiose goals. They are likely to come, but to argue that because they haven't in FM08 SI are lazy is unfair. From day one they stated this version would be evolutionary. It is not surprising that those who don't like the game are producing the same commentary as in 07. If they hadn't learned the new methods of playing FM for 07, it is unlikely they were going to change overnight with 08.
The sheer complexity of the task is also overlooked in this argument. SI are not trying to produce an arcade game in which learning specific moves and performing them faster or better than the PC guarantees victory. They are designing a management simulation that is trying to accurately code human behaviour, including cultural variations, within a football specific context. The engine has to react to a series of user commands that could range from the exceptionally well-thought out to the ridiculously sub-standard, and do so in a way that is at least on a par with reality. That they manage to do that year-in, year-out, is an outstanding achievement. I research management theory and have yet to encounter any simulation that so accurately reflects the frustrations, tribulations and joys of management. Each layer of complexity they add indicates an increased awareness of the management experience and a step closer to a perfect simulation. It is not going to be an easy game; it is certainly not an arcade game, but in an era of dumbed down entertainment, that is kind of the point. SI are at the forefront of the thinking gamers' market. Long may they continue to be so.
I'd now like to look at the specifics surrounding the bug. SI stated that the last engine build prior to going Gold (which is the production code) contained a tweaking of closing down. This was because closing down had been overly applied in the previous build and was causing problems. Unfortunately, this was overcompensated and closing down was being applied too rarely. Again, I am not going to argue that changing the code prior to the release build with no time for testing was not naïve. It was. However, it was done with the best possible intention; to sort out a recently discovered bug that caused playability problems. Had it worked, all would have been fine. But it didn't. The response? Masses of criticism, stating that SI should have pulled back the release date, that people had wasted 30 quid on a half-finished game, that people without the internet wouldn't be able to ever play FM, whine, moan, blah, blah, blah.
To suggest that SI could have altered production is nonsensical. Contracts would have been signed, dates agreed, deadlines drawn up. In terms of production, there is nothing they would have been able to do. The counter-argument is common and equally flawed: they should spend more time on the game and put the release back to November from the start. Firstly, that assumes an omniscient relationship with deadlines; secondly, it fails to take into consideration the nature of the sports simulation market, which, in its EA dominance, pretty much dictates titles must be released by late October or risk being passed over. Despite SI and FM being the market leader, it only takes one good review of a competitor's game to put that position under theat if the release dates are significantly different. Imagine FIFA Manager getting great reviews and knowing you have to wait 4 months rather than two weeks to get FM. Tempted? Even if you're not, SI can't risk it. As for the money argument, the game was only ‘broken' for the first 5 days of a likely 330 day relationship with it; secondly, there was a ‘try before you buy' demo that negated any possible surprises. As for the internet/not knowing about the concept of patching argument, I just find it faintly ridiculous. All software gets patched. It is industry standard. Why should FM be any different?
There are plenty of valid arguments to make in relation to the release state of FM08. One could unpick consumerism in order to throw light on the developer, producer, retailer relationship and the demands of the paying customer and critique from that perspective, but one would assume what we end up blaming might hit too close to home for comfort. One could, quite rightly, regard SI as naïve and foolish for making a last-minute change to the product before release. But I'd prefer to play games designed by a naïve company that cared than one from obvious cash cows. I like that fact that they put all their eggs in one basket and threw the dice. A little gentlemanly amateurishness in an age of hard-nosed corporate bean-counting makes a refreshing change. Yes, they got burned. But they explained, said sorry, and went about fixing it, yet still got abused, often in the worst possible language. I just find that sad, that so many people can find the time and energy to vent their spleen over something that gives so much pleasure to so many, and at a company that actually listens to its consumer base, a rarity in this day and age.
We know that within two to three weeks of release FM will be patched to make it as playable as possible. We can help that process by offering constructive criticism by reporting bugs and suggesting improvements. Yet so many of us don't! People snipe and moan, name-call SI and their defenders, all because poor ickle whoever has a game he can't play perfectly the day he buys it. The argument doesn't hold water. Nothing is released without requiring a patch. Yes, we'd all love perfect games that work exactly as planned from day one, but that is not software industry practice. To expect SI to operate in a different manner to all other companies in their market is a tad foolish, as doing so would be extremely uncompetitive. A little tolerance and understanding is called for. First, realise that SI operate under commercial pressures above and beyond your 30 quid. You can argue the pressures are unfair, and I'd agree with you, but it is not SI that makes them. Secondly, understand that patches are commonplace in the software industry and all releases are flawed at first. Again, you can argue that this practice sucks and wouldn't find a complaint from me, but once more, SI are only following industry practice. We cannot expect them to be holier than thou! Finally, accept that the complainers would all have a point only if SI did nothing to fix issues. But they do and then some. So, instead of moaning in self-righteous ignorance, try to help the game's development. Worry less about your God-given consumer rights and more about the overall playing populace who want to enjoy as good a game as possible. Work towards that! That way everybody wins.
