EA, NBA Live Downfall?

[eppisode3]

Every year it seems EA does lazy/terrible/unrealistic work on this game, never improving from the year before but making it worse. I know this topic is thrown around alot but for awhile I didn't want to notice it. I've supported the NBA Live series since 1995 when the best basketball game EVER made (NBA Live '95 for SNES) came out. Sprewell and the Warriors!!!

Anyway, I'm just looking for some other people's opinions on this. Although I really enjoy the XBOX version, it seems EA puts out a PC version "just for the hell of it" so that PC owners will be happy. I mean, the people here on this website produce EXTREMELY meticulous patches for rosters, faces, gameplay, ambiance, and they don't even have a job with EA. Why can't the makers of the game do a better job than they are doing? The common blunders withstanding (i.e.: unrealistic jumping abilities, sporatic and inconsistent foul calling, mindless CPU shooting abilities...etc) but what about the other factors? How come they don't have roster updates available now? Alot of PC games have patches out about a week after the game comes out. I would suggest to EA to take out the 1 ON 1 mode and instead of taking time designing a gym, take time to find the little things in the game that piss players like us off. And no, I don't think it's too much to ask. We pay for the game.

One thing I can say is that for the past 2 years Sega NBA 2K series has demolished NBA Live. This year though, compared on the XBOX (since NBA 2K3 isn't on PC) Live has passed it up bigtime. Last year on 2K3 if you ran a fast break and passed it, the man receiving the pass would stop on a dime and not keep running in stride. Sega STILL hasn't fixed that crap. I'll take a quote from the great Terrell Owens "...they're just digging in our pockets".

[wlashack]

i also think that NBA (and aal the EA product line) is all about effects, not about a good playability. they f*ck players responses and needs to improve the game. the only point they want to achieve is effects like reallife sport stars on the game packages, marketing hype, and wanna-be-cool effects. but the playability itself has no chance to be worked on. and EA is famous for not communicating with gamers, not releasing patches etc. each of their game has a lot of really frustrating bugs but nothin happens, no updates, no response. and all their sports series like NHL, FIFA or NBA are not an evolution of a game but each year there appears absolutely different game with its pros and bugs. like you said - "...they're just digging in our pockets".

[no843]

like you said - "...they're just digging in our pockets"

And you let 'em do that!

Why should EA provide the player base with patches or any other kind of supports if they can sell their games without those efforts? You (i.e. the community) complain about their games but you keep buying them...

[logan100]

I think they never read or listen to their customer because of one thing : currently they are the only one who dominates the basketball simulation games for PC market. I think other developer such as SEGA should release their basketball games (NBA 2k3) for PC platform so it will make EA evaluate their work and put their best to make a better basket ball simulation games. Look at what they did for FIFA 2003. After they realized (and it took 3 years to do that) that WE / ISS from Konami had a better market share than theirs because of the great level of gameplay, they evaluate again the game play system and make FIFA 2003 better than their previous FIFA gamesreleases (although it still lack by gameplay comparison with ISS).
They should release an official patch for NBA Live 2003, to show that they really listen to us.

[bishibashiboy]

question...is Nba2k3 really better than Live 2003?..i've never played nba2k3 before.

[ChochHolla]

i rented both 2k3 and live 2003 on ps2... (i bought live on pc)....
i really thought 2k3 was kinda boring... my whole living suite at school just left the blockbuster game sittin on the tv for 4 of the 5 days. Live on ps2 was weird. it was new and improved with the freestyle control and a lot of great animations, but it was kind of disappointing how the realism drops (blocking and speed and to an extent, the difficulty) from, lets say 2000. but overall, i would pick live, not only am i biased but the 2k3 was just bad. check out the passin in that game...lol anyhoo.... thats just my stupid ole opinion.

[:digerati:]

And you let 'em do that!

Why should EA provide the player base with patches or any other kind of supports if they can sell their games without those efforts? You (i.e. the community) complain about their games but you keep buying them...

But, if we don't buy the game. They stop making it for PC. And then we have no Basketball games.

[logan100]

I agree with you ChochHolla NBA 2k3 is not a perfect game, but I guess it reflects more on reality of basketball play. For example in Live 2003 the post moves are very minor and there are no enough tension on it.( And why you should need one when you can always hit the three at anytime you want). Also in NBA2k3 you can find little things that I think put more emphasis on simulation play and reality: refs (one little thing that they pulled ever since 2001 for no particular reason), cheerleader,and team mascots standing near the rim (I thought these things were on the wishlist of NBA 2001), player introduction (on 2k3) is better compared to 2003, even Live 2000, and 2001 are alot better than 2003, and then the facial animations (which are getting worse in Live games). The players bear no likenesses with the NBA player they represent. And there alot of minor things that ea shouldn't have done but they have...
Believe me I think EA has damaged its reputation as sports game developer by releasing this game.