Is it just me, or did EA release College Football 26 really early this year? Last year (and historically with the NCAA Football games of previous generations), the college football game would release in late July, about a month before the college football season starts. This year, however, the game released on 7th of July, over a month and a half from week 0 of the college football season.

Not that the extra 2 weeks or so would have made much of a difference.

I waited a couple weeks and bought the game used (and $20 cheaper!) off of eBay. This was partly because the early release date blind-sided me. I wasn't thinking about football season yet. Heck, I hadn't even activated my fantasy leagues or confirmed that people were going to play again this year, by the time College Football 26 released! I was also cautiously optimistic about this game, but still wanted EA to prove to me that they could actually improve a product before I would give them any more of my money with a retail purchase.

Despite not playing the game until it had already received multiple patches, it still managed to fall far below my cautious expectations, and fully vindicated my decision to not purchase a retail copy.

EA Sports College Football's sophomore year is not something to cheer for.

I am genuinely dumb-founded by EA's lack of effort and care with this year's College Football release. I really did expect that with the highly-anticipated return of its college football game, EA would put at least a year or 2 of solid effort into making a good, polished product, in order to build up some consumer confidence and good will -- you know, before they flush it all down the toilet and go back to being EA.

But they couldn't even be bothered to do that! It's just business as usual for EA. Except now they're selling us two shitty, low-effort football games, instead of just one.

The same, plus some options

First and foremost, so many of the problems from last year's game are still present, so I'll refer you back to that review. Yeah, I did eventually figure out how the option controls work, and get used to them, and even come around to liking them in last year's game. But kicking is still mercilessly difficult without any options to make it easier or less forgiving. This is despite the fact that 26 comes with a smorgasbord of new options for tweaking the ways that things like Wear & Tear and auto-subs work (which does resolve one of my biggest complaints with last year's game). But they couldn't be bothered to give the user any customization options for the kicking game, other than the choice of whether to hold or tap the buttons (the same option we were given last year).

There are extensive customization options for Wear & Tear.

There's still no tutorials or Skill Trainer to teach kicking or other game mechanics. So you're still stuck going to open practice and having to self-teach yourself (through trial-and-error) how to kick, run the option, use the Do-It-Yourself Reverse plays, use the switch stick, and so forth.

I think there's also more flashing indicators to tell me when players are triggering or disabling their abilities, and maybe also when they have Wear & Tear. I'm not quite sure, because there's no in-game keys that tell me what all the U.I. icons on the field mean, nor are there any tutorials or training modes that explain what all the icons and symbols mean.

I generally do not play free-to-play games. I usually associate such games with scammy, exploitative micro-transaction economies. However, I do feel that one genre of video game that could actually be a very good candidate for a free-to-play model is sports games. Sports games have long been criticized as being "full price roster updates". This has become painfully more true as games have become bigger, more complicated, and more expensive to create. There just isn't enough development time in between annual release schedules to implement comprehensive updates to a sports game, and so they typically only receive minor, token changes, which often feel under-developed and poorly-tested and balanced.

In a free-to-play model, however, the developers aren't constrained to rush a "full new game" out every year, in time for the start of the new sport season. They can continue to update the same game, adding new features -- no matter how small or large -- on a much more liberal schedule.

More importantly, gamers aren't forced to buy a whole new game each and every year and reset all their progress. If I play a particular release of Madden for a few in-game seasons, building my team through the draft and developing my players, I eventually get to the point where it feels pointless to continue playing. The new Madden will release, and all my draft picks, player upgrades, and roster moves will be erased and replaced with whatever happened in the real NFL season. Even indie games that aren't tied to a real-life sports league (and its rosters), such as Axis Football, have this same problem. Every new year's game release requires restarting my franchise or dynasty from scratch, erasing dozens (or hundreds!) of hours of play and progress.

My rosters and progress won't get reset every year when a new game releases.

With a free-to-play model, there isn't going to be a "new game" every year, and supposedly, I will be able to continue playing the same dynasty or franchise for as long as I want, and still be able to receive any gameplay updates or new features that are released.

Honestly, I've been wishing that Madden would go to this sort of model for years now. Just have a single, live service football game that is funded by Ultimate Team and other in-app purchases. Maybe annual roster updates could be like a $10 DLC or something?

Dynasty season pass?

But this does beg the question: how will Maximum Football's publisher make money? The method of monetization was always a concern for Maximum Football's reboot. They wouldn't have the names and likenesses of real football players to slap onto digital trading cards for their version of an Ultimate Team. They could potentially get by with selling cosmetic-only items. But would there be enough of a market for such purchases? Maybe they would have to resort to micro-transactions that feel more like pay-to-win mechanics, such as paying for progression boosts for Dynasty players, or literally just buying recruiting prospects (think of the original launch of Middle-Earth: Shadow of War).

The good news is: there is no trace of any pay-to-win mechanics in Maximum Football's Dynasty Mode that I could find. The bad news is: Dynasty Mode is still monetized.

Even though Maximum Football does have its own equivalent of Ultimate Team, complete with in-app purchases for card packs and power ups, the Dynasty Mode is pay-walled by ... <sigh> ... a season pass.

If you want to play more than 1 or 2 seasons of Dynasty, you have to pay (or grind).

You can download Maximum Football for free. You can create and customize teams for free. You can play as many exhibition games as you want (using your created team(s)) for free. And you can start a Dynasty and play through a full year or 2 for free. But if you want to carry that Dynasty into a second season, well then you gotta pay. Additional seasons of Dynasty are locked behind a $20 season pass. Or you can use the 2 Dynasty Tickets that you start with to play 2 seasons, and then try to earn more Dynasty tickets from daily login rewards or from grinding other game modes.

New Dynasty tickets seem to be earned every 14 days that you log into the game. I guess if you're playing 1 Dynasty match per day, then the daily login rewards should be enough to keep your Dynasty going indefinitely.

The game says that the $20 Season Pass grants "unrestricted access" to Dynasty Mode. So I'm assuming (and hoping) that this means Maximum Games isn't going to charge us for a season pass every year if we want to keep playing Dynasty -- effectively turning Dynasty Mode into a subscription service. But I guess we won't find that out for sure until next year.

In fact, there's a season pass for the Franchise Mode too, even though the Franchise Mode isn't even actually in the game yet. The game is techncially in Early Access, so the idea of paying for content that isn't actually in the game yet is a little more forgivable than retail games that sell season passes for future DLC that doesn't exist yet. But still, I'm wary of any game that sells content that isn't actually in the game yet. If Maximum Football flops, and this Franchise Mode never actually releases, then that's $40 down the drain.

I felt like College Football 25 would be a real make-or-break title for EA Sports. Madden has been getting criticized for its focus on Ultimate Team, lack of attention to Franchise Mode, and myriad legacy issues that EA just refuse to address. The market has been jonesing for a licensed college football game -- in fact, it's been jonesing for any alternative to Madden. This is EA's chance to really put out a quality product that can earn it a lot of good faith to help carry it through the coming years of renewed football video game competition. I honestly expected that College Football 25 would hit a home run with its Dynasty Mode and feature set in order to earn back that trust and good faith -- especially after it was delayed a whole year from its original expected release.

Instead, I keep feeling disappointed and frustrated with College Football 25 at almost every turn. It feels, to me, like a pale shadow of its NCAA Football forebears. It's a mess of missing features, confounding control and interface issues, bad A.I. (especially on defense), and rosters that are muddled and obfuscated by the legal tightrope of name-and-likeness rights. It checks off almost all of the "must have" feature boxes (like adding the playoff and transfer portal), but this game seems to aggressively refuse to go above and beyond in any capacity.

Strap in and get comfortable. This is going to be a long review...

No-huddle gameplan

The launch version of College Football 25 is really friggin' hard! I started 0 for 7 against the CPU (on the All-American difficulty, with default sliders). I had to play a Boise State home match against lowly cupcake New Mexico in order to get my first victory. Since then, I've been doing a lot better, but victories do not typically come easily.

I have my share of responsibility in this. I don't know the playbooks yet, and I threw some facepalm-inducing interceptions. Linebackers seem to play a lot deeper in College Football 25 compared to Madden, and my QBs weren't putting enough touch on passes over the middle of the field. So Post and Dig routes that would be wide open in Madden were repeatedly being picked by lurking linebackers.

Lurking linebackers make a lot of interceptions between the hashes.

Despite my own mistakes, the designers of the game seem to have gone out of their way to make sure that the barrier to entry would be as high as it could possibly be. The game doesn't seem to want to teach its new features, mechanics, or controls, and it insists on changing things just for the sake of change -- screw my decade (or longer) of muscle memory! Many problems that have long frustrated me in Madden reared their ugly heads to conspire against me as well. I often felt like I could call out exactly how an upcoming play would unfold before the snap, because I've seen all of this so many times in Madden.

Sacks and interceptions tended to come in pairs or triplets.

My star receivers refused to catch open downfield passes, while the CPU receivers all had hands of glue.

Force defenders refused to do their job, and my defense in general refused to contain the edge or take viable pursuit angles. Even if I expected an outside run and spread my line or linebackers, they'd still all crash inside and get smothered by down-blocks.

CPU receivers would repeatedly beat my DBs on in-breaking routes and break free for huge gains or scores, even though I explicitly set inside shade before the snap.

Outside shade was basically an invitation for the CPU to score on a post or quick slant, even if I had a single-high safety or robber to supposedly stop those specific routes.

My blockers would absolutely refuse to block the single most important assignment on the play whenever I needed a run play to be successful, even with elite running teams (such as Michigan).

My own big plays would consistently be called back by penalties.

The CPU teams would go into un-beatable "turbo mode" as soon as the 2-minute warning hit.

And so on, and so on. You've heard or read all of this before if you've looked at any review of Madden in the past decade or so.

CPU-controlled defenders take horrible containment and pursuit angles.

There was even a patch, released a couple days before this review was published, which was supposed to have improved pursuit angles. But in my limited play since the patch, it seems to have actually made pursuit even worse, somehow! Not only do players continue to take horrible containment angles, but any defender that happens to be in the open field on the perimeter, and in a position to stop an outside run, now has an infuriating habit of just bouncing off the ball-carrier. So perimeter tackles that were being made a week ago, are now being missed after the patch, giving up even more big runs and scores to the outside.

I cannot understate how much these poor pursuit and containment angles are ruining my enjoyment of this game! So many of my losses can be directly traced to my defense just completely shitting the bed and giving up big run after big run because they are completely unwilling to defend the perimeter. And there is little-to-nothing that I can do about this, because I can only control a single player on the defense at a time.

I wrote previously about my trepidations regarding the free-to-play status of Modus Games' reboot of Maximum Football. I'm not going to retread that again here. Instead, I've poured over the announcement trailer, dev diaries, and other information about the game, and would like to discuss my impressions on how the game might play, based on the publicly-available information and video.

There have so far been 2 development updates, in addition to the announcement trailer. All these videos show a little bit of gameplay, but not much. So I don't have a whole lot to go on. But I'm going to go through each video and try to identify gameplay issues that stand out to me.

Rebuilt gameplay

The first develop update, released last June, was focused on the gameplay goals of the development team. They say they want to focus on authentic, simulation gameplay. They threw away all the assets and animations from the original Maximum Football codebase (developed by Canuck Play) in order to rebuild everything from the ground up. This includes bringing in professional and college athletes for motion capture and shifting to the Unreal Engine (I think Canuck was using Unity?).

The visuals certainly look a lot better than what Canuck Play was able to create. Player models and stadiums look a lot more detailed and realistic. The jury is still kind of our on whether the animation and control will be dramatically improved, because it's hard to get a feel for the animation and controls from a simple video.

Whether you agree with my assertion in the previous essay that NCAA 13's recruiting was better than NCAA 14's, I hope I've at least made a compelling case that NCAA 14's recruiting system left a lot of room for Tiburon to improve in its upcoming EA Sports College Football game in 2023. Now I want to provide some constructive feedback and pitch some ideas I have for how Tiburon could improve the recruiting mechanic going forward, by hopefully taking the best of what both NCAA 13 and 14 had to offer.

Lessons from NCAA 14

The previous essay included a lot of criticism of NCAA 14, so I want to start off this second part by acknowledging a feature in NCAA 14 that I feel is a strict upgrade over 13, and which I would like to see preserved in EA's future college football games.

I think my single favorite upgrade in NCAA 14 is the idea of having "complimentary" and "competitive campus visits". If you schedule players from complimentary positions to visit campus on the same week, you'll get bonus points. For example, bringing in a running back along with the linemen who will be blocking for him will provide bonus points.

But you also have to be wary of scheduling multiple players of the same position. If you schedule 2 or 3 running backs on the same week, they'll see each other as competition, and will lose interest out of fear that your backfield will be crowded, and they'll loose out on playing time to another back in the same class. This is one of the few elements of 14's recruiting design which I feel retains the more humanistic, character-driven ethos from 13, and I like it a lot.

Users should avoid scheduling multiple recruits at the same position to visit in the same week.

14 also makes it much more clear how your performance on the field will impact the interest level of the visiting prospects. In NCAA 13, I was never clear about whether scheduling a visit during a bye week would make a difference, or if it mattered whether or not I won the game (if I played one that week). I always assumed that the prospect was there to watch the football game, so scheduling the visit during a bye week would impose a penalty, and I also always assumed that winning the game improved the prospect's interest, and I assumed that the prospect would also get more interest if the players at his position performed well during the game. But the U.I. for NCAA 13 was never clear about whether any of that was actually the way the game worked, or if the prospect only cared about the 3 recruiting pitches that I try to sell him on during the visit. NCAA 14 makes all this blatantly clear when you schedule the visit by showing exactly how many points the prospect will get if certain criteria are met.