The Future & Direction of NBA Live

As we all know, the future and planned direction of NBA Live seems to be up in the air. It's looking like there won't be an NBA Live 21 this year, though there's been no official announcement either way. Its absence from a financial report including upcoming titles is a pretty good indication that we shouldn't expect a game until one is formally announced, though.

Some of us go way back with NBA Live. We're probably in the minority, but we remember a time when NBA Live was the premier brand, or at the very least, holding its own against NBA 2K. We've seen the struggles launching on the past two generations, and changes in plans/direction that haven't helped the series at all. I think most of us would agree that the lack of focus on the NBA side of things as far as core gameplay and modes, before expanding into the new experiences involving The Streets and whatnot, hasn't done the game any favours.

I've written a couple of Monday Tip-Off articles about this, which I'll shamelessly plug here as background reading for the discussion.

Can NBA Live Be Relevant Again?

As a long-time basketball gamer that grew up with NBA Live, it gives me no joy to dump on the franchise. I believe that there are content creators out there who delight at the series’ struggles and subsequently ripping into it, but I’m certainly not one of them. For all the great things that NBA 2K has done, the slips in quality here and there, and of course the increased focus on microtransactions, demonstrate why it’s important to have choice and competition in the basketball gaming space. Some say NBA Live should just pack it in, but frankly, we need it, and we need it to succeed.

Unfortunately, that’s much easier said than done. NBA Live has struggled to get to where it needs to be over the past decade. Again, it brings me no joy to say that, nor do I relish pointing out that not only has its quality suffered, but so has its relevance. Indeed, a friend of mine who isn’t really into basketball, but picked up NBA 2K20 on special after watching The Last Dance, mentioned he was surprised that EA Sports doesn’t have a new basketball game out. It’s not surprising that someone who isn’t into the scene doesn’t know the full story behind the fall of NBA Live, but nevertheless, it speaks volumes about its relevance today. The question is: can EA change that?

The Right Direction for NBA Live

Needless to say, the past decade has been tough for NBA Live. Through cancelled titles and skipped years, the series has seen only five releases during that span. There have been promising aspects and good ideas present in those five games, and it could be argued that at least a couple of titles have been solid, but EA Sports has failed to move the needle. NBA Live is still languishing far behind where it needs to be as a viable alternative to NBA 2K and the enormous gulf in sales speaks volumes. NBA 2K has its issues, but NBA Live hasn’t been able to capitalise on gamer frustration.

The good news is that the door hasn’t been slammed shut on NBA Live. Thanks to a combination of readily apparent potential and 2K squandering goodwill, there is still interest in seeing NBA Live return to its former glory. Unfortunately, the series’ steps towards reaching that goal haven’t been as large as many of us would’ve liked, and one of the main reasons for that is the direction of the series. More specifically, this includes both the particular choices that have been made, and the tendency to change direction too often. NBA Live needs to have the right focus moving forward, but that raises the question: what is the right direction for NBA Live to take?

I'd definitely appreciate people checking out those articles (and leaving comments if so inclined), but basically, my take is that NBA Live needs to focus on being a well-rounded NBA sim again, improving across the board and providing adequate depth, rather than focusing on The Streets and a non-existent "younger, new demographic", because those people are already playing NBA 2K and need NBA Live to be a viable alternative in order to even consider it. Again, the "NBA" part of "NBA Live" needs to be the focus again, and everything else - LIVE Events, Court Battles, The Streets, etc - should be alternative experiences that are built off of that sim core.

I don't think NBA Live should try to be NBA Street, because it can't adequately fill that role. NBA Street has a distinct style of gameplay that's far more similar to NBA Jam, and while there are issues with the realism and whatnot in NBA Live's gameplay, it's still sim style. It's not 2-on-2 or 3-on-3 with no rules and high flying dunks, and other exaggerated abilities common to the arcade style. It's a sim game that's falling short of the depth and quality we expect these days (and in some cases, what we expected some 10-15 years ago).

Last year I wrote another article touching on this matter: "Should NBA Live Be More Like NBA 2K?". To summarise that column, NBA Live needs to cover some common ground with staples that are expected of an NBA sim, though there are things it should do its own way, and it's important that it has its own hooks (like The Streets or Court Battles) that provide something different. The bottom line is that NBA 2K has been successful because it's given basketball gamers what they want out of a basketball game. To do things differently just for the sake of being different is folly; like putting triangular wheels on a car just because all the other car manufacturers have round wheels. NBA Live needs to borrow the best aspects of NBA 2K, while also bringing its own good ideas to the table. That's how it will compete, how it can be a viable alternative again.

As long as NBA Live has the wrong direction - and I would suggest the fact that the current plan hasn't sufficiently moved the needle suggests that it is the wrong direction - it can't be the game it needs to be in order to succeed. It needs to get on track and stay the course. Chopping and changing direction has put the series in the hole that it's in, while consistency and patiently building on a solid foundation turned NBA 2K into a juggernaut. I'd also suggest that tuning out the older voices in the community has been to the series' detriment, as younger NBA 2K YouTubers who don't have a history with (or any affection for) NBA Live aren't the target audience for the game, or the ideal group for quality constructive feedback.

It's hard to remain optimistic, but NBA Live would take a major step forward if EA chooses the right direction, allows the developers to stick to that plan, and of course, provide the necessary resources to get the job done. I hope it can happen because we really need at least two sim games in the basketball gaming space, providing a viable alternative and keeping each other honest. As I outlined in this week's article, EA also needs to do a much better job of engaging with the community and building hype for the game, because the silence is deafening and does little to assuage concerns, get people excited, or simply keep the name in people's minds in any kind of positive light. Bringing back missing features and staples of the genre, and focusing on the NBA side of things and building out from there, is the only fresh start or concept NBA Live needs to consider.

About the topic of relevance, it’s a tough one. I believe that the problem is that NBA Live has a negative connotation instead of indifference or a neutral one. When one thinks about Live, regardless of age, one could think about it’s terrible PS3/360 era, Elite 11, constant delays and cancellations and mediocre at best PS4/XOne games. Without considering 2K, Live in itself has damaged the brand too many times over time that its perception is so low.

Besides that, when the quality standard is NBA 2K which (despite its flaws) has so much and deep content to offer, considering a (very inferior) product doesn’t make much sense. It isn’t just related to basketball videogames, it’s with anything. If you know something is the best alternative in a type of product/service, and you can afford it, why would someone waste time and money in something that isn’t good? For example, why would someone buy an unpolished, incomplete and barely supported FPS when you could buy Battlefield, COD or any high quality game and (almost) the same price?

I know that one could say that people buy multiple games from the same genre like COD and Battlefield, FIFA and PES, etc but not many do so or at least at release. NBA Live wouldn’t just compete with 2K, but with Madden, FIFA, PES, NHL or any game released during the same period of time. People have limited amount of time and money to spend, so dedicating some of it to play an inferior product isn’t worth doing so.

I don’t want to say that it’s an uphill battle but in people’s unconscious NBA Live is associated with bad, older players because they remember how good it was and it pains them how it felt apartm and younger players because they see the franchise as a joke compared to a good/great product. To be relevant they have to make a great game at once, not simply good or “a strong foundation to build from” (I hate that phrase) because if not people (or most of them) won’t care enough to buy the game and so keep improving each iteration.

I agree that it's past time to make a game with potential, and that the next release must really impress. My point about the "solid foundation" is that NBA 2K did that, and it helped them keep getting better, while NBA Live's constant changes in direction and attempts at quick fixes have set them back. It's easy to see which approach ended up working out for the best.

My point about the "solid foundation" is that NBA 2K did that, and it helped them keep getting better, while NBA Live's constant changes in direction and attempts at quick fixes have set them back. It's easy to see which approach ended up working out for the best.

Maybe I didn't express myself correctly in that part. I’d consider a game with solid foundation one that isn’t good or is mediocre but its core is strong, and while there are tons of room for improvement the team that created the game is capable of making it great.

2K hasn’t had a game like that in forever, there have been some disappointing releases but the quality still was there in some way or another. There hasn’t been a NBA 2K game that had a solid foundation in forever because the consistency was always there, they kept improving steadily over the years.

I’ve heard people say a Live has a solid foundation each release since Live 15. When is it going to make a jump to a good to great game? Is there a sustainable core with real potential of improvement? One could say that there has been a decent leap in quality from Live 14 to 15 but nobody would say Live 14 had potential or had a good core to build from.

And to be honest I haven’t felt any Live release in this gen had a solid foundation, a good core or any potential, those were games that at best could be decent. I haven’t been excited for a Live release since Elite 11, I know it was bad but in some way I was hyped by it because one could see potential in it (or at least to me). I really really hope EA proves me wrong and brings something that is or could be great, I want to have faith in the franchise. I enjoy NBA 2K but I still need something fresh and good. I can’t justify myself buying Live just because it isn’t 2K, it has to be more than that and I feel I’m not alone since sales reflect that.

I get what you mean. I feel like we're ultimately talking about the same thing, perhaps in different words. NBA 2K's consistency and stronger releases helped its success and reputation, and the better releases have been ones that many of us have legitimately enjoyed. That hasn't been the case, by and large, with NBA Live. There are a couple of NBA Live games on this generation that I've had some fun with despite their flaws, but that's hardly a ringing endorsement, and that's not going to move the needle. That's me accepting the games for what they are and trying to make the most of them, which isn't the sign of a great release.

I’d like to know what EA meant by “younger, new demographic“, which would be the age of those? 18 years old or less?

An article published on Review42 brings several statistics about video game gamers.
The average age of a male gamer is 32 and a female gamer 34. 72% of american male video game players are in the age group of 18-29 and 46% of all gamers in the world are aged 36 or higher.
52% of gamers play on their PC while 92% of US teenage boys play games on a console.
60% of the favorite video games of millennials (18-34 years old) are sports games.

With that in mind, it doesn’t seem that good of an idea to go younger, the majority of gamers seem to be older than 18. Time ago it seemed like a fair idea since gaming was considered a child’s thing but in today’s age it’s accepted and welcomed by adults, besides the fact that adults have the money to buy more games than kids.

Maybe EA has other statistics that aren’t available to the public or I haven’t found which would argue for their decision. Maybe kids tend to spend more money on microtransactions (one would think so but don’t know if there’s that to prove that) and they see that as an opportunity for extra revenue. EA earns a lot from FIFA's and Madden’s Ultimate Team but they haven’t capitalised on Live so I don’t understand for now that motive.

Perhaps they feel that the image is tarnished that much on adults that remember their failing from the PS3/360 era to today and they feel they need to start fresh. A younger generation who doesn’t remember or know much about their missteps and that they can evaluate NBA Live without bias. Plus, if it’s done well (big if) it could generate a sense of loyalty or fondness to the franchise like we had during the 90’s to the PS2 era.

I don’t think focusing on them should be the priority to be honest. A good game attracts people whoever they are, regardless of age. All the fluff is useless if the game isn’t good, and even a “younger demographic” could see that.

I’d like to know what EA meant by “younger, new demographic“, which would be the age of those? 18 years old or less?

My guess, the ones that dont understand what "working" means and spend real money on microtransactions.

I’d like to know what EA meant by “younger, new demographic“, which would be the age of those? 18 years old or less?

My guess, the ones that dont understand what "working" means and spend real money on microtransactions.

Are there any stats to back that? I only found that EA earned $1.49 billion by FIFA Ultimate Team alone and news of a kid spending £550 buying packs. I'm not saying it's inconceivable because they might feel the pressure of being in equal or better conditions than their peers or simply because they don’t like/know to grind and earn stuff, but I tried finding something to confirm that but I couldn’t.

Even so, NBA Live isn’t popular or good enough to get children to play the game and buy microtransactions. Maybe if it was free to play and there was a decent player base I could see the approach but still it’s difficult for me to agree.

No stat, from what i read, there's a lot of complaints in court all over the world, specially in Europe, about kids and loot boxes.
I'm sure young adults are concerned too.
So from the quote “younger, new demographic“, it's what i guess.

I’d like to know what EA meant by “younger, new demographic“, which would be the age of those? 18 years old or less?

Yeah, it that still puzzles me. Supposedly a younger crowd that isn't already playing NBA 2K? The thing is that the people of that age bracket who are inclined to play a basketball game would already be playing NBA 2K, so I'm not sure where they think this untapped demographic that'll prefer their latest approach is coming from.

Stumbled on this channel from Prime, but this video was uploaded today. The use of AI to reduce hundreds of man hours by reducing tedious work and to stay within budget. Check it out.

Stumbled on this channel from Prime, but this video was uploaded today. The use of AI to reduce hundreds of man hours by reducing tedious work and to stay within budget. Check it out.

[ Image ]

Have you checked the previous video? That one was more in depth and longer, it's worth checking out. I found it really interesting and can change hugely videogame animations.

If this was introduced in the next Live it could be a gamechanger, since I found its canned, few and at times unresponsive animations one of their worst aspects gameplaywise.

Stumbled on this channel from Prime, but this video was uploaded today. The use of AI to reduce hundreds of man hours by reducing tedious work and to stay within budget. Check it out.

[ Image ]

Have you checked the previous video? That one was more in depth and longer, it's worth checking out. I found it really interesting and can change hugely videogame animations.

If this was introduced in the next Live it could be a gamechanger, since I found its canned, few and at times unresponsive animations one of their worst aspects gameplaywise.

Wow, this seems like a preview of NBA Live. Don't really see why would EA waste time of some highly skilled engineer to just do some basketball animation previews. Oh I would love them kicking butts of 2K.

yeah I saw the other video as well, pretty sure this is why they canceled Live 20. He also stated that the animation technology hasn't progressed which is why the games have suffered. Maybe we'll see something about the future of NBA Live tonight at EA Play.

As discussed on a recent episode of our podcast, if they've got anything impressive to show, it'd be worth it to generate hype.

If that technology ends up being in Live, it'd be huge in so many aspects. One of those could be the shift from developing time during mocap and polishing animations into other areas that sorely need attention like AI, NBA simulation and game modes. I wonder if that learning AI could create signature animations by recordings instead of mocap, it’d be really interesting.

If that technology ends up being in Live, it'd be huge in so many aspects. One of those could be the shift from developing time during mocap and polishing animations into other areas that sorely need attention like AI, NBA simulation and game modes. I wonder if that learning AI could create signature animations by recordings instead of mocap, it’d be really interesting.

it might need the mocap information but if the AI can tweak the animations based on any situation without the devs having to add it in this can be revolutionary in so many ways. Notice how the only sports example is basketball, even in the PDF they mainly talk about basketball movement. I was always wondering when they would implement more AI tech in these games. I hope they give us a glimpse of something today at EA Play.

So, nothing at EA Play. I'm not totally surprised by that.

I guess that I was too naive to think they’d show anything other than a cinematic trailer from FIFA and Madden. Well … we’ll see something from Live by July 2021 then (even if it’s confirmation or cancellation by their Q4 earnings call).

I guess that I was too naive to think they’d show anything other than a cinematic trailer from FIFA and Madden. Well … we’ll see something from Live by July 2021 then (even if it’s confirmation or cancellation by their Q4 earnings call).

FIFA looked more in-game than Madden