This is a post that I was initially going to place under Bravejaf's status update, but I soon realized that the length of it would prohibit me from doing so. I hope there is no problem with me posting it here and linking it over there. If there is, I am sure dru will have no issue taking it down. If you do read it, I recommend that you see his status first, to understand the full context of what I am replying to in this post. Noles, I really hope you're enjoying your popcorn. I may suggest adding a second bag, however. Ryno and Jmustang- EA does not have a "monopoly" by definition, but for people who want to play football - the majority would like to play as teams or players that they can recognize. Are you suggesting that a UFL game or a CFL game would be able to compete in the market for sports gamers? That thought is 100% ludicrous, which is why there isn't an alternative of that nature. There's no way that a game like that could make money going up against the EA juggernaut with Madden and NCAA as it's competition. So, sure, EA doesnt control 100% of the market, but they control enough so that if competition ever came up it would be squashed. This is why it is often coined as a "monopoly". Furthermore, much of the frustration is stemming from the standpoint that for the most part EA has had their lips sealed to the public on the glitch since August 2nd. We all want something to look forward to, or at least a time table to fulfill our insecurities in regards to EA not putting full effort into this project and to give us a further assurance that a patch is coming. Is it unrealistic to ask for such things? OF COURSE IT IS! EA does not need to provide information regarding patch updates; however they did which actually shocked me a bit. It's not unrealistic to want such things though, and times are tough and video games are not cheap. So when a consumer buys a game, particularly one that is only going to be used for 11-12 months, they want a product that is working at full capabilities from the start. The fact that we are now 6 weeks into a game cycle that will only last 48-52 weeks (11-12.5%) and the game is still not working properly is quite disconcerting. People are now only going to get, at best, 42-46 weeks of a game which still may have bugs post patch. And that’s not even taking into account the seasonal gamers, or those who use NCAA to bide the time until Madden comes out (these people will have not played a 100% functional NCAA game). The numbers may not go through the head of many people as I have shown here, but the thought of "I'm wasting my time on a game that isn't working" has for most of us here. Jmustang - I will grant you that you are spot on about more complex games having more bugs. That is true across platforms and genres for the simple fact that humans are fallible and won’t notice everything. Furthermore, there are some things that cannot be brought to light in small scale beta testing - but the transfer failed issue is one that should have been on the radar of EA from the very beginning due to its rampancy and then could have even potentially fixed in Patch #1. I will try to keep my remaining responses under 420 characters and continue to post under Bravejaf’s status thread for future comments, but this is something that would lose much meaning and quite frankly clutter the board if I posted it in little pieces under the status.