And this is why you buy games for the game mechanics, not for the IP. Or at least why you should. A lot of people don't, which leads to fiascoes like this.
Think it's the first time I've disagreed with something Quizzical has said..
Look at the Telltale games. Mechanically, those games are rubbish. It's all about the IP.
Post edited by TheDarkrayne on
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
totally agree,my thoughts for quite some time now is since Disney gave them exclusive rights to make games what QUALITY games have we actually gotten since.....
EA probably could have just ignored all the complaints and released the loot boxes anyways and they would have made more money. Such is the nature of human gambling addiction.
I remember when people just bought a game, took it home, installed it on their machine and played it as much or as little as they liked. No updates (sans bug fixes) were offered. You wanted more, you bought their next game. I didn't see an issue with this model.
Then we had the ability to interconnect these very same games via a LAN. Again, no extra fees, just you and your friends. Still no updates (just bug fixes). You wanted more, you bought their next game. I didn't see an issue with this model.
Internet comes along and it starts out innocently enough. You bought the game and multiplayer was free. No monthly charges. You had to pony up for the internet though. Still no updates (just bug fixes). I didn't see an issue with this model.
Then came the subscription games. Seemed a little dubious, but at the time you were having a lot of fun so you figured it was worth it because you were getting updates and not just bug fixes. You still had to pony up for the internet. I accepted this model due to the fun factor.
Then things began to change. Instead of getting updates you were paying just to play the game you had already paid for. You were paying for the internet too. I started to realize that I was now paying for what was essentially a LAN game. I started to question the whole subscription model in it's entirety. I stopped playing subscription games.
Free to play comes along and I thought, there it is, the model we all started out with, only we don't pay for the game. You accept the fact that they charge you for things to actually play the game because you never paid upfront. Sure, you are still ponying up for the internet, but it felt like a pay as you go scenario instead of pay no matter what. I was okay with this except that you were locked into this microtransaction scheme forever which made it just like paying a subscription. Wolf in different clothing. I stopped playing F2P games.
What I want is the early internet back. You buy the game, the developer promises nothing but bug fixes, and you are free to play it whenever you want. I don't need a game world with 10,000 people in it, at most 20 are fine... it's what the old online games pretty much locked you in at that didn't charge you a fee. It was wonderful. But then, why would anyone do that again when they already got you by the balls. There's no going back... a cup of Joe will never be ten cents again so long as 4 dollar lattes are all the rage.
We're screwed because we let ourselves get screwed. Now we get to live with it.
Our society is becoming obsessive about perfection. I don't recall a perfect Star Wars game ever being made.
I agree that nothing is going to be perfect, but you would at least expect it to get better. these games are getting worse each time a new one comes out.
I don't enjoy that EA has a monopoly on the Star Wars game franchise. Now that they've managed to generate enough bad press with BF2 that Disney apparently felt the need to step in, I'd say now is the time for anyone else who feels the same way to do something about it. If an internet outrage campaign worked against EA why shouldn't one against Disney not have a chance at making them rethink the EA deal. I'd personally advise emailing Disney and telling them that due to massive displeasure over EA's poor handling of BF2 that it will now effect your outlook on Disney and their products as well. Nothing rustles a massive corporations jimmies faster than bad press and potential money loss.
And this is why you buy games for the game mechanics, not for the IP. Or at least why you should. A lot of people don't, which leads to fiascoes like this.
Think it's the first time I've disagreed with something Quizzical has said..
Look at the Telltale games. Mechanically, those games are rubbish. It's all about the IP.
I'm not sure what do you mean by them being mechanically rubbish. And if it was all about the IP, that crappy Action/RPG GoT game from a few years ago would've pawned the market. But it didn't. But TellTale one with rubbish mechanics was well received.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
My issue with EA / Disney is just down to EA having exclusive game rights to the Star Wars IP.
I love Star Wars, but like others I refuse to give EA any more money. The last good game I played from EA was Skate 3 back in 2007, but in general everything I've ever played from them has been a disappointment. On top of that, I take issue with them constantly destroying unique studios and IPs as well as their predatory monetisation schemes.
Now, if EA were to release a good game then I would consider buying it. Fun is obviously the most important thing so a good enough game would make me overlook their shady business practices. But, the way EA is setup as a business, that is unlikely to ever happen.
I'm fine if EA want to continue making SW games, I will continue to not buy them, I just wish other companies would get the opportunity to make SW games too.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
I haven't purchased an EA game since Battlefield 3, and I'm certainly not going to anytime soon. In fact, I've alerted all of my uninformed gaming friends to these events. Hopefully, none of them will give EA their hard-earned dollars, either. Recent events prove that EA is interested in nothing but money. I do feel sorry for the developers caught under the thumb of EA's corporatocracy.
I don't think this fiasco with Battlefront 2 is going to amount to much of anything. Greed is a powerful motivator, and EA is, if anything, exceptionally greedy.
It seems true that Disney came down hard on EA for the gambling aspects of the loot crates, however, as per EA/DICE statements, they will only be absent temporarily. They claim that will be the case until they can make changes to the game. I'm dubious of this. I think they are simply biding their time until the shitstorm calms down, after which they will reimplement those loot crates.
The loot crates are not going away. The industry as a whole is moving in this direction, and for the hundreds of thousands that complain or mount a Reddit campaign in protest, there are millions who will could care less (IT'S STAR WARS, BRO!) easily shelling out the $60 up front and much more later out of frustration in order to play as Darth Daddy.
The best scenario is that EA returns the loot crates for cosmetic items only, but I am not going to hold my breath. But make no mistake, they will return, and many more games from a lot of developers/publishers are going to include them in the future.
Until gamers stop buying this trash, this is what we are going to get. By buying this trash, gamers are telling publishers that this is what they want, and as such, they are all too happy to provide it and rake in the green.
What do you plan to have done with the Star Wars license? There are have been two MMORPGs. The only place I'd like to see it used is in single player games, but I'm not a huge fan of the new movies and that would make playing through the single player games pointless for me. If they had another KOTOR single player game I'd probably give it a try.
Okay, lets assume for a moment that Disney is indeed considering removing the IP from EA. They are going to give it to whom exactly ? Activision ? Ubisoft ?
Not many studios out there with the infrastructure needed to produce and distribute SW titles with the fidelity Disney demands and pretty much all of them are run by greedy suits.
I think that they should re-open Lucas arts, maybe look to another model, or maybe this industry has to do something to be more nimble and competitive. I don't mind greedy suits as long as I get a quality product.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
Considering what they could have accomplished given a license to print money, EA has demonstrated repeatedly that they know how to make decisions with this license that make for tepid customer satisfaction and poor performance. The failure of the open world game to see the light, the myriad problems with SWTOR, and Battlefront appearing to be a general frustration simulator all point to Disney making a choice as to whether they want to continue to lose potential dollars to this rotting agreement with EA, or to look for new options. Given that the decision to make a new trilogy is almost certainly a result of poor earnings for Disney as a whole, reassessing the gaming license would seem to make sense.
The new Rian Johnson lead trilogy? You know, when Trevorrow was fired from directing Episode 9, people speculated that Episode 8 - The Last Jedi, probably had some behind the scenes drama that made Johnson an unwanted director for Episode 9.
As far as I know Disney is doing just fine financially.
But I do believe Battlefront 2 has raised some questions at Disney. With The Last Jedi coming in theatres next month, the shit show EA has caused is something Disney won't tolerate, they will do everything in their power to protect the franchise they paid billions for.
EA didn't just suddenly realize that the MT in Battlefront 2 is bad for sales, it's Star Wars, it will sell no matter what. The bad publicity it has caused though, is what made Disney order them to remove it for the time being.
Well I'm not really sure what you are getting at here because you seem to be saying that Disney will do a lot to exercise control because of the product but then you state that the product is automatically successful so it doesn't matter. I think Star Wars stuff always makes some money as compared to other things, but a very good product + Star Wars would be that much better. Given all the negatives that EA has a company like Disney would be better off handling these properties themselves and cutting out EA.
Let's see if I can explain it properly. Basically what I was trying to say is that, the bad publicity doesn't just hurt EA but Disney as well.
Consumers boycotting Battlefront 2, an EA product. Can lead to consumers boycotting the whole Star Wars franchise, owned by Disney.
Battlefront 2 will make money for EA but the bad publicity can take away money from Disney.
I do feel that Disney should resurrect LucasArts and let them to the licensing per game, like they used to with KOTOR and such.
100% agree on LucasArts
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
Wonder what their contract looks like. I doubt it's that easy to remove/take away the licence.
It isn't too long before it expires might as well wait it out instead of getting into long court battles. Both sides will have an army of lawyers.
I don't know for sure, but I remember hearing that it had some release wording in it that was about performance and standards of the products as well as impact on the brand.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
Our society is becoming obsessive about perfection. I don't recall a perfect Star Wars game ever being made.
A number of people around here will tell you that Star Wars Galaxies was perfect before this the New Game Experience wrecked it.
More seriously, EA does all sorts of obnoxious stuff all the time. If you hear about some big, well-known game publisher having done something scandalous, EA is the culprit more often than not. I've got a simple solution for this: don't buy anything from EA. I've been boycotting them for over 20 years now, and in that time, they've given me plenty of additional reasons to justify that and none to reconsider that stance. There are many other publishers and developers who are far more customer-friendly.
Doesnt seem to be working , in those 20 years they have sold more games by far than any other publisher ...They have provided hundreds of millions of hours of enjoyable gameplay to the consumer.. Such bad guys ............lol
EA reminds me of a chop shop. They take a really nice game, chop it into pieces and sell off the parts.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Our society is becoming obsessive about perfection. I don't recall a perfect Star Wars game ever being made.
A number of people around here will tell you that Star Wars Galaxies was perfect before this the New Game Experience wrecked it.
More seriously, EA does all sorts of obnoxious stuff all the time. If you hear about some big, well-known game publisher having done something scandalous, EA is the culprit more often than not. I've got a simple solution for this: don't buy anything from EA. I've been boycotting them for over 20 years now, and in that time, they've given me plenty of additional reasons to justify that and none to reconsider that stance. There are many other publishers and developers who are far more customer-friendly.
Doesnt seem to be working , in those 20 years they have sold more games by far than any other publisher ...They have provided hundreds of millions of hours of enjoyable gameplay to the consumer.. Such bad guys ............lol
EA reminds me of a chop shop. They take a really nice game, chop it into pieces and sell off the parts.
I disagree that its a nice game to begin with. well the first version of said game likely 15 years ago was good, but each iteration of the same game is not good to begin with. if that makes sense
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Disney has an impressive list of demands for theaters who want to show 'The Last Jedi
"This deal is getting worse all the time."
Lando Calrissian's statement about his arrangement with Darth Vader could well be on the minds of theater owners, given that they reportedly have to hand over a record 65 percent of the ticket take from The Last Jedi to Disney.
The contract to run the latest Star Wars film, which lands everywhere in just six weeks, also ups Disney's take to 70 percent if the theater puts a foot wrong on a number of counts, according to a Wall Street Journalreport.
U.S. theater owners are required to run the movie for four weeks without skipping a single screening if they want to avoid that penalty. They also have to run specific marketing promotions for the film exactly when Disney wants, and not a day early.
It's an unusual clause, both in its duration (two weeks is more common for hit Disney movies) and its level of punishment — 5 percent of the Last Jedi gross could make the difference between profit and loss for many theaters.
Other blockbuster movies might give at most a 60 percent take to the studio, and even then the theater would usually get more after the first week or so. Internationally, a 40 percent cut is more common.
The Mouse House can issue these demands, of course, because it's holding all the cards. While ticket sales for most movies are down across the board this year, Disney subsidiaries Marvel and Lucasfilm are turning out reliable hit after reliable hit.
And this isn't the first time the promise of a Star Wars movie has been used as leverage with theaters. In 2002, George Lucas insisted theaters would have to install digital projectors if they wanted to screen Episode II. When 20th Century Fox distributed the original movie in 1977, theaters were forced to screen another Fox film, The Other Side of Midnight, if they wanted Star Wars. (Before the movie became a surprise hit, Fox insisted on the same deal in reverse: If theaters wanted Midnight, they had to agree to screen Star Wars.)
But in particular, The Last Jedi is likely to be a tentpole movie that makes other blockbusters look like a tiny kids' tent. Its predecessor, The Force Awakens, became the top grossing film of all time in the U.S. within the first three weeks of its release.
By the end of its run, The Force Awakens had grossed an incredible $937 million in American theaters and another $1.1 billion around the world. It was seen on more than 4,000 screens in the U.S., and some theaters kept showing the film until June 2016. Not bad, considering it opened in December 2015. If The Last Jedi does that kind of business, it will change a lot of bottom lines for a lot of multiplexes.
Put it like that, and Disney's terms seem a little less onerous. Still, the Journal spoke to theater owners in smaller markets who said the economics of the deal just didn't make sense for them, and they would not sign on for The Last Jedi. Why screen a movie for four weeks if everyone in your tiny town will have already seen it after week 2?
These are the breaks when you deal with an empire the size of Disney. They have altered the bargain, theater owners. Pray they do not alter it any further.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Comments
Look at the Telltale games. Mechanically, those games are rubbish. It's all about the IP.
Then we had the ability to interconnect these very same games via a LAN. Again, no extra fees, just you and your friends. Still no updates (just bug fixes). You wanted more, you bought their next game. I didn't see an issue with this model.
Internet comes along and it starts out innocently enough. You bought the game and multiplayer was free. No monthly charges. You had to pony up for the internet though. Still no updates (just bug fixes). I didn't see an issue with this model.
Then came the subscription games. Seemed a little dubious, but at the time you were having a lot of fun so you figured it was worth it because you were getting updates and not just bug fixes. You still had to pony up for the internet. I accepted this model due to the fun factor.
Then things began to change. Instead of getting updates you were paying just to play the game you had already paid for. You were paying for the internet too. I started to realize that I was now paying for what was essentially a LAN game. I started to question the whole subscription model in it's entirety. I stopped playing subscription games.
Free to play comes along and I thought, there it is, the model we all started out with, only we don't pay for the game. You accept the fact that they charge you for things to actually play the game because you never paid upfront. Sure, you are still ponying up for the internet, but it felt like a pay as you go scenario instead of pay no matter what. I was okay with this except that you were locked into this microtransaction scheme forever which made it just like paying a subscription. Wolf in different clothing. I stopped playing F2P games.
What I want is the early internet back. You buy the game, the developer promises nothing but bug fixes, and you are free to play it whenever you want. I don't need a game world with 10,000 people in it, at most 20 are fine... it's what the old online games pretty much locked you in at that didn't charge you a fee. It was wonderful. But then, why would anyone do that again when they already got you by the balls. There's no going back... a cup of Joe will never be ten cents again so long as 4 dollar lattes are all the rage.
We're screwed because we let ourselves get screwed. Now we get to live with it.
lol .. "perfect" is clearly subjective for games. And other will tell you that it is not. Otherwise, why would it be shut down?
Why would a perfect game not making enough money? wait .. must be plenty of gamers did not think so.
I love Star Wars, but like others I refuse to give EA any more money. The last good game I played from EA was Skate 3 back in 2007, but in general everything I've ever played from them has been a disappointment. On top of that, I take issue with them constantly destroying unique studios and IPs as well as their predatory monetisation schemes.
Now, if EA were to release a good game then I would consider buying it. Fun is obviously the most important thing so a good enough game would make me overlook their shady business practices. But, the way EA is setup as a business, that is unlikely to ever happen.
I'm fine if EA want to continue making SW games, I will continue to not buy them, I just wish other companies would get the opportunity to make SW games too.
I don't think this fiasco with Battlefront 2 is going to amount to much of anything. Greed is a powerful motivator, and EA is, if anything, exceptionally greedy.
It seems true that Disney came down hard on EA for the gambling aspects of the loot crates, however, as per EA/DICE statements, they will only be absent temporarily. They claim that will be the case until they can make changes to the game. I'm dubious of this. I think they are simply biding their time until the shitstorm calms down, after which they will reimplement those loot crates.
The loot crates are not going away. The industry as a whole is moving in this direction, and for the hundreds of thousands that complain or mount a Reddit campaign in protest, there are millions who will could care less (IT'S STAR WARS, BRO!) easily shelling out the $60 up front and much more later out of frustration in order to play as Darth Daddy.
The best scenario is that EA returns the loot crates for cosmetic items only, but I am not going to hold my breath. But make no mistake, they will return, and many more games from a lot of developers/publishers are going to include them in the future.
Until gamers stop buying this trash, this is what we are going to get. By buying this trash, gamers are telling publishers that this is what they want, and as such, they are all too happy to provide it and rake in the green.
I think that they should re-open Lucas arts, maybe look to another model, or maybe this industry has to do something to be more nimble and competitive. I don't mind greedy suits as long as I get a quality product.
100% agree on LucasArts
I don't know for sure, but I remember hearing that it had some release wording in it that was about performance and standards of the products as well as impact on the brand.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Disney has an impressive list of demands for theaters who want to show 'The Last Jedi
"This deal is getting worse all the time."
Lando Calrissian's statement about his arrangement with Darth Vader could well be on the minds of theater owners, given that they reportedly have to hand over a record 65 percent of the ticket take from The Last Jedi to Disney.
The contract to run the latest Star Wars film, which lands everywhere in just six weeks, also ups Disney's take to 70 percent if the theater puts a foot wrong on a number of counts, according to a Wall Street Journal report.
U.S. theater owners are required to run the movie for four weeks without skipping a single screening if they want to avoid that penalty. They also have to run specific marketing promotions for the film exactly when Disney wants, and not a day early.
It's an unusual clause, both in its duration (two weeks is more common for hit Disney movies) and its level of punishment — 5 percent of the Last Jedi gross could make the difference between profit and loss for many theaters.
Other blockbuster movies might give at most a 60 percent take to the studio, and even then the theater would usually get more after the first week or so. Internationally, a 40 percent cut is more common.
The Mouse House can issue these demands, of course, because it's holding all the cards. While ticket sales for most movies are down across the board this year, Disney subsidiaries Marvel and Lucasfilm are turning out reliable hit after reliable hit.
And this isn't the first time the promise of a Star Wars movie has been used as leverage with theaters. In 2002, George Lucas insisted theaters would have to install digital projectors if they wanted to screen Episode II. When 20th Century Fox distributed the original movie in 1977, theaters were forced to screen another Fox film, The Other Side of Midnight, if they wanted Star Wars. (Before the movie became a surprise hit, Fox insisted on the same deal in reverse: If theaters wanted Midnight, they had to agree to screen Star Wars.)
But in particular, The Last Jedi is likely to be a tentpole movie that makes other blockbusters look like a tiny kids' tent. Its predecessor, The Force Awakens, became the top grossing film of all time in the U.S. within the first three weeks of its release.
By the end of its run, The Force Awakens had grossed an incredible $937 million in American theaters and another $1.1 billion around the world. It was seen on more than 4,000 screens in the U.S., and some theaters kept showing the film until June 2016. Not bad, considering it opened in December 2015. If The Last Jedi does that kind of business, it will change a lot of bottom lines for a lot of multiplexes.
Put it like that, and Disney's terms seem a little less onerous. Still, the Journal spoke to theater owners in smaller markets who said the economics of the deal just didn't make sense for them, and they would not sign on for The Last Jedi. Why screen a movie for four weeks if everyone in your tiny town will have already seen it after week 2?
These are the breaks when you deal with an empire the size of Disney. They have altered the bargain, theater owners. Pray they do not alter it any further.
http://mashable.com/2017/11/01/star-wars-last-jedi-theaters-disney/#j4AXIzSkwOqb
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey