No tears here, while I like hero games, this was not one that I found any fun playing. Part of the fun of playing these games is creating your hero. No such fun in this game, you had to use theirs. Then the monetization design was way over the top.
Disney is rapidly becoming the next EA. Investing money in any of their games is a risk if you expect to actually get anything, but short term results.
Disney got out of games - other companies who had acquired a Disney IP made the games.
Now if this shut down is indeed the result of Disney pulling/not renewing the IP and moving the IP to ????? we can speculate.
The license was just recently renewed. This likely had everything to do with the CEO controversy.
They "said" it was renewed til 2025 and after that announcement I'm sure some people spent money cause who'd think a game would shut down 7 years before the license ends. It would be good of them to at least give refunds to console players and maybe even pc players who spent money after they went radio silent.
"You might want to spend a bit more effort on that moving on thing."
I moved on several years ago. I just don't forget getting burned.
Your first post in this thread contradicts your assertion.
Not at all. Just a different take on common posts made by those who like to ridicule others for having feelings about a game they themselves cared nothing about. It still happens to this day so it's pretty hard to forget.
I've got a feevah, and the only prescription... is more cowbell.
If the CEO was the issue they would have asked for him to be replaced not cut ties with the company. I hope so anyway as running a society on the basis of "allegations" rather than what is established in a court of law/tribunal etc is taking us back to the dark ages.
Law is one thing, reputation is another.
I agree with you on legal issues. However, Disney's sales are partially supported by their family morals and their company reputation. Actions affecting that reputation is not covered by law; there are substantial laws against slander and libel. Any party, individual or corporation is perfectly within their right to cut ties with any employee, licensee, or partner that infringes on their reputation. It's not a matter of law, it's a matter of one party protecting its reputation.
It's exactly the same thing that the NFL is dealing with right now -- popular opinion thinks that a player has rights to harm the reputation of the NFL, claiming all sorts of legal rights, like due process or double jeopardy or right to a speedy trial. The NFL has the right to disassociate itself from any individual, and any individual employed by a subsidiary franchisee if they believe the individual's action harm the NFL's reputation. The NFL isn't finding an individual guilty of a crime, but the individual's activities are directly affecting the league's business operations, either real or imagined. Someday soon, the NFL will figure this out.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
If the CEO was the issue they would have asked for him to be replaced not cut ties with the company. I hope so anyway as running a society on the basis of "allegations" rather than what is established in a court of law/tribunal etc is taking us back to the dark ages.
Law is one thing, reputation is another.
I agree with you on legal issues. However, Disney's sales are partially supported by their family morals and their company reputation. Actions affecting that reputation is not covered by law; there are substantial laws against slander and libel. Any party, individual or corporation is perfectly within their right to cut ties with any employee, licensee, or partner that infringes on their reputation. It's not a matter of law, it's a matter of one party protecting its reputation.
It's exactly the same thing that the NFL is dealing with right now -- popular opinion thinks that a player has rights to harm the reputation of the NFL, claiming all sorts of legal rights, like due process or double jeopardy or right to a speedy trial. The NFL has the right to disassociate itself from any individual, and any individual employed by a subsidiary franchisee if they believe the individual's action harm the NFL's reputation. The NFL isn't finding an individual guilty of a crime, but the individual's activities are directly affecting the league's business operations, either real or imagined. Someday soon, the NFL will figure this out.
The reason why I put allegations in quotes is because we used to call this slander. If someone has a criminal record as has been suggested for the CEO, that's a different matter. I am not blaming the employer here, I am blaming a broadcasting and print media that will take a tweet about anything from being groped to being raped and just runs with it. No verification, no checking if a crime has been reported, an "allegation" has been made and that seems to be good enough to pass for news now.
You mention reputation, that is what is being abused here, and people should have a right to defend it, as should an employer too. I have no knowledge of what is happening in the NFL, but there is a balance to be found between the protecting of both reputations. There is no balance when you take action purely on the basis of a tweet.
We have become societies driven by media induced frenzy, that can never be good.
Exactly how do you verify something like that ? Wasn't the fact that in Roy Moore's case she had told other people and more than 30 people confirmed her story before they reported it enough ?
You know when you get molested they don't do it in front of others or for cameras to record. It is she said, he said stuff but if at the time it happened you tell others and they know about it that will definitely corroborate your story. How much more investigation do you need before you realise what you're dealing with.
In this case several employees already made complaints and they had the story of his former lover who said he was convicted of of peeping at a colleague while she was in the bathroom. Then all the pictures he took of little girls bottoms. People in the office knew about him and talked about it and yet they promoted him because he was good for business. Come on man at what point will you say this is no longer just an attempt to smear a person but actual sick behaviour.
No tears here, while I like hero games, this was not one that I found any fun playing. Part of the fun of playing these games is creating your hero. No such fun in this game, you had to use theirs. Then the monetization design was way over the top.
Disney is rapidly becoming the next EA. Investing money in any of their games is a risk if you expect to actually get anything, but short term results.
Disney got out of games - other companies who had acquired a Disney IP made the games.
Now if this shut down is indeed the result of Disney pulling/not renewing the IP and moving the IP to ????? we can speculate.
The license was just recently renewed. This likely had everything to do with the CEO controversy.
Disney pulled out of making games; they didn't pull out of licensing their IP.
As you say this may just be something to do with the CEO which would be part of "protecting" the IP image.
It could also be a financial or performance related.
Financially an IP license usually involves a big upfront payment or a smaller upfront payment with some recurring payments - a minimum amount each month/quarter/year/whatever. It could have fallen foul of this.
Or it could have a clause that says a minimum of X people must play the game each month/quarter/whatever maybe with metrics for time spent in game etc. One reason for giving a company an IP license is to "grow" the brand.
The bottomline: the holder of an IP doesn't want it tied into a "failed enterprise". Now if its a small IP held by a small company then the IP holder might be happy to get any money they can! If its a big IP however - which Marvel is - especially if its held by a big company - which Disney is - they will pull it if its deemed to be in the IP's best interest.
Disney/Marvel is cutting ties with a bunch of companies it seems. Disney is going to start it's own streaming service so after Netflix 2019 contract is up you won't be able to watch any Disney/Marvel movies on Netflix..
Too many streaming services is likely to crash the market or split the market so that none of the platforms really excel.
To be honest, I think Netflix and Amazon have already locked it down as the dominant ones and there is no challenging them at this point. Other publishers should just accept that and take the money from them.
Loads have tried to challenge Steam in the same way and the only one that has gained any real progress is GoG since they had a unique selling point with the whole DRM free hook. I don't see it being any different here.
Either way, it's not looking good for us, the consumers. Just more ways we lose money if you try to stay honest and don't pirate anything.
Agreed. I am not paying 10 dollars a month to each studio that is out there. But it looks like that is what will happen.
Disney agree with you - they just want you to pay your $10 to them.
And Disney are not a "publisher" of content they are a "creator" of content.
Disney is Disney - the Mouse etc. It is Marvel. It is Star Wars. It is Pixar. It is Sesame Street. It is ABC Family Worldwide (that includes lots of old channels from Fox Kids, MTM, TVS). It is 80% of ESPN (MLB, US college football and all the rest). It is 30% of Hulu. It is 50% of A&E (History Channel, Lifetime, C&I, part of Vice and more).
Which is why Netflix and Amazon have both being creating their own content - including in the case of Netflix some Marvel stuff. So I am pretty certain that Daredevil etc. will still be on Netflix. Its the "cable companies" in the US and the likes of Sky in EU that will feel the pressure if they "lose" many of the channels that they include in a subscription.
Exactly how do you verify something like that ? Wasn't the fact that in Roy Moore's case she had told other people and more than 30 people confirmed her story before they reported it enough ?
You know when you get molested they don't do it in front of others or for cameras to record. It is she said, he said stuff but if at the time it happened you tell others and they know about it that will definitely corroborate your story. How much more investigation do you need before you realise what you're dealing with.
In this case several employees already made complaints and they had the story of his former lover who said he was convicted of of peeping at a colleague while she was in the bathroom. Then all the pictures he took of little girls bottoms. People in the office knew about him and talked about it and yet they promoted him because he was good for business. Come on man at what point will you say this is no longer just an attempt to smear a person but actual sick behaviour.
I assume at least some of this was about my post, so will reply.
This is a serious issue, which often goes on under a veil of secrecy. But as I pointed out my main concern is the media reaction. Because this is a genuine issue, they seemed to have put all journalistic integrity to one side and have decided to report any such allegations found on social media. Rather than mount an investigation, do some journalism, they just hand on what they read in social media. That is very dangerous, but because they see this as a moral crusade all normal reporting considerations seem to be suspended.
I think the only standard they check against, both for the person making the allegations and the accused is that you are a public figure. In other words you are in the public domain. Astonishing to only base sound reporting on that.
I am not a journalist, but I can give those who purport to be journalists some pointers. How about contacting the person and asking for clarification? How about getting an interview, or at the very least speaking to them on the phone? You mentioned a case where 30 people confirmed the story, well that's what I am talking about for confirmation. People interviewed who are confirming what has happened. Not someone does a tweet and its in the news that evening.
You mention that some people have had an overwhelming number of reports against them. I agree there has to be something there, I think there definitely is. But that's just the point, it does not matter what you or I think. It does not matter what a media organisation thinks for that matter unless they have done the ground work. This is a matter for tribunals and/or the police not trial by media.
So how do we deal with that veil of secrecy, in a way that is fair both to the accuser and the accused? I have no certain answer, but with the digital world getting ever larger, with cameras everywhere and with people carrying recording devices on them at all times I think there are less stones for such perpetrators to hide under.
I'm surprised. I thought the game was more popular.
Personally, I thought it was way too easy. Plus they showered you with an absurd amount of loot which made upgrading items anti-climatic.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
Comments
Not at all. Just a different take on common posts made by those who like to ridicule others for having feelings about a game they themselves cared nothing about. It still happens to this day so it's pretty hard to forget.
I've got a feevah, and the only prescription... is more cowbell.
I agree with you on legal issues. However, Disney's sales are partially supported by their family morals and their company reputation. Actions affecting that reputation is not covered by law; there are substantial laws against slander and libel. Any party, individual or corporation is perfectly within their right to cut ties with any employee, licensee, or partner that infringes on their reputation. It's not a matter of law, it's a matter of one party protecting its reputation.
It's exactly the same thing that the NFL is dealing with right now -- popular opinion thinks that a player has rights to harm the reputation of the NFL, claiming all sorts of legal rights, like due process or double jeopardy or right to a speedy trial. The NFL has the right to disassociate itself from any individual, and any individual employed by a subsidiary franchisee if they believe the individual's action harm the NFL's reputation. The NFL isn't finding an individual guilty of a crime, but the individual's activities are directly affecting the league's business operations, either real or imagined. Someday soon, the NFL will figure this out.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
You mention reputation, that is what is being abused here, and people should have a right to defend it, as should an employer too. I have no knowledge of what is happening in the NFL, but there is a balance to be found between the protecting of both reputations. There is no balance when you take action purely on the basis of a tweet.
We have become societies driven by media induced frenzy, that can never be good.
You know when you get molested they don't do it in front of others or for cameras to record. It is she said, he said stuff but if at the time it happened you tell others and they know about it that will definitely corroborate your story. How much more investigation do you need before you realise what you're dealing with.
In this case several employees already made complaints and they had the story of his former lover who said he was convicted of of peeping at a colleague while she was in the bathroom. Then all the pictures he took of little girls bottoms. People in the office knew about him and talked about it and yet they promoted him because he was good for business. Come on man at what point will you say this is no longer just an attempt to smear a person but actual sick behaviour.
As you say this may just be something to do with the CEO which would be part of "protecting" the IP image.
It could also be a financial or performance related.
Financially an IP license usually involves a big upfront payment or a smaller upfront payment with some recurring payments - a minimum amount each month/quarter/year/whatever. It could have fallen foul of this.
Or it could have a clause that says a minimum of X people must play the game each month/quarter/whatever maybe with metrics for time spent in game etc. One reason for giving a company an IP license is to "grow" the brand.
The bottomline: the holder of an IP doesn't want it tied into a "failed enterprise". Now if its a small IP held by a small company then the IP holder might be happy to get any money they can! If its a big IP however - which Marvel is - especially if its held by a big company - which Disney is - they will pull it if its deemed to be in the IP's best interest.
And Disney are not a "publisher" of content they are a "creator" of content.
Disney is Disney - the Mouse etc. It is Marvel. It is Star Wars. It is Pixar. It is Sesame Street. It is ABC Family Worldwide (that includes lots of old channels from Fox Kids, MTM, TVS). It is 80% of ESPN (MLB, US college football and all the rest). It is 30% of Hulu. It is 50% of A&E (History Channel, Lifetime, C&I, part of Vice and more).
Which is why Netflix and Amazon have both being creating their own content - including in the case of Netflix some Marvel stuff. So I am pretty certain that Daredevil etc. will still be on Netflix. Its the "cable companies" in the US and the likes of Sky in EU that will feel the pressure if they "lose" many of the channels that they include in a subscription.
I assume at least some of this was about my post, so will reply.
This is a serious issue, which often goes on under a veil of secrecy. But as I pointed out my main concern is the media reaction. Because this is a genuine issue, they seemed to have put all journalistic integrity to one side and have decided to report any such allegations found on social media. Rather than mount an investigation, do some journalism, they just hand on what they read in social media. That is very dangerous, but because they see this as a moral crusade all normal reporting considerations seem to be suspended.
I think the only standard they check against, both for the person making the allegations and the accused is that you are a public figure. In other words you are in the public domain. Astonishing to only base sound reporting on that.
I am not a journalist, but I can give those who purport to be journalists some pointers. How about contacting the person and asking for clarification? How about getting an interview, or at the very least speaking to them on the phone? You mentioned a case where 30 people confirmed the story, well that's what I am talking about for confirmation. People interviewed who are confirming what has happened. Not someone does a tweet and its in the news that evening.
You mention that some people have had an overwhelming number of reports against them. I agree there has to be something there, I think there definitely is. But that's just the point, it does not matter what you or I think. It does not matter what a media organisation thinks for that matter unless they have done the ground work. This is a matter for tribunals and/or the police not trial by media.
So how do we deal with that veil of secrecy, in a way that is fair both to the accuser and the accused? I have no certain answer, but with the digital world getting ever larger, with cameras everywhere and with people carrying recording devices on them at all times I think there are less stones for such perpetrators to hide under.
Personally, I thought it was way too easy. Plus they showered you with an absurd amount of loot which made upgrading items anti-climatic.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
Sorry to say it man but the writing is already on the wall there. DBG and SSG have started the milking process, just a matter of time.