Agree that it is likely the single player game that was being worked on. . now GTA'd into an open world with "muli player elements" . Star GTA online! Seriously I hope not Maybe some co-op. They said that they want people to keep coming back to the game for a long time. . who knows.
Seeing that EA have so far managed to squander the IP if not drag it through the mud, i would lay higher odds on Disney pulling EA's licence to the IP. They (EA) would likely have to provide Disney with some fairly robust plans for a game to not have that happen.
Disney's goal for the Star Wars IP is not to make people love the IP. Their goal is to make money off of the IP. So long as EA pays them a ton of money for the exclusive gaming use of the IP and doesn't screw things up badly enough to make people stop watching the movies, Disney will be happy with the deal.
If this were true Disney would not have played a hand in getting loot boxes removed from Star Wars Battlefront 2.
"This sparked concerns about the future of triple-A single-player games. CEO Andrew Wilson denied that the moves were made because it was a single-player game that needed to become a live-service game."
It was all about that, we know they want the stream of income a live service game brings. Solo offline AAA is dead, how long before solo online is dead? They want you in an online game with other people, which can come in many forms just not solo. That way you have the Jones to keep up with, friends to impress, enemies to outdo.
That's why they create software that teams you up with a big spender to show you what he is buying, or makes a song and dance about the gun that just killed you, or show you loot boxes falling out of the sky and what's in them, or create a "skin economy".
The way we play our games, the gameplay, is being distorted beyond recognition to accommodate revenue streams, gambling in gaming and P2W. It is starkly obvious that we are being taken for a ride...on a no return trip cash train to a casino.
The hardcore forced grouping crowd won the battle but lost the war. It feels like you can't do anything without forced coop but the indepth rpg part also got shitcanned for quick-play stream-friendly esport-style mechanics. How's that for the triple hyphen. That's what our mmorpgs have devolved into, triple-hyphen hypetastic buzzword friendly sideshows.
What hardcore crowd won? Almost all games out there are solo friendly if not solo over group with an online setting.
Agree with what you said about rpg elements being canned. Most are just run and gun solo games.
Like anything. Wait for more info, no need to get excited from this. Also, I imagine they will have loot boxes, so for those who hate them, just look away... Just look away.
Seeing that EA have so far managed to squander the IP if not drag it through the mud, i would lay higher odds on Disney pulling EA's licence to the IP. They (EA) would likely have to provide Disney with some fairly robust plans for a game to not have that happen.
Disney would need to get another good offer for the license. They might accept a small hit in their licensing fees if they thought the move would be popular and good for their IP, but not a big hit. If EA offers Disney most money by a good margin, then EA gets the license.
Asian companies are unlikely to offer Disney enough money, and small companies aren't as attractive licensing partners because they might end up like Gazillion with Marvel IP. That leaves basically EA, ActiBlizz, Ubisoft, Warner Bros and Zenimax who might be interested in Star Wars IP. If ActiBlizz, Ubisoft and Zenimax aren't really interested because they prefer to develop their own IPs, and Warner Bros has already a lot of IPs they want to use, Disney might be in a situation where EA is the only one who makes a serious offer for Star Wars IP.
Seeing that EA have so far managed to squander the IP if not drag it through the mud, i would lay higher odds on Disney pulling EA's licence to the IP. They (EA) would likely have to provide Disney with some fairly robust plans for a game to not have that happen.
Disney's goal for the Star Wars IP is not to make people love the IP. Their goal is to make money off of the IP. So long as EA pays them a ton of money for the exclusive gaming use of the IP and doesn't screw things up badly enough to make people stop watching the movies, Disney will be happy with the deal.
If this were true Disney would not have played a hand in getting loot boxes removed from Star Wars Battlefront 2.
Disney made the move with Battlefront to ward off potential damage to the thing they value most, the positive image and customer goodwill they have been building for decades. If intense public scrutiny with negative leanings hadn't come from that situation there would still be loot boxes.
Seeing that EA have so far managed to squander the IP if not drag it through the mud, i would lay higher odds on Disney pulling EA's licence to the IP. They (EA) would likely have to provide Disney with some fairly robust plans for a game to not have that happen.
Disney's goal for the Star Wars IP is not to make people love the IP. Their goal is to make money off of the IP. So long as EA pays them a ton of money for the exclusive gaming use of the IP and doesn't screw things up badly enough to make people stop watching the movies, Disney will be happy with the deal.
True, Disney's driving force is and always has been money. Make no mistake, but Disney is highly protective of their intellectual property. I think they most certainly would pull the IP if EA "tainted" the image, regardless of the amount of money rolling in.
That said, I think if they were going to pull it, they would have. My personal thought on it all is that Disney had a come-to-jesus meeting with EA on lootboxes and their overall scummy image. I expect EA will keep the bulk of their "EA-ness" out of Star Wars from here on out for fear of losing the IP.
Seeing that EA have so far managed to squander the IP if not drag it through the mud, i would lay higher odds on Disney pulling EA's licence to the IP. They (EA) would likely have to provide Disney with some fairly robust plans for a game to not have that happen.
Disney's goal for the Star Wars IP is not to make people love the IP. Their goal is to make money off of the IP. So long as EA pays them a ton of money for the exclusive gaming use of the IP and doesn't screw things up badly enough to make people stop watching the movies, Disney will be happy with the deal.
True, Disney's driving force is and always has been money. Make no mistake, but Disney is highly protective of their intellectual property. I think they most certainly would pull the IP if EA "tainted" the image, regardless of the amount of money rolling in.
That said, I think if they were going to pull it, they would have. My personal thought on it all is that Disney had a come-to-jesus meeting with EA on lootboxes and their overall scummy image. I expect EA will keep the bulk of their "EA-ness" out of Star Wars from here on out for fear of losing the IP.
Disney is protective beyond what you would expect though. They don't even put casinos in their cruise ships.
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
Seeing that EA have so far managed to squander the IP if not drag it through the mud, i would lay higher odds on Disney pulling EA's licence to the IP. They (EA) would likely have to provide Disney with some fairly robust plans for a game to not have that happen.
Disney's goal for the Star Wars IP is not to make people love the IP. Their goal is to make money off of the IP. So long as EA pays them a ton of money for the exclusive gaming use of the IP and doesn't screw things up badly enough to make people stop watching the movies, Disney will be happy with the deal.
If this were true Disney would not have played a hand in getting loot boxes removed from Star Wars Battlefront 2.
Disney made the move with Battlefront to ward off potential damage to the thing they value most, the positive image and customer goodwill they have been building for decades. If intense public scrutiny with negative leanings hadn't come from that situation there would still be loot boxes.
Yes, exactly...which proves my point. They value their image, and by extension, the image of Star Wars; so no, they don't just care about money. I mean they do, but the image being clean is a key component to earning that money. I mean, every business wants money, that is a given. It is just a matter of who is more ethical in acquiring said money. It is the same reason you don't look for a job that just gets you money. You want a job that earns you good enough money to keep you content, but also doing something you love to do.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
It's funny on an mmo site people want to see fewer "games as a service" and then two threads over the same people will complain there is no new mmo news. Guess what MMOs are.... games as a service.
I mean, the irony is a little funny, but this is not the way the term is used. Games as a service is not being applied in the same way MMOs generally work. With MMOs, be it good or bad, they are monetized because they provide a consistent level of ongoing content. The amount varies per game, but generally you have expectations. The key difference here is that MMOs go on for years and years, the games that are being labelled this way (By EA specifically, as they came up with that stupid terminology) are games that do not provide consistent content for years. You pay 60$ for the box, you have DLC that costs 10-20$ a pop easy, micro-transactions AND the game will be replaced by a sequel in 1-2 years.
Obviously MMOs is where this originated from, but they totally missed the point of why that formula works. MMOs are games that last for years, not months. They are not designed to having staying power that lasts for the long haul, but they are monetized that way. They can't have their cake, eat it, and then move onto the next cake and eat it too.
It's funny on an mmo site people want to see fewer "games as a service" and then two threads over the same people will complain there is no new mmo news. Guess what MMOs are.... games as a service.
I mean, the irony is a little funny, but this is not the way the term is used. Games as a service is not being applied in the same way MMOs generally work. With MMOs, be it good or bad, they are monetized because they provide a consistent level of ongoing content. The amount varies per game, but generally you have expectations. The key difference here is that MMOs go on for years and years, the games that are being labelled this way (By EA specifically, as they came up with that stupid terminology) are games that do not provide consistent content for years. You pay 60$ for the box, you have DLC that costs 10-20$ a pop easy, micro-transactions AND the game will be replaced by a sequel in 1-2 years.
Obviously MMOs is where this originated from, but they totally missed the point of why that formula works. MMOs are games that last for years, not months. They are not designed to having staying power that lasts for the long haul, but they are monetized that way. They can't have their cake, eat it, and then move onto the next cake and eat it too.
MMOs are just games as a service with a specific player scope.
The PR machine markets them as providing a consistent level of ongoing content but that's turned out less true. ZOS has been able to pump out DLC every quarter consistently but they charge for it $20 a pop like you said. Most other MMOs only put out a couple updates a year and an "expansion" (I use the word loosely).
MMOs are games that should have lasted for years. What we got are games that have been milked for years. And people don't want to pay for or play them especially over the long haul.
MMORPGs, MMOs, and single player games have evolved into a games as a service because of how gamers do and don't pay for games and stick around. For triple A games they can and will do this because that is what gamers want. They say they want "long haul" games, but actions and money say otherwise.
I think this is an extremely cynical way to look at it. Obviously there are a few bad apples, but look at GW2. They are pumping out quarterly updates that the player base seems pretty happy about and expansions that are (now it seems) reasonably priced every 2 years. They monetize it with a fairly generous cash shop. Looking at WoW as well, while you can argue about the sub model all day..you can't argue that Blizzard is not providing consistent quality content for that game as well. There are tons of MMOs out there that provided constant content, the quality varies from game to game but honestly that is largely not the point. The point is that the "games as a service" is being used on games that don't last for years. Most of the games they do it for (Battlefront 2, Call of Duty) are games that are a flash in the pan in terms of time spent playing them for most players. Those players are being targetted for MTX that are part of what you would expect for a game that lasts for years. Content wise, those games usually get updates for a year, max.
The games people are gravitating towards the most are games that are F2P with MTX and ones that are not getting sequels that provide consistent content updates. Games like: Fortnite, Dota 2, LoL, Smite, and Hearthstone. This is where the "games as a service" works, but it is because they are not getting new versions of the same game yearly that people are expected to pay for.
It is also not like everyone is suddenly okay with being nickel and dimed to death by MTX. Players have been battling this in MMOs for years. Just because it is part of our favorite genre, it does not mean we like it for that reason. We like MMOs DESPITE the poor monetization of late.
It won't be an MMO. This is just an open world game with online features. It sounds to me more like a Destiny type game. (Not really an MMO) Besides, would you WANT an EA MMO at this point? We already know every game they make going forward that they are going to build it in a manipulative way to milk your money. I mean, they literally have said that themselves. Solo offline AAA games are not dead btw, dunno what you are smoking. There are plenty of examples every year where that is not the case. Don't fall into EA's bullshit.
Totally agree. There should be no expectation--at all--that EA's new Star War's game is an MMO. There's no credible info that it is. People are reading a job description that says "online infrastructure" and making this huge leap across a vast, yawning void to the least likely assumption.
A survival Star Wars game could be fun... you crash landed on some planet and have to stay alive.
Survive on Tatooine (finding water is the big problem), on Endor (forest), on Dagobah (swamp), on Kashyyyk (multi layer ecosystem, the deeper the more dangerous, you better stay in the upper layers of those trees first), etc... each setting having its own difficulties.
You are really expecting that kind of ingenuity, creativity & vision from EA ??? We are getting Star wars battlefront with connected maps and a boss fight.
"This sparked concerns about the future of triple-A single-player games. CEO Andrew Wilson denied that the moves were made because it was a single-player game that needed to become a live-service game."
It was all about that, we know they want the stream of income a live service game brings. Solo offline AAA is dead, how long before solo online is dead? They want you in an online game with other people, which can come in many forms just not solo. That way you have the Jones to keep up with, friends to impress, enemies to outdo.
That's why they create software that teams you up with a big spender to show you what he is buying, or makes a song and dance about the gun that just killed you, or show you loot boxes falling out of the sky and what's in them, or create a "skin economy".
The way we play our games, the gameplay, is being distorted beyond recognition to accommodate revenue streams, gambling in gaming and P2W. It is starkly obvious that we are being taken for a ride...on a no return trip cash train to a casino.
The hardcore forced grouping crowd won the battle but lost the war. It feels like you can't do anything without forced coop but the indepth rpg part also got shitcanned for quick-play stream-friendly esport-style mechanics. How's that for the triple hyphen. That's what our mmorpgs have devolved into, triple-hyphen hypetastic buzzword friendly sideshows.
What hardcore crowd won? Almost all games out there are solo friendly if not solo over group with an online setting.
Agree with what you said about rpg elements being canned. Most are just run and gun solo games.
his post was about mmorpgs. your post was about games.
That's why you two are dissagreeing.
Even if he was looking only at MMOs.. what hardcore crowd? Again most are single player in online setting.. Pantheon is pretty much the only one that is focused on grouping.
Seeing that EA have so far managed to squander the IP if not drag it through the mud, i would lay higher odds on Disney pulling EA's licence to the IP. They (EA) would likely have to provide Disney with some fairly robust plans for a game to not have that happen.
True, but I am not sure that any current MMO publishers could give the IP justice in either case so I am not sure how much it matters. If EA lost it Activision would probably gain it in either case and make similar lousy games.
A good SW MMO require that the devs actually understands the IP and make new cusomized mechanics for it instead of just slapping Wows mechanics to it.
I promise you this. They will not be making a pve centric mmorpg or mmo for that matter. Only an extremely small population of gamers today want quests and scripted boss fights in their mmo/mmorpgs.
Comments
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
What hardcore crowd won? Almost all games out there are solo friendly if not solo over group with an online setting.
Agree with what you said about rpg elements being canned. Most are just run and gun solo games.
I self identify as a monkey.
Asian companies are unlikely to offer Disney enough money, and small companies aren't as attractive licensing partners because they might end up like Gazillion with Marvel IP. That leaves basically EA, ActiBlizz, Ubisoft, Warner Bros and Zenimax who might be interested in Star Wars IP. If ActiBlizz, Ubisoft and Zenimax aren't really interested because they prefer to develop their own IPs, and Warner Bros has already a lot of IPs they want to use, Disney might be in a situation where EA is the only one who makes a serious offer for Star Wars IP.
With watching pre-Mass Effect Andromeda (before it was a known fail)..... I was thinking I can't go through this crap again !
That said, I think if they were going to pull it, they would have. My personal thought on it all is that Disney had a come-to-jesus meeting with EA on lootboxes and their overall scummy image. I expect EA will keep the bulk of their "EA-ness" out of Star Wars from here on out for fear of losing the IP.
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Obviously MMOs is where this originated from, but they totally missed the point of why that formula works. MMOs are games that last for years, not months. They are not designed to having staying power that lasts for the long haul, but they are monetized that way. They can't have their cake, eat it, and then move onto the next cake and eat it too.
The games people are gravitating towards the most are games that are F2P with MTX and ones that are not getting sequels that provide consistent content updates. Games like: Fortnite, Dota 2, LoL, Smite, and Hearthstone. This is where the "games as a service" works, but it is because they are not getting new versions of the same game yearly that people are expected to pay for.
It is also not like everyone is suddenly okay with being nickel and dimed to death by MTX. Players have been battling this in MMOs for years. Just because it is part of our favorite genre, it does not mean we like it for that reason. We like MMOs DESPITE the poor monetization of late.
Aloha Mr Hand !
Aloha Mr Hand !
Even if he was looking only at MMOs.. what hardcore crowd? Again most are single player in online setting.. Pantheon is pretty much the only one that is focused on grouping.
A good SW MMO require that the devs actually understands the IP and make new cusomized mechanics for it instead of just slapping Wows mechanics to it.
It will be a pvp game.