The coding sure, but what of the characters and lore? I'd imagine Disney/LA hold that because it's still Star Wars. I'm not a business person but I'd think that just because Timothy Zahn wrote Thrawn, he doesn't actually own the character or exclusive rights, but maybe that's too simple of an approach.

I was replying to the part of your comment about continuing the game or rebooting it with another publisher and not the lore in general, any company could use the lore/story as long as they have the License to do so but like I said no publisher is interested in making MMO's anymore, they make more money from selling a $60 boxed game with season pass DLC and microtranaction's and then dumping it a few years later for a newer game they can sell for $60 with season pass dlc etc they make a killing from the game sales and the microtransaction's are just icing.

Semantics come into play here IMHO - as others have said, if they are looking to revoke the *exclusive* license it doesn't necessarily mean that the existing games cannot continue. Just that other studios would do future games.

And given that it's Disney we are talking about, IMHO if they wanted to acquire the code to SWTOR and port it all to another studio to continue the game, they absolutely would. Or they'd even find a way to revive or buy out Bioware as a division. It's Disney we're talking about. MOney's not so much of an issue.

One can't blame them for being unhappy when SWTOR is being ignored/apparently given such minimal resources, though, not to mention the Battlefront debacle.

Semantics come into play here IMHO - as others have said, if they are looking to revoke the *exclusive* license it doesn't necessarily mean that the existing games cannot continue. Just that other studios would do future games.

 

And given that it's Disney we are talking about, IMHO if they wanted to acquire the code to SWTOR and port it all to another studio to continue the game, they absolutely would. Or they'd even find a way to revive or buy out Bioware as a division. It's Disney we're talking about. MOney's not so much of an issue.

 

One can't blame them for being unhappy when SWTOR is being ignored/apparently given such minimal resources, though, not to mention the Battlefront debacle.

I agree with Disney's big pockets they can do anything what Disney will want to be doing now tho is distancing themselves from EA with the new bills being put forward in the US to ban or regulate lootbox system's what Disney wants to avoid is them being seen as a company that supports this type of system that is being called predatory towards children, If Disney drop EA and walk away they can say they did this as they do not approve of a system and they are doing what they can to protect children and their brand if thats the approach they plan to take then swtor would have to go too.

As noted yesterday when this same RUMOR (it said rumor right in the short click-bait article) was being peddled as part of a larger spam-the-forum rage from a now sanctioned forum member...... there is really nothing of substance to this.

1) it self-admits it is complete rumor, does not even try to pretend it has "internal sources" for said rumor, and says just about nothing.

2) The focus of the article is 100% about Battlefront and Battlefront II and states so.

3) It is not a simple matter to terminate an exclusive license early as some of the forum members would like to think. Breach for cause is about the only way to terminate early in an IP contract, unless both parties mutually agree to terminate early. And any instance of breach for cause would also be governed by a series of remedy clauses.... as in.. Disney cannot just wake up one day and decide to terminate. And NO... players being unhappy about a game =/= breach of contract.

4) Sorry OP.. but you fell for internet click-bait rumor and then came here echoed it. All that does is stir up circular firing squad behavior in the forum because people take rumors and prosecute them as fact, and any attempt to get them to look at it more objectively is attacked and denigrated.

Of course anything is possible.... but the probability or likelihood of this rumor = EA looses SW IP licensing is pretty small unless both Disney and EA actually mutually want out of the agreement. And.. even if they did terminate the agreement, it most likely not effect existing published titles, and most especially not SWTOR simply because it was originally negotiated as a stand alone agreement and then likely (though do not know for sure) placed under the 10 year agreement as an umbrella. Note that the original license for SWTOR was believed to be 5 years.. and we are beyond that now.. so clearly Disney and EA want it to continue for some time.

Yeah yeah.. I know... it is anathema to some to try to look at things from a logical and objective perspective, sans drama over every perceived sleight a player feels from a game. I'm still going to continue to comment on rumors like this... because there is no free discussion if only one side (those who hate the game) are allowed to comment about internet click-bait sources (which is what this article is.. the author knew that the way to get some traffic is to issue an unsubstantiated rumor about something about a large gaming studio.... it's the gift that keeps on giving.

...... Disney will want to be doing now tho is distancing themselves from EA with the new bills being put forward in the US to ban or regulate lootbox system's what Disney wants to avoid is them being seen as a company that supports this type of system that is being called predatory towards children, If Disney drop EA and walk away they can say they did this as they do not approve of a system and they are doing what they can to protect children and their brand if thats the approach they plan to take then swtor would have to go too.

You do know that every major studio is doing some version of random loot boxes, micro-transactions, etc?

In other words... if that offends Disneys sensibilities... then they have to step out of gaming completely. But there is absolutely zero evidence anywhere at this point in time that Disney is against the practice, nor willing to terminate contracts over it. Why? Because they understand that the only reason these exist is because they are VERY popular with many players of video games.

As for alleged legislation over "loot boxes".. that was a publicity flash by a few politicians.. and will end up going nowhere, right? The worst case is companies just adjust the implementation to skirt objections by any legislators. This pressing of this claim about legislation is simply an emotional latching-on by those that don't like random loot boxes (even those that drop in game and cannot actually be purchased).

I was replying to the part of your comment about continuing the game or rebooting it with another publisher and not the lore in general, any company could use the lore/story as long as they have the License to do so but like I said no publisher is interested in making MMO's anymore, they make more money from selling a $60 boxed game with season pass DLC and microtranaction's and then dumping it a few years later for a newer game they can sell for $60 with season pass dlc etc they make a killing from the game sales and the microtransaction's are just icing.

Accurate Assessment.

SWTOR would not be transferable to another studio if EA did not want it to be so. Why? Because while the Star Wars IP is retained by Disney, the entire code base that forms this game is EAs IP.

Even if the rumor was true, it regarded FUTURE SW IPs, not anything they have now. So more then likely, BF anf BF2, and SWTOR, would remain with EA. Sorry to dash those dreams.

^^ I agree.

And to think that Disney would not be in regular discussion with other game studios is naïve on the part of forum members here. Why? Because under the current license agreement, it was publicly stated by Disney that they retain right of first refusal on mobile game concepts. So the agreement was never 100% exclusive.... but rather EA was given exclusive rights to PC and console products and in some cases a mobile product.

See... if Disney has a concept for a mobile game and wants to produce and publish it under their label rather then EAs.... and given that Disney is not even core competent in game development, by choice by the way, they would very likely outsouce said mobile game to a game studio for design and implementation under the Disney label.

Way too much knee jerk theorizing by players here, without stepping back and looking at this from a business perspective. In the context of what has been publicly reported about the 10 year license agreement, and given the commercial nature of Disney and EA operations..... you have to appraise rumors like this from a business perspective rather then a player perspective.

You do know that every major studio is doing some version of random loot boxes, micro-transactions, etc?

 

In other words... if that offends Disneys sensibilities... then they have to step out of gaming completely. But there is absolutely zero evidence anywhere at this point in time that Disney is against the practice, nor willing to terminate contracts over it. Why? Because they understand that the only reason these exist is because they are VERY popular with many players of video games.

 

As for alleged legislation over "loot boxes".. that was a publicity flash by a few politicians.. and will end up going nowhere, right? The worst case is companies just adjust the implementation to skirt objections by any legislators. This pressing of this claim about legislation is simply an emotional latching-on by those that don't like random loot boxes (even those that drop in game and cannot actually be purchased).

To start off I don't think Disney is against it I would be surprised if they was this is about public image and not what other companies are doing.... Disney is a family brand and they don't want their brand on the news weekly being mentioned in the same breath as predatory practices aimed towards children...

For them their long term brand image is more important than a deal with EA and if it costs them millions to get out of a deal so they can simply put a positive spin on the negative news towards their brand they will do it that is all I was saying this is about money and supporting this system is not worth the damage to their brand they are not stupid.

In terms of the loot boxes, at Disney's own theme parks you can buy packs that have random pins or figurines, which isn't much different. You're paying money for something without knowing exactly what it is. So while they may not want a game that is entirely or heavily based on lootboxes I doubt they consider them 'predatory toward children.' Young kiids aren't even supposed to be playing SWTOR, isn't the age limit 13+?

True, but it is even simpler then this in the context of the "protect the children" meme ----> there are already consumer safeguards in place that demonstrate reasonable diligence by corporations........ you cannot purchase or access without a valid credit or debit card.. and consumer protections are structured around parents responsibility in this regard. If a parent does not want their child exposed to such things.. then don't give the child credit/debit access to be able to make unsupervised transactions.

And for the "protect the addicted to gambling" meme.... it has been well established that as long as a company is conducting business in a commercially ethical manner (sorry... personal player moral opinions do not decide this) and take steps to both encourage and warn players to ----> play responsibly.... the actual protect the addicted aspect rests with the adult accessing said service or product.

You can note in the US the following on any commercial or other advertisement for casinos: Please gamble responsibly... if you feel you have a gambling problem, please contact <they insert a gambling addiction hotline number here>. This is exactly the same with any commercial or other advertisement for alcohol too... and in the states that now have legal recreational MMJ... same thing. Point being... a company is not responsible for your addictions, they are only responsible for being prudent about what they sell and how they sell it. The actual sale however, rests on the buyer.

A business offering a completely legal product or service that triggers your addiction behavior... is not their responsibility and unless you can clearly demonstrate in court that they are derelict of basic commercial responsibility and practices (sorry... violating your personal moral view is not grounds) ... any claims against the company are groundless.

Please Note: my above comments are not a moral statement.. it is a commercial statement. If you have moral objections to a product of service... do not participate, but if you insist on participating anyway....and you feel laws must be changed to fit your moral narrative... then you are under the whim and will of your local legislators.

To start off I don't think Disney is against it I would be surprised if they was this is about public image and not what other companies are doing.... Disney is a family brand and they don't want their brand on the news weekly being mentioned in the same breath as predatory practices aimed towards children...

 

For them their long term brand image is more important than a deal with EA and if it costs them millions to get out of a deal so they can simply put a positive spin on the negative news towards their brand they will do it that is all I was saying this is about money and supporting this system is not worth the damage to their brand they are not stupid.

I understand... but I also think you need to step back a bit and look at this more objectively. Yes.. Disney has historically been a "family values" brand. But that was diminished long ago when they started producing and publishing content for adult audiences... not to mention their buying up violent comic book based IP and studios all over the world and then proliferating entertainment products for the IP under the Disney label. Disney is NOT all about Mickey and his hoard of cartoon characters anymore. Most of their revenue is generated from entertainment services that are designed for adults. Yes.. they still produce for the child and teen audiences.. but unlike 50 years ago.. this is no longer Disneys revenue core to their business.

By the way.. one of the reasons I believe Disney terminated all game development capabilities of LucasArts when they acquired it is precisely because they prefer said revenue streams to be branded under 3rd party studios. This is not only practical (Disney has no similar publishing capabilities and recognition with consumers that EA, Blizzard, etc have) it also allows them to partition their revenue under different branding. Note that all the consumer rage about BF2 is directed at EA... not Disney. EA IS Disneys "branding cut out" in this context and saves them the investement and effort to develop a "Disney Games" branding (though they are doing some of this still in the mobile gaming space).

True, but it is even simpler then this in the context of the "protect the children" meme ----> there are already consumer safeguards in place that demonstrate reasonable diligence by corporations........ you cannot purchase or access without a valid credit or debit card.. and consumer protections are structured around parents responsibility in this regard. If a parent does not want their child exposed to such things.. then don't give the child credit/debit access to be able to make unsupervised transactions.

 

And for the "protect the addicted to gambling" meme.... it has been well established that as long as a company is conducting business in a commercially ethical manner (sorry... personal player moral opinions do not decide this) and take steps to both encourage and warn players to ----> play responsibly.... the actual protect the addicted aspect rests with the adult accessing said service or product.

 

You can note in the US the following on any commercial or other advertisement for casinos: Please gamble responsibly... if you feel you have a gambling problem, please contact <they insert a gambling addiction hotline number here>. This is exactly the same with any commercial or other advertisement for alcohol too... and in the states that now have legal recreational MMJ... same thing. Point being... a company is not responsible for your addictions, they are only responsible for being prudent about what they sell and how they sell it. The actual sale however, rests on the buyer.

 

A business offering a completely legal product or service that triggers your addiction behavior... is not their responsibility and unless you can clearly demonstrate in court that they are derelict of basic commercial responsibility and practices (sorry... violating your personal moral view is not grounds) ... any claims against the company are groundless.

 

Please Note: my above comments are not a moral statement.. it is a commercial statement. If you have moral objections to a product of service... do not participate, but if you insist on participating anyway....and you feel laws must be changed to fit your moral narrative... then you are under the whim and will of your local legislators.

Legally they have a way around it that being said most these gambling systems are also behind an age gate, the topic that seems to be the main focus is more to do with mental health and grooming are companies using these practices to get kids addicted to gambling and exploit them? and what is the governments and companies social responsibility I think the most that will happen is games will have to be rated 18+ if they have lootboxes and the odds will have to be mentioned like in any other gambling game.

Legally they have a way around it that being said most these gambling systems are also behind an age gate, the topic that seems to be the main focus is more to do with mental health and grooming are companies using these practices to get kids addicted to gambling and exploit them? and what is the governments and companies social responsibility I think the most that will happen is games will have to be rated 18+ if they have lootboxes and the odds will have to be mentioned like in any other gambling game.

This is a very common "moral objection" pandered by those that have an issue with something. It is in my view and over played objection too.

You are correct in that governments and companies have essentially settled in to a system of notifications and rating controls on a product or service as the basis of protections.... which also insists on parents being the responsible gate keeper under this system. Of course some parents.. for whatever reason.. do not want to take responsibility for this.. but are quick and ready to blame someone or something else for whatever happens.

And here... lies the core issue in this ongoing discussion some people declare loot boxes to be gambling... yet they do no meet any known statutory regulations in this regard. Unfortunately for those who like to press this claim.... they push the rhetoric too far and just end up with a periodic drama storm (that can include publicity hungry politicians) that quickly blows over and everything is right back where it started.

There is a difference between feeling something is gambling (a persons moral view), and it actually being gambling (as defined by law or statute). There is a difference here, but it usually gets muddied in discussions here by drive by "gambling" accusations and declarations. I support everyone's right to take any moral view they choose personally for them ... but that does not give them the right to try to make everyone else conform to their personal moral view.

SNIP...

 

So this is yet another rumour/article that shows there is a storm going on behind the scenes that we are barely aware of. But the important question I want to ask is what this will mean for SWTOR. If EA loses their right to make Star Wars games does that mean Bioware will have to shut down Star Wars The Old Republic? Or is there a possibility that the SWTOR title will be taken over by Ubisoft or Activision and continue under their care?

I have no doubt there are some heated debates going on behind the scenes between EA and Disney given the fiasco and just how true it has been that what EA has done with the SW IP haven't been very good.

Throw in bioware/EA and how they continue to drive this game into the ground and I wouldn't be shocked at all to find out there are some talks about stopping development for SWTOR. Riding the cash as long as they can work the cash shop.

But if all thats true and they were to lose the SW Ip. It would ultimately mean SWTOR actually gets closed down. Just like Marvel heroes. One day things are as bleak as they are now. The next day, word on closing the game down. It will happen just that fast. Little to no warning except all the rumors we have been reading that some claimed were not true.

SWTOR would simply fade away and be gone. I don't think this game would be handed over to another company to take over. IF anything, another company might start over with something new.

True, but it is even simpler then this in the context of the "protect the children" meme ----> there are already consumer safeguards in place that demonstrate reasonable diligence by corporations........ you cannot purchase or access without a valid credit or debit card.. and consumer protections are structured around parents responsibility in this regard. If a parent does not want their child exposed to such things.. then don't give the child credit/debit access to be able to make unsupervised transactions.

 

And for the "protect the addicted to gambling" meme.... it has been well established that as long as a company is conducting business in a commercially ethical manner (sorry... personal player moral opinions do not decide this) and take steps to both encourage and warn players to ----> play responsibly.... the actual protect the addicted aspect rests with the adult accessing said service or product.

 

You can note in the US the following on any commercial or other advertisement for casinos: Please gamble responsibly... if you feel you have a gambling problem, please contact <they insert a gambling addiction hotline number here>. This is exactly the same with any commercial or other advertisement for alcohol too... and in the states that now have legal recreational MMJ... same thing. Point being... a company is not responsible for your addictions, they are only responsible for being prudent about what they sell and how they sell it. The actual sale however, rests on the buyer.

 

A business offering a completely legal product or service that triggers your addiction behavior... is not their responsibility and unless you can clearly demonstrate in court that they are derelict of basic commercial responsibility and practices (sorry... violating your personal moral view is not grounds) ... any claims against the company are groundless.

 

Please Note: my above comments are not a moral statement.. it is a commercial statement. If you have moral objections to a product of service... do not participate, but if you insist on participating anyway....and you feel laws must be changed to fit your moral narrative... then you are under the whim and will of your local legislators.

Yep, I do agree with this. For a kid to make a Cartel Coin purchase on SWTOR they either have to a) earn the coins through game achievements; b) get the coins as 'allowances' from the security key or subscription; or c) have a credit card. In the first two cases it's not really 'real world' money; in the third case it's the parents' or guardians' responsibility to control things because any credit card that's going to be used is theirs.

I think the loot box issue is overblown. The PR is bad at this point, which probably does concern Disney. That aside, however, I don't see anything wrong with cartel packs, and it's unlikely that Disney is going to foreclose a potential revenue source.

On the OP's topic - I'm assuming that BioWare and EA will put less focus on SW games if they lose their exclusive license, because it's far more profitable to make your own IPs and avoid royalty payments. If you've got the exclusive license and know folks have to come to you, you can afford to invest less effort. If there is competition, you have to work harder, which draws more effort away from your own IPs. BioWare folks (including James Ohlen) have repeatedly said they are focused on developing their own IPs for this very reason. I am assuming that motivation would increase if the reward vs. effort metric changes due to losing the exclusive license.

I think the loot box issue is overblown. The PR is bad at this point, which probably does concern Disney. That aside, however, I don't see anything wrong with cartel packs, and it's unlikely that Disney is going to foreclose a potential revenue source.

I don't think Disney is looking for alternatives because of gambling, they're looking because EA has absolutely squandered the IP. EA has only managed to release TWO Star Wars games...what the hell lol. Obviously Star Wars means nothing to EA, but it does mean something to Disney.

Oh come on now. Star Wars is the same for EA as it is for Disney. A cash cow which is understandable.

Sometimes in video game development things don't go well. It's not like EA wanted to cancel the Visceral game.

Oh come on now. Star Wars is the same for EA as it is for Disney. A cash cow which is understandable.

Sometimes in video game development things don't go well. It's not like EA wanted to cancel the Visceral game.

No, but if the reports are true that EA is funneling almost all resources into Anthem and neglecting SWTOR - which would certainly seem plausible given the content drought - it's reasonable to think that they're squandering the IP. I'd guess that Disney doesn't want SWTOR or any other Star Wars property to be an afterthought.