Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

EA Might Lose Their Star Wars License?! What Does That Mean For SWTOR?

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > General Discussion
EA Might Lose Their Star Wars License?! What Does That Mean For SWTOR?

lightSaberAddiCt's Avatar


lightSaberAddiCt
02.15.2018 , 09:53 AM | #31
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.
Just Click It for Free Stuff I need the CC
http://www.swtor.com/r/Hj4n32

Andryah's Avatar


Andryah
02.15.2018 , 10:00 AM | #32
Quote: Originally Posted by keladoruk View Post
...... 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).
When you find yourself surrounded by hostile Clowns... always go for the "Juggler" first.

Andryah's Avatar


Andryah
02.15.2018 , 10:03 AM | #33
Quote: Originally Posted by keladoruk View Post
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.
When you find yourself surrounded by hostile Clowns... always go for the "Juggler" first.

IoNonSoEVero's Avatar


IoNonSoEVero
02.15.2018 , 10:04 AM | #34
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+?

Andryah's Avatar


Andryah
02.15.2018 , 10:08 AM | #35
Quote: Originally Posted by lightSaberAddiCt View Post
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 nave 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.
When you find yourself surrounded by hostile Clowns... always go for the "Juggler" first.

keladoruk's Avatar


keladoruk
02.15.2018 , 10:08 AM | #36
Quote: Originally Posted by Andryah View Post
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.

Andryah's Avatar


Andryah
02.15.2018 , 10:20 AM | #37
Quote: Originally Posted by IoNonSoEVero View Post
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.
When you find yourself surrounded by hostile Clowns... always go for the "Juggler" first.

TUXs's Avatar


TUXs
02.15.2018 , 10:22 AM | #38
Very interesting...something to keep our eyes on, that's for sure. I absolutely hope it's true. EA hasn't given the Star Wars franchise anything it deserves...they've developed nothing of value since having the license (SWTOR was in development prior to the license).
All warfare is based on deception If his forces are united, separate them If you are far from the enemy, make him believe you are near A leader leads by example not by force
My referral code: here What you get: here (1 FREE transfer 7-day FREE sub FREE Jumpstart and Preferred Bundles)

Andryah's Avatar


Andryah
02.15.2018 , 10:24 AM | #39
Quote: Originally Posted by keladoruk View Post
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).
When you find yourself surrounded by hostile Clowns... always go for the "Juggler" first.

keladoruk's Avatar


keladoruk
02.15.2018 , 10:29 AM | #40
Quote: Originally Posted by Andryah View Post
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.