A Spirited 15 Rounds ...

[AEfx]

He understood them well enough, he just thought like any tech related venture one outsources it cuz its cheaper that way. Plus no risk dollars get the licensing fee up front plus bucks for every copy sold or rented

That just makes plain business sense, which is why every other studio is doing the same thing. Because of the complexity of games the public demands, many specialist companies work on various aspects of them. It makes no sense to keep reinventing the wheel because it's a money pit and creates a sub-par product. That's what EA does - you get the best company at making space flight games, the best companies making ground assault games, etc. - and then EA puts them all into one game. That's why Disney chose EA - EA already has all the relationships with the best of the best of those that make modern AAA games - and some of them exclusively contracted to work on EA titles. It would be foolish for Disney to even try to replicate it on their own.

It would be like every single movie studio doing all their special effects in-house, instead of hiring Industrial Light and Magic to do it. This keeps costs from rising even more astronomically than they have (no overhead to maintain, etc.) and a lot better end product (because they are the best in the field and produce the highest quality output in their specialty).

Or a house contractor having and outfitting a team of electricians, plumbers, etc. on their permanent payroll - what makes more sense - that, or just hiring in the best electricians, plumbers, etc. to do the specific jobs as needed? As someone who is really concerned about Disney's stock performance, this must make sense to you. If somehow they were able to lure all this talent away from their respective companies, and pay all the overhead, and all the development costs, etc. - they'd be spending billions maintaining their own game studio when they are getting a better quality of end product to the public at a fraction of the cost this way.

And that includes LucasArts, who outsourced pretty much every single modern Star Wars game (and all of the biggest hits hits). They produced exactly one on their own in the last decade they operated as a company (a game very few even remember today, compared to the other SW games of the era), and did partial development on one other (visual design work only).

Thinking this was some invention of Bob Iger reminds me of the pictures of Darth Goofy and the dancing Chewbacca show at the studios that circulated after the Disney sale as an example of "look what Disney buying it is already doing to ruin Star Wars!" when everyone here knows full well that stuff started LONG before Disney ever had control over the franchise.

 

[GoofGoof]

Pay to Win vs Additional game content, yes Pay to win is an exact equivalent to Disneys upcharge events.

No longer is score related to skill now its how much you are willing to pay.

Requiring you to buy additional packs or whatever they want to call it to advance in the game is pretty much the equivalent of upcharge events. The park closes for regular guests and the only way to get in and ride the rides is to pay extra.

For the game in question (if I am understanding this conversation right) you can play the entire game without paying anything extra but if you want to advance faster with less time and effort you can pay extra to do that. It’s not really extra content but it doesn’t sound like pay to win either. Sounds like a third category or the theme park equivalent of buying Express Pass at Universal.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Comments like this are rather disgusting and are exactly what help enable people like Weinstein. Knowing of allegations are treated not as something to report, but as some sort of insider status symbol.

When it comes to the public square, should victims not have the agency to speak for themselves or choose someone to speak for them?

But, Amid himself has the resources and reach to do a report on this.

 

[Mike S]

I think you are taking that statement out of context, as you didn't say "like Disney's upcharge events" - you were making it sound like EA, under Disney, is the only company doing anything like this. So no, it's not "just Disney". I can't really agree to that comparison, either - because the price of a "base ticket" at Disney hasn't remained stagnant for 12 years, and then a decade before that - yet the base price of video games has. If a Disney base ticket cost what it did 12 years ago, I don't think we'd be complaining quite so much about the "upcharge" events.

That said, when you stand back and see how upset and whiny and agitated people get over a lousy few bucks, it's just laughable. It's like they are talking about some essential nutrient they are going to die without. The truth is, videogames are by FAR one of the cheapest sources of Entertainment, period. The average player can easily spend 80-100 hours in a game like BFII, minimum (some, hundreds more) - so the absolute hysterics over the cost are remarkably silly. We are talking cents per hour.

Maybe people would rather, I don't know, save money for other games?

I don't care for P2W either - I wish it didn't exist. (Though, I do encourage you to actually seek out the details of this game, as so much has been outright lied about in this forum, and elsewhere by clickbaity people making money off of complaining, about it, which is the only reason I joined the discussion to begin with.)

Yeah, P2W sucks especially in an online multiplayer game.

Unfortunately, it does exist - because as you see demonstrated in textbook clarity here, the "gaming community" has no concept of reality, "I don't care how much it costs the price shouldn't go up ever!", all that nonsense. They expect each AAA title to take leaps and bounds in quality and technical expertise, yet to purchase them for the same exact price in perpetuity. They have dug their own grave.

Finally, something we can partially agree on. The push for photorealism is insane to me. I'm 100% positive people would enjoy this game just the same if it had a little less "grafix" to rein in the games budget.

I was just fine paying $100 ($60 for the base game/$40 for Season Pass) for the last BF game, but people cried and boo-hoo'd about that. I spent a few hundred hours playing that game over the last two years, so the .20 or .30 cents an hour I paid were totally worth it. So this time, they are giving even more content, for one lower price ($60), so everyone can have access to all the content. The only difference is some people will get better guns more quickly - that's the key - which means after a few months, it will all wash out anyway, because that benefit vanishes once everyone else gets their guns better by just playing the game. So the people who whine about this should be thanking those impatient players who can't wait for subsidizing the entire game for them, so they don't have to pay $100 for it. But instead, they are butthurt because "he's going to have a better gun for a few months than I am!"

And yet you completely ignore that everything you get is completely random and you could end up with stuff you don't even want. You're also ignoring the various perks in the game that could give an advantage. And finally, you ignore the math that has been done to calculate how long you would have to play to unlock all the guns (just the guns) without paying the microtransactions. If you don't remember, the number was 3,600 hours.

Not to mention on top of this there's the $80 Elite Trooper Deluxe Edition. Why couldn't this be the extent of it? Give the game a normal progression system but the $80 version gives you a bit more? I bet that would've been received a lot better or at least not as widely complained about.

It's just incredibly pathetic when you actually look at the reality of it, and beyond all of the hyperbole and righteousness and entitlement and see the situation for what it really is that they get outraged over. It's also important to note that the people having fits also don't represent the actual consumers of these products - it would be like Disney judging everything they do by what people say here. Thousands complain online, many millions buy the product (including virtually all of the complainers who refuse to vote with their wallets because they are so addicted to this incredibly cheap entertainment product).

There you go defending it based on high sales again.

Requiring you to buy additional packs or whatever they want to call it to advance in the game is pretty much the equivalent of upcharge events. The park closes for regular guests and the only way to get in and ride the rides is to pay extra.

For the game in question (if I am understanding this conversation right) you can play the entire game without paying anything extra but if you want to advance faster with less time and effort you can pay extra to do that. It’s not really extra content but it doesn’t sound like pay to win either. Sounds like a third category or the theme park equivalent of buying Express Pass at Universal.

In a perfect world you would be right but progression in this game is tied completely to loot boxes with random contents that takes quite a while to earn in game without paying for them. The people getting the game on day 1 and immediately dropping money on the loot boxes until they get good upgrades and guns will get an advantage over those who don't. A few pages back some informative videos were posted that can explain this a lot better.

 

[GoofGoof]

In a perfect world you would be right but progression in this game is tied completely to loot boxes with random contents that takes quite a while to earn in game without paying for them. The people getting the game on day 1 and immediately dropping money on the loot boxes until they get good upgrades and guns will get an advantage over those who don't. A few pages back some informative videos were posted that can explain this a lot better.

Are you fighting against other players online with this game? Is the advantage that you will be able to beat them with better weapons like in an app game like Game of War or is the advantage just that you finish sooner?

 

[Mike S]

Are you fighting against other players online with this game? Is the advantage that you will be able to beat them with better weapons like in an app game like Game of War or is the advantage just that you finish sooner?

Yes you're playing competitively against other players online. The advantage is against others.

This video is the least "whiny," as some would put it, and covers all the bases.

 

[AEfx]

Are you fighting against other players online with this game? Is the advantage that you will be able to beat them with better weapons like in an app game like Game of War or is the advantage just that you finish sooner?

Yes, it is online multiplayer, in large groups. So yes, someone who spends hundreds of dollars on these loot crates (and some will spend thousands) will have a better chance at better guns at first. The "chance" part of it is the stickler - someone who plays the game and uses their free crates they get for logging in daily, or from playing, can get the same stuff, but if you buy these crates you can get more chances at it. But given how "random" works in video games, it isn't an automatic thing, at all. Just a better chance because you are opening more of them.

That said, beyond that - it is mitigated a bit by the fact that statistically very few people (the whales) are going to spend that type of money - it's enough that money that it subsidizes the price of the game to the "acceptable" price point of $60, but given that the groups are automatically generated and so large (20-40 people per side), there is just as much chance of those rare people that do spend a lot of dough are on your team, versus the other. Statistically, will probably be one or two on both sides.

I don't like loot crates at all - I really wish they would just charge the actual cost of a game like this ($100) and be done with it. The criticisms of them as "gambling" are entirely valid. But the "gaming community" won't accept the alternative, either. At least in this case, everyone can get the game for the $60, and any advantage people get by buying these loot crates up front is going to only last a few months, at best. Nothing they can get is "special" - it's just going to be quicker.

The other advantage is that all future content added to the game (which people demand to keep them "fresh") is going to be absolutely free, with no additional charges/DLC/expansion packs/etc. That's a pretty big deal, considering what a tremendous amount of the game is online - which has a lot of ongoing costs for EA, as well. That's another reason that people expecting games to still cost what they did in 2005 or before is asinine, because people demand that games run smooth as silk with minimal lag and the accuracy that a game of this magnitude requires on dedicated 24/7 servers located throughout the world. It's a far cry from anything any game did back then online, when P2P (peer to peer) ruled the day and your game experience was wholly dependent on other players connections.

I may not like it, but reality is just what it is - reality.

 

[jakeman]

When it comes to the public square, should victims not have the agency to speak for themselves or choose someone to speak for them?

I think the point that @lazyboy97o is making is that is shouldn't be used as wink and nudge fodder in online discourse. Of course, that never happens...does it?

 

[brb1006]

Disney posted this on Twitter today
https://twitter.com/disney/status/918197316707811328

 

[Quinnmac000]

Disney posted this on Twitter today
https://twitter.com/disney/status/918197316707811328

I guess the deal with Comcast and Fox is happening.

 

[ford91exploder]

Yes, it is online multiplayer, in large groups. So yes, someone who spends hundreds of dollars on these loot crates (and some will spend thousands) will have a better chance at better guns at first. The "chance" part of it is the stickler - someone who plays the game and uses their free crates they get for logging in daily, or from playing, can get the same stuff, but if you buy these crates you can get more chances at it. But given how "random" works in video games, it isn't an automatic thing, at all. Just a better chance because you are opening more of them.

That said, beyond that - it is mitigated a bit by the fact that statistically very few people (the whales) are going to spend that type of money - it's enough that money that it subsidizes the price of the game to the "acceptable" price point of $60, but given that the groups are automatically generated and so large (20-40 people per side), there is just as much chance of those rare people that do spend a lot of dough are on your team, versus the other. Statistically, will probably be one or two on both sides.

I don't like loot crates at all - I really wish they would just charge the actual cost of a game like this ($100) and be done with it. The criticisms of them as "gambling" are entirely valid. But the "gaming community" won't accept the alternative, either. At least in this case, everyone can get the game for the $60, and any advantage people get by buying these loot crates up front is going to only last a few months, at best. Nothing they can get is "special" - it's just going to be quicker.

The other advantage is that all future content added to the game (which people demand to keep them "fresh") is going to be absolutely free, with no additional charges/DLC/expansion packs/etc. That's a pretty big deal, considering what a tremendous amount of the game is online - which has a lot of ongoing costs for EA, as well. That's another reason that people expecting games to still cost what they did in 2005 or before is asinine, because people demand that games run smooth as silk with minimal lag and the accuracy that a game of this magnitude requires on dedicated 24/7 servers located throughout the world. It's a far cry from anything any game did back then online, when P2P (peer to peer) ruled the day and your game experience was wholly dependent on other players connections.

I may not like it, but reality is just what it is - reality.

Or we can go back to the beginning of FPS games from Id where the first levels were free and if you liked what you saw you paid for the 'full' game.

Like i said i'm not a gamer I enjoyed the Wii but im not a fan of the follow on consoles which instead of catering to the 'non-gamer' who enjoyed the simulation games that the Wii did so well. But cater to the real gamers who spend their time training the fast twitch muscles in their hands

 

[JoeCamel]

Just wondering how you all square the pages you devoted to this game discussion to this subject?
WDW Parks News, Rumors and Current Events

Just a bunch of nonsense and if you pay to do this it is on you. Suckers! same as the people that spend excessively on a DIS VACAY.
Really this is your life?

 

[AEfx]

Are you fighting against other players online with this game? Is the advantage that you will be able to beat them with better weapons like in an app game like Game of War or is the advantage just that you finish sooner?

Here is a good article about it, BTW. I look forward to the next one he is teasing at the end.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidt...n-but-theres-a-big-reason-i-dont-really-care/

 

[JoeCamel]

Here is a good article about it, BTW. I look forward to the next one he is teasing at the end.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidt...n-but-theres-a-big-reason-i-dont-really-care/

Oh, Geezz

 

[Absimilliard]

This whole video game discussion reminded me of a conversation with my brother, who plays modern multiplayer games. As for me? The last FPS I played is Mechwarrior Online on PC simply because I love the IP. Its free to play, but I did give them 60$ for things since I liked what they did and I wanted to encourage the game.

The discussion went like this: in the pre internet days, how would today game developers survive? In the NES/SNES on consoles and Pre mid 1990's PC gaming period, you had to get the game right on the first time. You had no ways to send a patch or game fix if you messed up something. Graphics were a nice thing to have for the era, but what counted most was GAMEPLAY. He really had no counters to that. If you look at the "AAA" games of the time, like Super Metroid, Final Fantasy IV/VI, Super Mario Bros. 3 and others, the graphics were impressive for the time and the sound quite memorable. When's the last game that came out that included a playable 15 minutes opera of all things?

I had a blast watching a video where they gave a few 20 something gamers a SNES remote and told them that they are playing Super Metroid. One person even said "Oh! Its a retro game, those are pretty simple...". Famous last words anyone? Super Metroid is the game where playing 15 hours still won't net you a 100% collection rate and who use the principle of skip the tutorial... a bit of trial and error will do you a lot of good!

 

[Mike S]

Just wondering how you all square the pages you devoted to this game discussion to this subject?
WDW Parks News, Rumors and Current Events

Just a bunch of nonsense and if you pay to do this it is on you. Suckers! same as the people that spend excessively on a DIS VACAY.
Really this is your life?

It started because I thought it would be an interesting Star Wars topic to cover since this thread normally covers big news that has even a smidge to do with Disney.

I didn't think it would turn into this.

 

[Mike S]

This whole video game discussion reminded me of a conversation with my brother, who plays modern multiplayer games. As for me? The last FPS I played is Mechwarrior Online on PC simply because I love the IP. Its free to play, but I did give them 60$ for things since I liked what they did and I wanted to encourage the game.

The discussion went like this: in the pre internet days, how would today game developers survive? In the NES/SNES on consoles and Pre mid 1990's PC gaming period, you had to get the game right on the first time. You had no ways to send a patch or game fix if you messed up something. Graphics were a nice thing to have for the era, but what counted most was GAMEPLAY. He really had no counters to that. If you look at the "AAA" games of the time, like Super Metroid, Final Fantasy IV/VI, Super Mario Bros. 3 and others, the graphics were impressive for the time and the sound quite memorable. When's the last game that came out that included a playable 15 minutes opera of all things?

I had a blast watching a video where they gave a few 20 something gamers a SNES remote and told them that they are playing Super Metroid. One person even said "Oh! Its a retro game, those are pretty simple...". Famous last words anyone? Super Metroid is the game where playing 15 hours still won't net you a 100% collection rate and who use the principle of skip the tutorial... a bit of trial and error will do you a lot of good!

Gaming is mostly chasing the same big expensive blockbuster golden goose that Hollywood is fixated on, which brings us back to Disney

 

[the.dreamfinder]

I think the point that @lazyboy97o is making is that is shouldn't be used as wink and nudge fodder in online discourse. Of course, that never happens...does it?

I get that, but these are not easy stories to break because there is so much downside for victims, witnesses and reporters.

Kim Masters tried for years to get people to speak on the record about their experiences or things they had observed.

Sharon Waxman tried to do a piece for The NY Times in the mid aughts and it was shut down.

Ronan Farrow’s employer, NBC News, nerfed the project and let him shop it to another outlet.

I wrote a lengthy post about this with regard to the Imagineer/Fanboi problem, which you are likely referring to, about the difficulties of actually nailing these bastards. It’s very, very hard and painful to see a vicious cycle continue. There’s a hope that if enough people know about it and allude to its existence, things can change. A video clip from Hannibal Buress’ stand up routine brought down Bill Cosby.

 

[jakeman]

I get that, but these are not easy stories to break because there is so much downside for victims, witnesses and reporters.

Kim Masters tried for years to get people to speak on the record about their experiences or things they had observed.

Sharon Waxman tried to do a piece for The NY Times in the mid aughts and it was shut down.

Ronan Farrow’s employer, NBC News, nerfed the project and let him shop it to another outlet.

I wrote a lengthy post about this with regard to the Imagineer/Fanboi problem, which you are likely referring to, about the difficulties of actually nailing these bastards. It’s very, very hard and painful to see a vicious cycle continue. There’s a hope that if enough people know about it and allude to its existence, things can change. A video clip from Hannibal Buress stand up routine brought down Bill Cosby.

I get that and I understand, but my point stands. The victims are not to blame, but it's abhorrent to me that non-victims choose to be complacent and salve themselves with vague threats and, even more disgusting, jokes about these life destroying crimes.

 

[brb1006]