The Gaming Industry: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

[Mike S]

Yes, and you will also have the consequences from it, one way or another. In this case, that's why I said "personally I think" - because what we had versus what we likely just lost I would have preferred it the other way.



That's the "how much profit is enough" question, which is beyond the scope here. While I think initial sales are actually going to get a boost for this, they were going to keep a large ongoing team working on the game for the foreseeable future. That's why GTA5 still exists and gets big additions. That's how this model of continuing to add content to a game exists. If EA can't continue to profit from the game, there is no logic in continuing to add content for it. The numbers guys don't care that the game sold well a year or two ago. In order to have continual development, it needs continual income.



And that's exactly how they want you to feel right now.

Just how people felt when they found out this game was not going to have any DLC or Season Passes - until they realized that EA was still going to extract money one way or another. Either the inevitable has been slightly delayed, or they will cook up an entirely new way. You do realize what is next, right? "Games as service" - which means they will just start on Battlefront 3, which will likely follow a subscription-based model. And you really can't argue with it - either you buy the service, or you don't. They have no obligation or is anyone outside of the "gaming community" going to find the argument that they "owe" it to people to sell them a game up front for one cost.

I really do think when all is said and done, people are going to regret making these stinks along the way, because the chances of us ending up with something truly better are not in our favor.

I agree with all of this actually except the comparison to GTA5. As far as I know that game doesn’t use lootboxes and all you do is buy in game money which then gives you the option of buying whatever in game content you want as long as you have the right funds for it. I think that’s what’s at the center of all this. People don’t like the random nature of loot boxes and feel it’s a ploy to extract more money from them than if they could just outright buy what they wanted and then be done with it.

I know full well what’s next with the games as service model which is why I’m very hesitant in getting my own PS4 as all the big third party developers I’m “missing out on” seem to be going this route. I still feel the need to fight against this type of stuff though for the good of the industry as a whole. Maybe other people feel the same and think they could stop games as service from coming with enough backlash against today’s policies.

 

[Mike S]

Disney and EA are so entwined they are not going to separate.

For as much hate as they get, EA has the most resources and the best development houses in the world working under them. No one has any complaints about the gorgeous graphics or the gameplay. That's part of the reason people freaked out because they wanted it so badly. If EA just made terrible games, no one would care. Just like there was no other studio that could have handled Star Wars, there is no other game company that could handle the various Disney titles, which is why they got the job in the first place.

This is a big part of why people hate EA. They buy talented developers, enforce their policies on them*, and then finally, should that dev stop making big profits for the company or simply are no longer useful, it’s off to the chopping block.

*Various examples being:

The Sim City debacle with its always online DRM.

The Dead Space 3 debacle with its microtransactions and change of focus to a co-op action game because straight up horror games “don’t sell” and being on record saying that DS3 needed to sell 5 million copies to be successful.

The Mass Effect: Andromeda debacle where many of its glitch problems could and have been attributed to the devs being forced to use the Frostbite engine, an engine not built for an RPG but for FPS games. Also very tight deadlines and forcing the game out when it clearly wasn’t ready.

Now, it’s Star Wars Battlefront 2.

 

[AEfx]

I agree with all of this actually except the comparison to GTA5. As far as I know that game doesn’t use lootboxes and all you do is buy in game money which then gives you the option of buying whatever in game content you want as long as you have the right funds for it. I think that’s what’s at the center of all this. People don’t like the random nature of loot boxes and feel it’s a ploy to extract more money from them than if they could just outright buy what they wanted and then be done with it.

People would have still lashed out. They just latched on to the whole "gambling - think of the children!" stuff because it was a convenient angle to the argument that got attention.

In any case, the comparison to GTA5 is simply - money needs to keep coming in for content to keep going out.

I know full well what’s next with the games as service model which is why I’m very hesitant in getting my own PS4 as all the big third party developers I’m “missing out on” seem to be going this route. I still feel the need to fight against this type of stuff though for the good of the industry as a whole. Maybe other people feel the same and think they could stop games as service from coming with enough backlash against today’s policies.

Wait, you were flipping out about this but you don't even have a console to play the game on?

In any case, if you think Nintendo is immune to this...I think you may be in for a rude awakening. Most industry types think it's actually going to happen there sooner than anywhere else. They have the perfect set-up for it and the perfect reasoning - they would have the easiest time doing it because they own the hardware and the software sides, and virtually all of the notable new titles on it belong to them. And no, I am not just talking about the subscription service we already know they are already launching, LOL.

After how hard-core Nintendo screwed over digital Wii U owners, leaving me with a brick of a system with $2000 of software forever locked in it, I put nothing past them whatsoever.

 

[AEfx]

This is a big part of why people hate EA. They buy talented developers, enforce their policies on them*, and then finally, should that dev stop making big profits for the company or simply are no longer useful, it’s off to the chopping block.

Welcome to the end stages of capitalism.

What I find funny is the implication that every time they buy a studio that they have somehow done something evil. You see it all the time, like they just staged some siege and took them by force, LOL. They make an offer, the company and the developers choose to sell out, knowing that they need to make performance goals and remain valuable.

It's very interesting to me that the sell-outs are portrayed at the victims.

 

[Mike S]

People would have still lashed out. They just latched on to the whole "gambling - think of the children!" stuff because it was a convenient angle to the argument that got attention.

In any case, the comparison to GTA5 is simply - money needs to keep coming in for content to keep going out.

I think a system like GTA5 but based on something other than progression would’ve been fine. It definitely wouldn’t have gotten the same amount of backlash.

Wait, you were flipping out about this but you don't even have a console to play the game on?

I care because of my love of Star Wars and gaming. I may be mostly a Nintendo fan but I follow pretty much everything news wise. This is how I knew DOOM 2016 was a really good game and was then excited to get it on my Switch.

In any case, if you think Nintendo is immune to this...I think you may be in for a rude awakening. Most industry types think it's actually going to happen there sooner than anywhere else. They have the perfect set-up for it and the perfect reasoning - they would have the easiest time doing it because they own the hardware and the software sides, and virtually all of the notable new titles on it belong to them.

After how hard-core Nintendo screwed over digital Wii U owners, leaving me with a brick of a system with $2000 of software forever locked in it, I put nothing past them whatsoever.

For the time being it seems nothing of the sort is happening. Both Splatoon 2 and ARMS have the same system of free DLC and updates the first Splatoon had without microtransactions or a lootbox based progression system. After playing Mario Odyssey there seems to be a perfect way for Nintendo to have implemented a system in that game of paying real money for coins since there’s a ton of costumes to buy with them and even the main collectible of Power Moons can be purchased* and yet, nothing. The game even has multiple different currencies!

Their recent dip into season passes have maxed out at $30 for Xenoblade 2 and is $20 for BotW and M+R though the last one is a game completely developed by Ubisoft, not Nintendo, so it muddies things a bit. The big juicy story expansion parts of these packs come way later than the actual game giving the impression that it’s stuff developed after the completion of the initial experience and the game is shipped. Is it? We’ll likely never know for sure, but that’s the impression. I’ve only bought Zelda so far and I waited till the day the first pack launched. I’ll maybe buy M+R once we know what the new story is.

Lastly of course is that starting next year we’ll be paying a $20 per year subscription (1/3 the cost of PSN and XBL) for online play and supposedly a Netflix like Virtual Console service. I along with many others are still annoyed we’re waiting so long for exact details on this and whether we’ll be able to just buy Virtual Console games as well. It’s really frustrating sometimes with this company.

Yes, they won’t be immune forever. Likely once all of the old guard are gone and typical business types take over we’ll see changes. For now I think the failure of the Wii U will haunt them to not try anything stupid to ruin the ongoing success of the Switch. They finally got back to profitability and especially after this EA fiasco they might not want to try to rock the boat too much. Also, I think they see their theme park deal being incredibly lucrative with almost no investment on their part. Do the companies that license the properties pay anything? No idea. Oh, and movies too that I hope are good but given the rumor is Universal’s Illumination Entertainment...

Point being, they have two potential golden geese set up. They don’t have to soil their gaming business for extra cash.

Edit: Oh, and since the Switch’s main feature is portability and that’s what Nintendo pushes REALLY hard about it that automatically makes the system incompatible with the games as service model since that would require constant internet connection which we can see with games like Destiny and the upcoming Anthem.

Also your last bit is why I don’t buy digital if there’s the option of retail.


*Only one per store can be bought before the final boss and unlimited after for players who want to grind to 999 after getting the 880 that are in the levels themselves. It’s 100 coins per Moon.

Welcome to the end stages of capitalism.

What I find funny is the implication that every time they buy a studio that they have somehow done something evil. You see it all the time, like they just staged some siege and took them by force, LOL. They make an offer, the company and the developers choose to sell out, knowing that they need to make performance goals and remain valuable.

It's very interesting to me that the sell-outs are portrayed at the victims.

With the recent buy of Respawn I actually saw a few people calling them sellouts due to the fact that the company was started by people who left a big publisher because they were sick of it (in this case Activision).

And what of the examples I gave?

 

[Pixieish]

I know I'm not a "gamer" in the sense that you guys are, but what really bothered me about this whole thing was...

1) You have to buy the game initially and then buy more stuff. I'm no stranger to microtransactions, but at least on mobile devices the purchases are small and the games are free.

2) The whales me off. In every game I've ever played that had contests or whatever...the whales always win simply because they pay to do so (or even worse - using bots).

3) The point already brought up about buying "the unknown" in the loot boxes. I have far less issue with paying for stuff if I know what I'm getting.

My husband plays Marvel: Contest of Champions...$ spent on stuff, I think like $14.00 because he hates the idea of buying stuff, but wanted one character really badly, so took a chance (he didn't get him). I play Magic Kingdoms...$ spent on stuff, I really don't know, but I save my purchases for when there's an event and I don't have the time to put in to get one of the new characters, so I don't buy all that often (I do feel that they a) make them too hard to get too often, and b) make them too expensive gems-wise too often, though).

I also use microtransactions as rewards for my sons. We don't pay for chores, but when they're extra helpful or do really well in school or overcome something they've been struggling with, they get a small reward (less than $5) in one of their iPad games...but again, these are games we got initially for free.

Nintendo already has DLC in some of their games that you have to buy...again, we use these as rewards, but they tend to be a little more than the ones I mentioned above, so they are fewer than the small ones. BUT - they're usually not outrageously expensive, either, and it's not a pay-to-win situation...it's more levels or a character or two or what have you.

So, EA can still make tons of money without making the game a pay-to-win situation, they just aren't going to make money hand over fist right away like they thought they would.

I really enjoyed the old-school Battlefront and would probably have looked at getting this game at some point, but I'm definitely waiting to see what happens with this whole situation.

Hell...look at Candy Crush...that piece of crap is still going like the freaking energizer bunny.

 

[The_Jobu]

This is a big part of why people hate EA. They buy talented developers, enforce their policies on them*, and then finally, should that dev stop making big profits for the company or simply are no longer useful, it’s off to the chopping block.

*Various examples being:

The Sim City debacle with its always online DRM.

The Dead Space 3 debacle with its microtransactions and change of focus to a co-op action game because straight up horror games “don’t sell” and being on record saying that DS3 needed to sell 5 million copies to be successful.

The Mass Effect: Andromeda debacle where many of its glitch problems could and have been attributed to the devs being forced to use the Frostbite engine, an engine not built for an RPG but for FPS games. Also very tight deadlines and forcing the game out when it clearly wasn’t ready.

Now, it’s Star Wars Battlefront 2.

All excellent examples. I'd also throw in Dragon Age 2 but then it becomes Bioware-centric and that just makes me sad. Look at the downfall of Bioware and all the now extinct studios before and after they came under EA's control. Publishers aren't developers, they don't actually make games, that's what the studios do. Publishers push the studios to throw in all P2W, DRM, etc crap and EA are notorious for this, just as Activision is notorious for over saturating successful games.

 

[The_Jobu]

So, EA can still make tons of money without making the game a pay-to-win situation

They certainly can, but publishers like EA are all suits worried about making successful games and bumping the stock price.

 

[AEfx]

I think a system like GTA5 but based on something other than progression would’ve been fine. It definitely wouldn’t have gotten the same amount of backlash.

There is a huge difference between "fine" and "wouldn't have gotten the same amount of backlash". People are quite clear - they want a $60 game with no DLC, no season pass, no microtransactions (not even cosmetic, because, how is that fair?), everything should be unlocked at the start of the game or within a few hours, and content to be regularly added long past launch. They live in frigging Fantasyland.

If you were reading what the "resistance" is saying right now, you will see this is only the first of their "demands". And because they feel like they had a victory, they are more energized then before. They are dead set on taking down the entire industry. The next thing is getting the US congress involved - I crap you not, that's what these kids want to do. Petitions at White House.gov, and so on. And the thing is, they probably will find some po-dunk congressman to rally over it. I call them kids because clearly they weren't alive the last time around when the government tried to get involved and we narrowly escaped it.

There are large pockets of people that would love to start regulating the industry. They just don't seem to understand that by undermining the ESRB over this gambling nonsense (and it is nonsense, there is no gambling when nothing can come out of the system to "win" or lose your funds, your funds are just gone) they are opening Pandora's box. If people think regulators are just going to care about loot crates, because they only do, they don't know a thing about video game history or regulators - because there are literally people in those halls who blame all the ills of society on violence in videogames. No matter what the studies show.

People in the government have been dying for control of the video game market for decades. And if people don't grow the f up and just decide to purchase a game or not and move on, instead of having hissy fits over games that they can't or aren't even going to play to begin with, just to "make an example" - it's what is coming, and people are playing with fire that will burn so hot that it's going to fry everyone.

I mean, this whole "kids gambling" nonsense is pretty much asking them to take control over the content the industry produces. If you think it stops there once they get their claws into it, you are delusional.

With the recent buy of Respawn I actually saw a few people calling them sellouts due to the fact that the company was started by people who left a big publisher because they were sick of it (in this case Activision).

And what of the examples I gave?

A few? It should be most - because that is what they are. They choose to sell their companies. They choose to go to work for them. If they were these bastions of integrity who didn't care about making the biggest profits possible, they wouldn't sign on the dotted line to begin with.

And what of those examples? What is it you are asking me? You seem under the mistaken belief that I am somehow a "fan" of EA and am responsible for defending each and every move. No, I just do not villainize them and I find the hyperbole and nonsense people try to assign to them is just silly and counterproductive. The things people criticize them for are often nonsensical to anyone who understands how capitalism works and how the games we want so badly arrive on the shelves.

No one listens to any reason, they just lash their pitchforks out without trying to understand anything and often have the facts very wrong - they just want to think you are some shill for them if you don't join in to the lynching or if you aren't up in arms over something and just want to play a video game.

Remind you of any other current ideology out there? Because it's all I can think about when I read this stuff because it is so eerily similar. Might as well be arguing about patriarchy, systemic oppression, and colonialism.

 

[The_Jobu]

Further updates for those interested:





And a review of just the SP for those who don't care about MP shenanigans:

 

[The_Jobu]

Unrelated: Does anyone know when the Autumn Steam Sale starts? Got a few games on my list.

 

[Mike S]

There is a huge difference between "fine" and "wouldn't have gotten the same amount of backlash". People are quite clear - they want a $60 game with no DLC, no season pass, no microtransactions (not even cosmetic, because, how is that fair?), everything should be unlocked at the start of the game or within a few hours, and content to be regularly added long past launch. They live in frigging Fantasyland.

Not everyone lives in that Fantasyland as it’s easy to see simply having DLC hasn’t caused this much of an uproar. Most people are fine with the idea of DLC. “You really like this game that we just released? Well, here’s more of it that we’re working on that will be available in the future for a certain price so stay tuned.” Maybe you can help remember, but did the story DLC for past GTA games cause this much uproar? How about Red Dead Redemption’s Undead Nightmare? Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon? Witcher 3? No, they didn’t? That’s what I thought. Because those are examples of DLC done right. It’s when they bastardize that simple straightforward concept that people start having an issue. Things like day 1 DLC, preorder bonus DLC, on disk DLC, etc. As we can see with Overwatch cosmetics haven’t caused this much of a stink either though I do find that game to be the catalyst of all of this year’s loot box shenanigans. Concerning season passes that’s lumped in with my points on DLC. The reason the original EA Battlefront got so much flak is because the main game felt very lacking in content like maps and game modes. Also $50 is outrageous. I guarantee you if the original game launched on day 1 with the same amount of content that Battlefront 2 has on day 1 (minus the lootbox based progression system) there would’ve been a much smaller outcry over the season pass.

If you were reading what the "resistance" is saying right now, you will see this is only the first of their "demands". And because they feel like they had a victory, they are more energized then before. They are dead set on taking down the entire industry. The next thing is getting the US congress involved - I crap you not, that's what these kids want to do. Petitions at White House.gov, and so on. And the thing is, they probably will find some po-dunk congressman to rally over it. I call them kids because clearly they weren't alive the last time around when the government tried to get involved and we narrowly escaped it.

There are large pockets of people that would love to start regulating the industry. They just don't seem to understand that by undermining the ESRB over this gambling nonsense (and it is nonsense, there is no gambling when nothing can come out of the system to "win" or lose your funds, your funds are just gone) they are opening Pandora's box. If people think regulators are just going to care about loot crates, because they only do, they don't know a thing about video game history or regulators - because there are literally people in those halls who blame all the ills of society on violence in videogames. No matter what the studies show.

People in the government have been dying for control of the video game market for decades. And if people don't grow the f up and just decide to purchase a game or not and move on, instead of having hissy fits over games that they can't or aren't even going to play to begin with, just to "make an example" - it's what is coming, and people are playing with fire that will burn so hot that it's going to fry everyone.

I mean, this whole "kids gambling" nonsense is pretty much asking them to take control over the content the industry produces. If you think it stops there once they get their claws into it, you are delusional.

The current investigations going on right now are focused entirely on the possibility of if lootboxes are gambling. Nothing else. Video games already have their rating system like movies do.

A few? It should be most - because that is what they are. They choose to sell their companies. They choose to go to work for them. If they were these bastions of integrity who didn't care about making the biggest profits possible, they wouldn't sign on the dotted line to begin with.

And what of those examples? What is it you are asking me? You seem under the mistaken belief that I am somehow a "fan" of EA and am responsible for defending each and every move. No, I just do not villainize them and I find the hyperbole and nonsense people try to assign to them is just silly and counterproductive. The things people criticize them for are often nonsensical to anyone who understands how capitalism works and how the games we want so badly arrive on the shelves.

The “few” comment was referring to people I’ve seen online calling Respawn sellouts. Yes they’re after money to help fund their projects and more marketing that a publisher can provide but I highly doubt they’re the ones wanting to put these systems in place.

No one listens to any reason, they just lash their pitchforks out without trying to understand anything and often have the facts very wrong - they just want to think you are some shill for them if you don't join in to the lynching or if you aren't up in arms over something and just want to play a video game.

Remind you of any other current ideology out there? Because it's all I can think about when I read this stuff because it is so eerily similar. Might as well be arguing about patriarchy, systemic oppression, and colonialism.

They really are nothing alike but you can believe what you want.

 

[Mike S]

In a change of pace we have news of a potential leak regarding Final Fantasy VII Remake.
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=233021
Further links within this link.

 

[The_Jobu]

How about Red Dead Redemption’s Undead Nightmare? Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon? Witcher 3? No, they didn’t? That’s what I thought. Because those are examples of DLC done right.

 

[AEfx]

Not everyone lives in that Fantasyland as it’s easy to see simply having DLC hasn’t caused this much of an uproar. Most people are fine with the idea of DLC. “You really like this game that we just released? Well, here’s more of it that we’re working on that will be available in the future for a certain price so stay tuned.” Maybe you can help remember, but did the story DLC for past GTA games cause this much uproar?

You already answered your own question: Star Wars.

And that may be how you feel, but apparently you haven't read elswhere, particularly on Reddit where this began - because no, it is far beyond loot boxes.

The current investigations going on right now are focused entirely on the possibility of if lootboxes are gambling. Nothing else. Video games already have their rating system like movies do.

I'm sorry, but you are completely naive on this. Utterly, completely naive. I lived through the last senate hearings about video games. If you think for one second that there are not politicians just foaming at the mouth to take on violence in videogames, who will use this as a springboard if it goes too far, you would be sadly, sadly mistaken.

The voluntary formation of the ERSB by the industry was the only thing that kept us from direct government regulation. The ERSB has already judged that they are not "gambling". And folks are hell bent on taking it to a higher power. This completely undermines the ESRB. If you think that politicians will not pounce upon that to say "see, it didn't work, we need to take over" you completely do not understand the history of government involvement in video games or how politics work.

They are DYING to get their claws into the industry. They have just been biding their time for an opportunity. And once they get their claws into it, they will not let go. They also will find it a lot easier to get public support this time - they have a LOT more fuel. The last time, it was over Mortal Kombat and Doom and their rudimentary graphics. This time? They have games like GTA to show clips of where you can just walk down the street and murder random people on the street with bloody realistic clarity.

America is DESPERATE right now to blame the constant mass murders in real life on something. If you don't think videogames are going to become a scapegoat if this continues, I just refer you to the history books.

The “few” comment was referring to people I’ve seen online calling Respawn sellouts. Yes they’re after money to help fund their projects and more marketing that a publisher can provide but I highly doubt they’re the ones wanting to put these systems in place.

They know what they sign up for. To use the current parlance of the "resistance" - if their games were good enough people would pay for them and they wouldn't need big publisher support.

They really are nothing alike but you can believe what you want.

SJW's don't think they are SJW's, either. Just read your posts in this thread and switch around the nouns. The ideology is nearly identical.

There is a slight yet fundamental difference, though - SJW's think they are working for the better of humanity, whereas the "resistance" here is just complaining about the price of video games.

 

[The_Jobu]

SJW's don't think they are SJW's, either. Just read your posts in this thread. Exchange some of the nouns like "industry" for "patriarchy" and "EA" for "white people" and "loot boxes" for "systemic oppression" and you will find the arguments identical.

SJWs dont think they're SJWs, Mike doesn't know he's Mike, and you dont see how nonsensical your comparison is.

It's the circle of life, and it moves us all.

 

[Jahona]

Unrelated: Does anyone know when the Autumn Steam Sale starts? Got a few games on my list.

November 22nd to the 28th.

 

[Jimmy Thick]

Looks like Bob Iger personally called EA:

https://www.resetera.com/threads/disney-ceo-bob-iger-spoke-to-ea-ceo-andrew-wilson-today.6609/

Another rumor is he threatened to pull the Star Wars license. Don’t mess with one of the most powerful people on the planet with a powerful ip, I suppose.

Man it’s nice to dream what Blizzard could do with Star Wars........

Back to Battlefront 2, it’s actually pretty terrific in my limited time playing it, if this whole fiasco never took place it would be a strong GOTY contender, the multiplayer is far too strong. It also has the best graphics of any title released this year.

 

[Mike S]

You already answered your own question: Star Wars.

And that may be how you feel, but apparently you haven't read elswhere, particularly on Reddit where this began - because no, it is far beyond loot boxes.

If anyone is taking it further than what I outlined then what can I say. They’re wrong. DLC is not inherently evil.

Oh and you completely ignored my other points and I can’t have that. Do you not have an answer?

I'm sorry, but you are completely naive on this. Utterly, completely naive. I lived through the last senate hearings about video games. If you think for one second that there are not politicians just foaming at the mouth to take on violence in videogames, who will use this as a springboard if it goes too far, you would be sadly, sadly mistaken.

The voluntary formation of the ERSB by the industry was the only thing that kept us from direct government regulation. The ERSB has already judged that they are not "gambling". And folks are hell bent on taking it to a higher power. This completely undermines the ESRB. If you think that politicians will not pounce upon that to say "see, it didn't work, we need to take over" you completely do not understand the history of government involvement in video games or how politics work.

They are DYING to get their claws into the industry. They have just been biding their time for an opportunity. And once they get their claws into it, they will not let go. They also will find it a lot easier to get public support this time - they have a LOT more fuel. The last time, it was over Mortal Kombat and Doom and their rudimentary graphics. This time? They have games like GTA to show clips of where you can just walk down the street and murder random people on the street with bloody realistic clarity.

America is DESPERATE right now to blame the constant mass murders in real life on something. If you don't think videogames are going to become a scapegoat if this continues, I just refer you to the history books.

Stupid people will do stupid things. I still don’t think it would go any further than it already has with stupid news stories.

They know what they sign up for. To use the current parlance of the "resistance" - if their games were good enough people would pay for them and they wouldn't need big publisher support.

Yes. A recent independent developer known as Ninja Theory recently proved this with their recent self published and successful “I can’t believe it’s not a AAA game” Hellblade: Senua’s Sacrifice. Sadly some devs still go to the big publishers. This says nothing of other indie or small dev success stories like Minecraft, FNAF, PUBG, etc.

SJW's don't think they are SJW's, either. Just read your posts in this thread and switch around the nouns. The ideology is nearly identical.

There is a slight yet fundamental difference, though - SJW's think they are working for the better of humanity, whereas the "resistance" here is just complaining about the price of video games.

@The_Jobu handled this one nicely.

 

[Jahona]

Man it’s nice to dream what Blizzard could do with Star Wars........

I kind of wouldn't want to see Blizzard take on an outside IP. Their strength has been their original IPs and being limited by something that they don't have full creative control on would be a shame. Now what could Blizzard Cinematic department do with the Star Wars IP I would be down for.