-= Gametoast.com =-

Marth8880 wrote:A lot of the time, DLC is content that the developers didn't have time to do or complete within the game's timeframe. So it's not really a money-grab at all (usually). :p

I was referring to first day dlcs being a cash grab, so the whole "they didn't have enough time to put it in the game" thing is kind of irrelevant. Anyway, enough talk about dlcs, after all this thread is supposed to be about the future of the Star Wars gaming franchise

http://kotaku.com/ea-wont-be-paying-for ... -494940003

EA is shaping up it seems. I mean, this helps thier image a little bit. I can appreciate changes like this, it shows they are taking it one step at a time. Hopefully this will lead to other good changes.

Also I think this sums up a lot of what some of us may think. The possible benifits and possible negativeness.

http://kotaku.com/ea-buying-star-wars-m ... -493214555

@Mav and Teancum, no worries. I dont feel singled out at all, im sure you will stay by your beliefs as I will stand by mine.


And while on-disc DLC is a little shady, don't pretend like every game that ever existed hasn't had some kind of cut content on its disc.

Im sorry if it was mis-interpreted if I pretended like every game doesnt have cut content, it would be foolish if I did think that way. The examples I provided were to show what type of modern games can exhibit cut material that will later be charged. A lot of games do exhibit content that isnt acessable or is essentially cut, that is very true. However a lot of it is becuase the devs didn't have time impliment these ideas fully, or cut material in progress to make for due dates with pretty much no plan of charging for it later.

not pertianing to Ea persay, but its a good read if your interested in another star wars game that never reached development.

http://kotaku.com/just-cause-devs-nearl ... -494835044

TWINKEYRUNAWAY wrote: http://kotaku.com/ea-buying-star-wars-m ... -493214555

From the article wrote: Disney was never going to break this up. [...] [G]iven the popularity of Star Wars, only a handful of publishers would have been able to afford it. Maybe even two. The other being Activision. Would you have preferred that?

I actually would, if that meant putting Star Wars in the hands of Blizzard. But this situation is quite impossible, given that Blizzard has never been interested in developing games for somebody else. Also, Activision published the Doom series, the Total War series, the Quake series, freakin' World of Warcraft, one of the Civ games (long-time fan of Sid Meier), and a hell lotta of Star Wars games.

My first choice, however, would be Take-Two Interactive. With games like Red Dead series, GTA series, Civilization series (the most recent games), and freaking BIOSHOCK, they've proved more than worthy.

EA having rights to develop and publish Star Wars games is good news, aye. EA getting exclusive rights - well that's some bad news. My problem is, there won't be much of a diversity. We'll get one or two really good shooters, maybe a shooter-quest like Mass Effect, a platformer but I don't see games such as Empire at War coming anytime soon. No RTS, no TBS, no RPGs. And that's sad.

http://cbtech.de/news/star-wars-1313-ea ... mt-lizenz/

Sorry this is an german article but i conclude it:

EA TAKES THE LICENSE OF 1313

TWINKEYRUNAWAY wrote:http://kotaku.com/ea-wont-be-paying-for ... -494940003

EA is shaping up it seems. I mean, this helps thier image a little bit. I can appreciate changes like this, it shows they are taking it one step at a time. Hopefully this will lead to other good changes.

I'm not following -- it just says they won't be licensing the rights to real-world guns. I don't get how that applies here.

Teancum wrote:Take a trip back to 1987

Funny thing, the last game from Electronic Arts I bought AND enjoyed playing was The Bard's Tale, back in 85. I can't imagine a single person from those days still works for them. It doesn't show if they do.

Folks seem to be impressed with their stuff, and I was.. back in the day. They only impress me in how they manage to sell titles like rock stars now.

I'll keep an eye out for something fun, and will buy if they accidentally squeeze something out, but to be honest, I expect more angry birds / kinect tragedy. 'Padme goes shopping' type stuff with huge primary colored buttons and targeted for iToys.

Sure, they will make piles of money on the SW name, but that doesn't mean the titles will be any good. (Just like pop stars.) I can't force optimism in the face of the same company resposible for years of sports titles that rot in bargin bins for $1 a piece.

Well, this is news... not to sure about it in regards to the future of Battlefront though. If Dice get it, they will no doubt make a Battlefield style SWBF, which probably means a first person multiplayer game. A Battlefield with Star Wars skins in effect, although the destruction would be fun.

I would hope though that Bioware are given Battlefront as they are more used to third person and singleplayer which the Mass Effect series did extremely well and what I think SWBF games excel at. Just my opinion of course.

Jendo7 wrote:Well, this is news... not to sure about it in regards to the future of Battlefront though. If Dice get it, they will no doubt make a Battlefield style SWBF, which probably means a first person multiplayer game. A Battlefield with Star Wars skins in effect, although the destruction would be fun.

I would hope though that Bioware are given Battlefront as they are more used to third person and singleplayer which the Mass Effect series did extremely well and what I think SWBF games excel at. Just my opinion of course.

I honestly think EA will do a good jov with battlefront as well (assuming they r planning on making it). I do hope however that they will give you the option for first or third person

I hope DICE gets it because even though Ive never played battlefield I think all around the map destruction would be really cool for battlefront, especially in space and coruscant.. Just imagine-on coruscant you take off in a ship. You see a bridge from one skyscraper to another with enemies going across it, so you fire a missile at it and it collapses, taking everyone with it.

Cleb wrote:I hope DICE gets it because even though Ive never played battlefield I think all around the map destruction would be really cool for battlefront, especially in space and coruscant.. Just imagine-on coruscant you take off in a ship. You see a bridge from one skyscraper to another with enemies going across it, so you fire a missile at it and it collapses, taking everyone with it.

....EPIC

Battlefield in Star Wars look? Please, no.
What makes the Battlefront games unique are the instant action for singleplayer and the fact that the player is just one little soldier in a big army of other players and bots.
I don't want to lose my beloved, uncontrollable chaos created by lots of bots for a so called "battle" with 16 , most likely dumb players. To be honest, I hate these generic multiplayer FPS games.

Would just like to point out that SWBF2 is practically Battlefield 2.

Bob wrote:Battlefield in Star Wars look? Please, no.
What makes the Battlefront games unique are the instant action for singleplayer and the fact that the player is just one little soldier in a big army of other players and bots.
I don't want to lose my beloved, uncontrollable chaos created by lots of bots for a so called "battle" with 16 , most likely dumb players. To be honest, I hate these generic multiplayer FPS games.

I thought that's what battlefield was...? Nevermind, I have never played battlefield before, so I don't really know what I'm talking about...

Marth8880 wrote:Would just like to point out that SWBF2 is practically Battlefield 2.

BF3 and (from what we know yet) BF4 are not. Multiplayer FPS games sell well while games like SWBF2 seemingly got out of fashion, which is why I'm so worried about Dice doing SWBF3.

Bob wrote:

Marth8880 wrote:Would just like to point out that SWBF2 is practically Battlefield 2.

BF3 and (from what we know yet) BF4 are not. Multiplayer FPS games sell well while games like SWBF2 seemingly got out of fashion, which is why I'm so worried about Dice doing SWBF3.

Ummmmmm have you PLAYED BF3? Like, literally, it's the closest an FPS has gotten to the Battlefront series SINCE Battlefield 2....

And your argument about "What makes Battlefront games unique" is off, too.

Bob wrote:Battlefield in Star Wars look? Please, no.
What makes the Battlefront games unique are the instant action for singleplayer and the fact that the player is just one little soldier in a big army of other players and bots.
I don't want to lose my beloved, uncontrollable chaos created by lots of bots for a so called "battle" with 16 , most likely dumb players.

So scores like this Or this Are just the actions of one soldier working with his team? (Note: I'm pointing out the scores of the yellow as compared to the scores of the grey. The bots don't do anything. They literally do not contribute anything meaningful to your team other than being meat shields.)

Human players dominate bots in single player, hands down. There's no challenge involved, no chaos other than you mowing down rows upon rows of AI whose paths and predictable actions you've had memorized since 2009. This game has been out for 8 years, most of the player base is so good that they can go entire battles amassing hundreds of kills without a single death. I'll take the 16 "dumb" players over the 16 even stupider bots of SWBF2 any day.

And honestly, playing Battlefield 3 with actual dedicated players, the kind you'd hope to find in SWBF2 multiplayer and a potential SWBF3, gave me a heck of a lot better sense of teamwork, strategy, and chaos than SWBF2 ever did.

Bob wrote:I don't want to lose my beloved, uncontrollable chaos created by lots of bots for a so called "battle" with 16 , most likely dumb players. To be honest, I hate these generic multiplayer FPS games.

If DICE made it and it were more like battlefield, you would not have 16 most likely dumb players, usually. You would have potentially 64 smart players. Even the complete morons would be smarter than the elite AI in battlefront. Also, normally SWBFII is played with what, 16 AI? And that can only be turned up to 64, right? That's just like Battlefield, except they're smart and don't have to worry about things like AI pathing.

Fluffy_the_ic wrote:And that can only be turned up to 64, right?

It can be turned up to infinite, but the game can't handle it.

Noobasaurus wrote:

Fluffy_the_ic wrote:And that can only be turned up to 64, right?

It can be turned up to infinite, but the game can't handle it.

Isn't the maximum setting the game has by default 64? I forget, I haven't played in 2 or 3 years. Even then, 64 human players is probably about the skill level of 256 AI.

The maximum number of players allowed on a server is 64, and I think for AI it's normally 32.