SWTOR clearly carries an ESRB rating of "Teen" for "Blood and Gore, Mild Language, Sexual Themes, Violence", which the ESRB specifies as "generally suitable for ages 13 and up", not "9 and up" as you suggest. The content is rated for the purpose of providing you with information, and you are of course free to do what you will with that information, but if you choose to ignore it then you have no place to demand that the game be kept to what you feel is appropriate for a nine-year-old. You have been warned about what the game contains; do not naively expect it to be other than what it has claimed. And as for the "toys" argument, do you know what I have seen on those toy shelves of Star Wars toys? Princess Leia in a slave bikini and Jabba's Twi'lek dancer Oola in her skimpy black mesh outfit. So even if the existence of Star Wars merchandise on toy shelves were somehow justification for requiring that all Star Wars content everywhere be completely kid-friendly, the existence of these toys (taken directly from the movies no less) would seem to blow an Alderaan-sized hole in an already poor argument.

There is some reason to doubt the claims or suppositions that it would be difficult to get the 16 primary voice actors back. It has been pointed out that these primary actors are on contract to BW. I will fully admit that I don't understand a lot of the ins and outs of acting in the entertainment industry (whether voice acting or otherwise), but I would imagine that such contracts work much like film contracts did in older days. Once upon a time (and maybe even now in some cases, for all I know), key actors would be on contract to a single film studio, and that studio would use them in whatever project they currently had going on. In theory, they could be called in one day to do lines for a western, and then brought in the next for a modern comedy. If the key SWTOR character voice actors' contracts are anything like this, BW can call them in to do lines for a SWTOR expansion just as easily as they would come and read for the next Mass Effect, Dragon Age, or whatever project they are working on at the time. I assume that the actors of course would be paid for their time, but they would be under obligation to make themselves available for such projects. If any of this is correct, then it should not be difficult at all to get these actors together to record more lines. In fact, it should be much simpler than it would be to get any recurring voices back who are not on contract, such as many of the companions whom they didn't seem to have much trouble bringing back for the new Alliance dialogue.

You place more faith in J.J. Abrams than I do, I suppose. After the hatchet job he did on the Star Trek franchise, I have little hope that he can preserve what was good of Star Wars. But as you say, time will tell.

This would make a great signature. As would this, for that matter: Of course, the above applies to so much more than just SWTOR/BW/EA. Good customer service that is actually helpful is a rarity in any industry these days.

SPOILER WARNING: A few details of Timothy Zahn's "Thrawn" Trilogy are revealed below; if you haven't read it and intend to, you should probably skip this post (and if you are a SW fan of any generation and haven't read those books, you are missing out). This was one of my biggest issues with the prequel trilogy - Lucas approved and authorized the EU novels as canon, and then ignored everything he had accepted as part of his universe. Yes, the Thrawn trilogy had a lot of references to the clone wars, as cloning played an important role in the plot. A few key discrepancies that I recall off the top of my head (I haven't read the books in probably 5-6 years) is that 1) both sides in the clone wars were using clone soldiers (I believe in part because combat droids had been outlawed, but I could be mistaken), 2) the clone wars took place at least 40 years or so prior to the events of the original trilogy (as evidenced by the battle over the Noghri homeworld that "contaminated" their planet, and 3)Darth Vader (not Anakin Skywalker) was a participant in the clone wars, indicating that he should have been much older, and that Luke & Leia would have been born well after their father had turned to the dark side (also evidenced by the tale of the battle over the Noghri homeworld, and Darth Vader's appearance and "saving" of the Noghri shortly after that battle). I'm sure there was a bit more that I'm not remembering, as well as details that aren't exactly contradicted by the prequels, but which were more or less ignored (such as the tendency for quickly-grown clones to go insane after a few years). All in all, I think the clone wars as presented in the EU would have been a much more interesting event to see than what we got in the prequels.

If they had started this way from the beginning, then perhaps. However changing things this late in the game is clearly just a cost-saving measure, and claims to the contrary are dishonest. I think BW would have had a lot less opposition to this if they had come out and said something along the lines of "we wanted to implement this feature, but with the voice actors' strike and sheer volume of material the cost was too prohibitive to implement it at this time, so instead of delaying it until it could be done with full VA we're giving it to you now in a modified state." Instead, they try to disguise it as an "homage", which is frankly ridiculous; you don't do an homage by mimicking dated mechanics which are jarringly out of place in your current game and which really have nothing to do with the spirit, tone, or content of the material you are claiming to pay tribute to. Keep in mind I'm not weighing in on whether I like the new Alliance system or not; I just don't appreciate the clear dishonesty in BW's representation of the system. I've had enough of being lied to by companies who think that it is the best tactic to get my money.

No, I've read the thread in its entirety; it still doesn't make hyperbole or "blowing things out of proportion" a good argument for either side of the discussion. A good argument should be persuasive and nature in an effort to convince others of your point of view through honest discussion of the facts. Tactics such as hyperbole tend to alienate rather than persuade while undermining your credibility. The actions and tactics of your opposition do not validate these tactics nor do they make them any more effective; they are just as bad regardless of anything anyone else has done or said. I've made these posts in direct response to yours not because they were the "last post", but because you were the one who openly admitted to using such tactics, and to doing so intentionally. I pointed out the poor position of such tactics as a bit of friendly advice; if you choose to dismiss it, that is of course your prerogative. But if you're really not looking to have anybody pay attention to your posts, why bother posting in the first place?

According to some of those who have posted here advocating it and participating in it, it is. I would submit that different players engage in this activity for different purposes, and some for both. But it's not just AFKing, as there are some who actively work against their side in warzones. And that is an issue/complaint for another thread.

Hyperbole is also a poor argument tactic, and will usually get your point ignored or dismissed by any who recognize what you are doing, and incite and inflame those who don't catch on. Either way, people stop paying attention to what you have to say.

Fair enough. Assuming I understand correctly, it seems to me that you are only concerned with "name calling" and the like as insults, while I find casual dismissal to be much more insulting as it makes the statement that one's ideas or opinions are not even worth considering. This would seem to be where we disagree as to the nature of the OP's post. I will bring up one more point, and this is more in general response to the OP's and others' opinions of those who are "disrupting" PvP warzones than it is directed to you specifically. I only bring it up in response to your post as you were the one to mention "Freedom of Speech", and it was that remark that started me thinking on this analogy. So please don't take this as a direct response to our discussion, but more of an open idea for consideration by all on either side of the issue: As "Freedom of Speech" was mentioned, let me pose a question: do you have any problem with people gathering to wave signs in protest on the street? Such demonstrations are designed to 1) raise public awareness of a perceived problem, and 2) draw the attention of those in a position to make a change regarding such a problem. Within certain boundaries necessary for public safety, such demonstrations are perfectly legal and even protected (in countries which guarantee the aforementioned freedom of speech of course). The actions (or inactions) of some PvEers in PvP warzones is exactly the same. These players are acting within the rules of the game and the terms of use of their subscriptions in order to protest a requirement of participation in an activity which they disagree with, and are attempting to raise awareness within the playerbase of their position and attract the attention of BW representatives who are in a position to change the requirement. Suggesting that such players should be banned is akin to suggesting that legal political protesters should be arrested; it is an attempt to silence an opposing point of view with no basis in rule or law. And before anyone goes off on the "BW/EA is a private company" tack, I am fully aware that there are no freedom of speech guarantees or protections within this forum or this game, and that BW/EA are fully within their rights to eject any player at any time for any reason. I am not arguing for freedom of speech rights within the game; I am only pointing out that these players are acting well within the rules and terms they agreed to, and are simply using the tools available to them within those rules to demonstrate their point. The comparison to real-world freedom of speech protests is intended to illustrate a principle and tactic only, not to defend nonexistant freedom of speech within the game or forum. The bottom line is that such players have not violated any rules or taken any actions which would qualify them for a ban under the terms set down by BW/EA, and as long as they refrain from such violations they have every bit as much right as any other player to log in and play this game in their chosen method; even if that method includes working against their team in PvP matches. Anyone stating that those players should be banned speaks very poorly of themselves, as it indicates that they believe bans can and should be handed out in the absence of legitimate justification as set down by the owners and operators of the game. If BW/EA were to follow such a course of action, then all players should beware, as it would set the precedent that BW/EA will issue bans according to whim rather than whether players have followed the rules. Such a precedent is not conducive to maintaining a subscription-contract business model, as there needs to be a reasonable assurance to the subscriber that if they abide by the terms of their contract, the access and service provided under their subscription will continue.

Let's review the OP's words, shall we? The OP claimed that those who disliked PvP and took actions to protest it were not really interested in having a discussion; this is insulting and counterproductive to fostering a "real discussion" as it is dismissive of an opposing view. Suggesting that anyone who does take action to protest this situation should be banned when they have not violated any of the SWTOR or EA terms of use is highly inflammatory, and I would even call it trolling or flamebait. As for the "jerks thing," no I am not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, I am simply responding to the best interpretation I can make of your posts as written. If I have misunderstood, then please clarify yourself. You claimed to be against "users posting on here just to be jerks," I found some of the OP's remarks, as well as those of some of his supporters, to be "jerkish", so I found your defense of the OP to be contradictory to your stated position of being against "jerks". How else should I interpret that?

Yet you defend the OP making insults and other inflammatory remarks while he claims to want a "real discussion"? Do you disagree to posters just trying to be "jerks," or just the "jerks" whose opinions you disagree with? The classification of "jerk" is clearly subjective, but from many perspectives there have clearly been plenty of "jerks" on both sides of this discussion. My objection and disagreement is to blatant hypocrisy.

I read the entire thread. While some individual posts may have had questionable value, none of it justifies the broad categorization and dismissal of the position of those who do not enjoy PvP and see disruptive actions in PvP as their best method for voicing their displeasure to BW. You and the OP may disagree with those tactics, but that does not invalidate the opinions of those who engage in them. Also, it does not matter what insults other posters have engaged in; anyone truly interested in an honest discussion (as the OP claims to be) cannot and will not descend to that level, as it is completely counterproductive to any real conversation. If you want to have a real discussion, you don't derail such a discussion by dismissing opposing views and throwing out insults. Doing so is direct evidence that you don't really want an honest discussion, and are not truly open to what such a discussion really means.

Some of the EU material was definitely of poorer quality, but some of it was rather good. Unfortunately for your head canon (and mine for that matter), the Disney movies are poised to directly contradict nearly everything that takes place after the original trilogy (many characters and the events surrounding them will simply cease to exist; no Thrawn, no Solo twins, no Mara Jade, no Corran Horn, etc., etc.). Whether what Disney produces will be any better than what it replaces remains to be seen; my only hope at this point is that it's not as bad as what Lucas gave us for the prequels. But I'm digressing a bit far off-topic at this point; further discussion should probably be taken to the SW discussion board.

I disagree, it was totally called for by the OP's attitude. He chose to be insulting and inflammatory, I called him on it. You cannot claim to be in favor of a legitimate and honest discussion while dismissing other points of view and tossing around insults and attacks; it is completely hypocritical and undermines the claimed desire for discussion.

Blowing things out of proportion is a lousy way to make a point, as you only undermine yourself, regardless of what your opponent is doing.

That is rather insulting, and totally uncalled for. Opinions that disagree with yours are still valid opinions. If you truly "wanted to have a real discussion about this," you would drop the incendiary remarks and lose the self-righteous attitude. Again, highly volatile remarks clearly intended to anger others rather than to foster a legitimate discussion. Thankfully you don't get to dictate SWTOR's terms of use. Like it or not, these people are still filling the requirements as set out by BW, and are playing in a manner which is perfectly legal according to game mechanics, rules, and the TOS. I am curious though, do you hold this view on banning for anyone in PvP who either does nothing or attempts to sabotage their team, or only those who do so for the purpose of obtaining companions? Probably the first reasonable and agreeable conclusion you have made. That would probably be a much more reasonable solution, but I'm sure you would still find some who would find it objectionable to have what is considered a PvE tool locked behind PvP content. Still, it would create less of a sense of having something taken away and gated by undesirable content previously unneeded for such companions.

In a way, this is ironically appropriate, considering that the Disney acquisition of the Star Wars franchise has likewise made "years and years of story telling" "pointless and irrelevant" through the decanonization of all the works of the Expanded Universe. So I suppose that KotFE is just SWTOR's way of following suit with the parent franchise. This doesn't mean that it is a good thing.

To quote the words of a great and wise man: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." "Entitlement" keeps getting thrown around as if it were in and of itself a bad thing. However, it's only bad when it is a false sense of entitlement. If people are actually entitled to something, it means that they actually deserve it, and depriving them of that entitlement usually constitutes a breach of trust or even a broken contract. For example, if BW advertised and sold SWTOR as an MMO game, and people bought and subscribed to SWTOR based on that premise, then as long as they maintained their subscriptions and abided by the TOS, they would be entitled to access an MMO game. Likewise, under the terms of their subscription contract, they would also be entitled to forum access. If one day BW decided to completely overhaul SWTOR and turn it into, for example, an offline puzzle game, then those subscribers would be entitled to compensation for loss of the product which they paid for, as the new product offered by BW would no longer resemble what was advertised and included in the contract. So it is not incorrect to state that those who subscribed to SWTOR as an MMO are entitled to an MMO experience (of course we could debate forever and a day as to what an "MMO experience" is), nor is it wrong for them to be so entitled. What is wrong is for those who have paid for SWTOR to feel entitled to a KOTOR 3 game, as no such game was advertised or sold to them. They may request such a game, or elements of it to be included in SWTOR, but by no means do they deserve it and BW is under no obligation to provide it. By the same token, it can also be said that it is wrong for non-subscribing players to feel entitled to anything from BW, as they have not entered into any contract with BW or EA with regards to this game. There is arguably a gray area for those who do not sub but do purchase cartel coins, as they have contributed to the funding of the game, however if you review the terms of cartel coin purchases I am fairly certain you will find that such purchases do not entitle the buyer to anything beyond the use of their bought cartel coins in the SWTOR cartel market. So to reiterate for those who skip through anything longer than 150 characters (i.e., the "tl;dr" crowd): "Entitlement" in itself is not bad; false entitlement is bad, but true entitlement is to be defended and upheld.

Just to clarify the whole token situation: When the subscriber rewards were initially announced and advertised, it was stated in the fine print that those qualifying for any or all of the rewards would receive them via in-game mail upon the launch of KotFE. At a later date, in a forum announcement (previously quoted in this thread), Eric Musco clarified that Nico Okarr would be obtained through a quest in the KotFE portion of the game. This statement seemed to be in direct contradiction to the previous statement that ALL subscriber rewards would be received via in-game mail. This concerned many players, particularly those who had no intention of playing KotFE content, or who would not play it immediately on some or all of their characters, but still wanted access to the subscriber reward they had earned, and in the manner which they had been told they would receive it. I am about 95% certain that the Nico token was then created for the purpose of avoiding possible legal troubles over false advertising in the original subscriber rewards information. Whether I am correct in this or not, the token was created to be mailed out to qualifying subscribers, which then brought the reward in compliance with the advertised statement that all rewards would be received via in-game mail. As I understand it, there have been several observed claims (in game) of individuals to have obtained Nico Okarr without having qualified for the subscriber reward, but for obvious reasons these claims cannot be verified. So the issue is that there are many possible cases of unintended access, but nothing verified as 100% true, so for now it remains the discussion of rumor. Unfortunately, this is the sort of rumor that cannot be disproven; even if a BW rep were to come here and clearly state that it was completely false, I'm sure that some would still doubt the veracity of such a statement, and the rumor would continue (I'll leave the discussion of whether such doubts of the accuracy of official BW statements are justified or not for another topic).

You are of course free to take your own advice: Irony is an interesting thing. If there is something about the game that other people disagree with (whether it be a mechanic, plot point, or other individuals who play), of course they must be the ones to leave the game. But if there is something that you don't like, you still expect to be able to stay where you are and not have to experience it. Everyone who abides by BW's TOS (even whiners) are entitled to play the game. Everyone who pays a subscription and abides by the forum rules is entitled to express their opinion in the forums. If you don't like it, your options are the same as anyone else who finds something they don't like about SWTOR, BW or EA.

Correct, no one made us pay for a sub. They enticed us to pay by offering some extras in exchange for subscribing on certain dates; they were definitely part of the offer for these subscriptions. Why shouldn't anyone be disappointed if those items offered in exchange for subs are less than was advertised? If a bank advertises "get a free toaster when you open an account," complete with pictures of a shiny electric toaster, and you then go into that bank and open the account, only to find out that the "toaster" is a wire grill that can be put over an open flame, are you just going to shrug your shoulders and accept it because after all, you got your bank account, right? And of course, no one made you open an account with that bank, you did it of your own free will. Never mind that you opened that account under the impression that upon doing so, you would be given the pictured item. This is of course ridiculous; regardless of what sort of account features the bank gave you, they still engaged in deceptive advertising to draw you in. The KotFE subscriber rewards are no different; the original offer was misleading as the final product delivered was not representative of the advertisement material. Getting a month's subscription out of the deal does not change the fact that BW failed to deliver on promised items to their customers' satisfaction.

When replaying content I have seen before, I am much more likely to skip the lines of NPCs which I have heard over and over than I am to skip the lines of my own character. So if the main character's lines were left out because of conversation skipping then BW did it backwards.

No, let's play Global Thermonuclear War. The word is "moot". Moot! MOOT! Personal pet peeve: don't use a word or phrase if you don't have a clue what it means; you look less foolish that way.

Exactly what harm was done by leaving "obsolete" gear in the game? And as you as much as admitted, the addition of appearance tabs to the game means that no gear is truly obsolete, so frankly that excuse doesn't hold up. So much of this expansion seems to be about removing things from the game, and I'm about ready to add myself to that list.