Dev post about forthcoming article has been deleted...

[Kaizersan]

They fix bugs all the time.

 

Anyway stop this strawman crap, you said they could have done KotFE AND given us new ops etc. but chose not to, so back that statement up or basically stop posting because you're really just embarrassing yourself now.

 

Easy they didn't need to scale up all the old flash points and ops so all that time could have been used to build new op's and flash points likely they would have been able to make 2 new ops and at least 2 new flash points and given how many pm's of encouragement I have gotten from people on here that says I am on the right track and not embarrassing myself in the slightest.

[TheSeventhJedi]

Easy they didn't need to scale up all the old flash points and ops so all that time could have been used to build new op's and flash points likely they would have been able to make 2 new ops and at least 2 new flash points and given how many pm's of encouragement I have gotten from people on here that says I am on the right track and not embarrassing myself in the slightest.

 

Oh man, you really do need to stop. Let me guess - your dad can beat up my dad?

[Khiriath]

Also yes that is chump change when you consider the total sales/revenue in 2015 for EA was 4.52 Billion dollars http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/ea/financials

 

Please don't confuse net Revenue with Gross revenue.

 

I know you like your doom and gloom, but you have statements like this from EA, that continue to contradict you:

 

For instance, Star Wars®: The Old Republic™ is a game that continues to have a very enthusiastic and growing player community, and we have plans to introduce more new story-driven game updates to our Star Wars: The Old Republic players this year.

 

On the other hand, some of our other PC free-to-play games are not as popular as they once were. So we find ourselves announcing the tough decision today that we are stopping development and winding down support for four PC free-to-play titles: Battlefield Heroes™, Battlefield™ Play4Free, Need for Speed™ World and FIFA World. These games will be live for another 90 days, after which they will go offline.

 

[Khiriath]

Easy they didn't need to scale up all the old flash points and ops so all that time could have been used to build new op's and flash points likely they would have been able to make 2 new ops and at least 2 new flash points and given how many pm's of encouragement I have gotten from people on here that says I am on the right track and not embarrassing myself in the slightest.

 

First you have yet to prove that there are no new FPs coming. I distinctly remember James Ohlen stating at E3 that there would be FPs as part of the expansion, just can't find the link to his interview.

 

Second you assume that they haven't done any development on ops whatsoever, which may or may not be the case. For example a strong case can be made that the release of ops has been delayed because of the release of Star Wars Battlefront:

 

It does not make sense for EA to fund the development of two Star Wars games’ content that target the same type of player. The crossover rate just seems too high to ignore and EA would be able to quantify that even better based on player info required to subscribe or pre-order these games. The BioWare announcement makes sense if EA saw this coming and knew that a Star Wars Battlefront release would almost certainly pull away a meaningful amount of gaming hours from the raiding teams in Star Wars: The Old Republic, so it would be wasting development money to release a new Operation on October 27th with only 4-5 weeks before its other game cannibalizes play time from that content.

 

[MeNaCe-NZ]

Easy they didn't need to scale up all the old flash points and ops

 

Yes they did or they wouldn't be doing it. PVE was/is dieing in this game adding new operations and flashpoints wouldn't save it.

 

so all that time could have been used to build new op's and flash points likely they would have been able to make 2 new ops and at least 2 new flash points

 

ORLY? I didn't realise you were a developer also and understood what went into developing said operations and flashpoints to know how easily they could have done this. Oh wait, you're not, carry on.

 

and given how many pm's of encouragement I have gotten from people on here that says I am on the right track and not embarrassing myself in the slightest.

 

That comment alone embarrasses you but ok I'll play along. Proof or it never happened ( and even then I would be rather at odds if I were you why anyone would privately msg me support as opposed to publicly supporting your position on the forums which almost no one is doing ).

[Kaizersan]

Please don't confuse net Revenue with Gross revenue.

 

I know you like your doom and gloom, but you have statements like this from EA, that continue to contradict you:

 

For instance, Star Wars®: The Old Republic™ is a game that continues to have a very enthusiastic and growing player community, and we have plans to introduce more new story-driven game updates to our Star Wars: The Old Republic players this year.

 

On the other hand, some of our other PC free-to-play games are not as popular as they once were. So we find ourselves announcing the tough decision today that we are stopping development and winding down support for four PC free-to-play titles: Battlefield Heroes™, Battlefield™ Play4Free, Need for Speed™ World and FIFA World. These games will be live for another 90 days, after which they will go offline.

 

Counting either it is still chump change because the revenue you listed was SWTOR's gross revenue and his comment is typical corporate speak which goes to show he doesn't take into account that many of those games have new versions of the game year to year so it is natural that the player base goes up and down as they shift to the new game.

[Kaizersan]

First you have yet to prove that there are no new FPs coming. I distinctly remember James Ohlen stating at E3 that there would be FPs as part of the expansion, just can't find the link to his interview.

 

Second you assume that they haven't done any development on ops whatsoever, which may or may not be the case. For example a strong case can be made that the release of ops has been delayed because of the release of Star Wars Battlefront:

 

It does not make sense for EA to fund the development of two Star Wars games’ content that target the same type of player. The crossover rate just seems too high to ignore and EA would be able to quantify that even better based on player info required to subscribe or pre-order these games. The BioWare announcement makes sense if EA saw this coming and knew that a Star Wars Battlefront release would almost certainly pull away a meaningful amount of gaming hours from the raiding teams in Star Wars: The Old Republic, so it would be wasting development money to release a new Operation on October 27th with only 4-5 weeks before its other game cannibalizes play time from that content.

 

Given that they plan to do multiple seasons for the expansion allows that to only be true because the expansion doesn't end with season one so even if they released a new FP next year in October it would still be considered part of the story and Battlefront isn't going to be stealing anything from SWTOR they are 2 different game types with 2 different player base which wouldn't pull away from either or.

[Kaizersan]

Yes they did or they wouldn't be doing it. PVE was/is dieing in this game adding new operations and flashpoints wouldn't save it.

 

 

 

ORLY? I didn't realise you were a developer also and understood what went into developing said operations and flashpoints to know how easily they could have done this. Oh wait, you're not, carry on.

 

 

 

That comment alone embarrasses you but ok I'll play along. Proof or it never happened ( and even then I would be rather at odds if I were you why anyone would privately msg me support as opposed to publicly supporting your position on the forums which almost no one is doing ).

 

Remember Shadow of Revan that had what in it oh yeah 2 new ops and 2 new flash points and I am not going to out my supporters because it isn't right to release peoples names so you can go harass them too because that is what you and the other guy seem to enjoy doing.

[Khiriath]

Counting either it is still chump change because the revenue you listed was SWTOR's gross revenue and his comment is typical corporate speak which goes to show he doesn't take into account that many of those games have new versions of the game year to year so it is natural that the player base goes up and down as they shift to the new game.

 

Actually no that wasn't SWTOR's gross, that was their net, SuperData only deals in net...

Now the link you gave showed that EA had a net of 1.2b. Which makes SWTOR a significant portion of their overall profit base.

Further that January 26th post on the Superdata blog explains why EA is so financially sound, in that the majority of their profits come from the digital market. Then you have this nice piece in which EA made no attempt to resurrect any of the 50 other titles that were shut down with the Gamespy closure.

 

You are wanting to claim that EA is willing to risk 160+million in revenue, while committing securities fraud by lying to their investors in their official releases, just because... In short your argument is utter foolishness.

 

As far as those that EA decided to cancel please provide proof that replacement versions have been released.

[Khiriath]

Given that they plan to do multiple seasons for the expansion allows that to only be true because the expansion doesn't end with season one so even if they released a new FP next year in October it would still be considered part of the story

But that isn't what he said. He said at launch. Further you continue to deflect the request for proof that we won't see new Flashpoints at launch.

 

and Battlefront isn't going to be stealing anything from SWTOR they are 2 different game types with 2 different player base which wouldn't pull away from either or.

That simply isn't true. EA is expecting cross gaming. They have repeated stated in their quarterly reports to their investors that they are tapping the Star Wars fanbase for these games. Battlefront is going to be a MMO game that focuses on group content. Just deal with it.

[Khiriath]

Remember Shadow of Revan that had what in it oh yeah 2 new ops and 2 new flash points and I am not going to out my supporters because it isn't right to release peoples names so you can go harass them too because that is what you and the other guy seem to enjoy doing.

 

I'm starting to think there is an abandoned bridge somewhere.

[Kaizersan]

Actually no that wasn't SWTOR's gross, that was their net, SuperData only deals in net...

Now the link you gave showed that EA had a net of 1.2b. Which makes SWTOR a significant portion of their overall profit base.

Further that January 26th post on the Superdata blog explains why EA is so financially sound, in that the majority of their profits come from the digital market. Then you have this nice piece in which EA made no attempt to resurrect any of the 50 other titles that were shut down with the Gamespy closure.

 

You are wanting to claim that EA is willing to risk 160+million in revenue, while committing securities fraud by lying to their investors in their official releases, just because... In short your argument is utter foolishness.

 

As far as those that EA decided to cancel please provide proof that replacement versions have been released.

 

Why do you never bother to check the dates on the data you post everything you are linking to is over a year old try staying current please.

[Kaizersan]

But that isn't what he said. He said at launch. Further you continue to deflect the request for proof that we won't see new Flashpoints at launch.

 

and Battlefront isn't going to be stealing anything from SWTOR they are 2 different game types with 2 different player base which wouldn't pull away from either or.

That simply isn't true. EA is expecting cross gaming. They have repeated stated in their quarterly reports to their investors that they are tapping the Star Wars fanbase for these games. Battlefront is going to be a MMO game that focuses on group content. Just deal with it.

 

Umm no a lot of people that play MMO's hate FPS type games because of the types of people that play it online and they would rather not be part of that type of environment they are completely 2 different types of games that cater to 2 different types of players.If you doubt me feel free to ask general chat on your server and see how people respond to it I can tell you many people will say that it wouldn't draw away from each other at all.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Kaizersan

[Kaizersan]

But that isn't what he said. He said at launch. Further you continue to deflect the request for proof that we won't see new Flashpoints at launch.

 

Proof would get me banned so I am not falling for that.

[Khiriath]

Why do you never bother to check the dates on the data you post everything you are linking to is over a year old try staying current please.

The SuperData info is from Jan, and is as current as it gets without a subscription to SuperData. The other piece is for revelvancy. Anything more current comes in the form of press releases and investors reports from EA, which you accuse of committing securities fraud in misleading their investors. So my trollish friend, there really is no point.

 

Now if you would please provide proof that replacement versions of the games being shuttered this year have either been replaced or have forth coming replacements.

 

Umm no a lot of people that play MMO's hate FPS type games because of the types of people that play it online and they would rather not be part of that type of environment they are completely 2 different types of games that cater to 2 different types of players.If you doubt me feel free to ask general chat on your server and see how people respond to it I can tell you many people will say that it wouldn't draw away from each other at all.

EA in their metrics sees both drawing from the same core of players. It doesn't matter what the ppl who may or may not respond on fleet might say.

 

Proof would get me banned so I am not falling for that.

So to be clear. James Ohlen said in an interview that there would be new FPs. Yet your dubious and unofficial information says that they don't currently exist, so you are going to take an unofficial source over an official one... Yeah that makes sense.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Khiriath

[Kaizersan]

The SuperData info is from Jan, and is as current as it gets without a subscription to SuperData. The other piece is for revelvancy. Anything more current comes in the form of press releases and investors reports from EA, which you accuse of committing securities fraud in misleading their investors. So my trollish friend, there really is no point.

 

Now if you would please provide proof that replacement versions of the games being shuttered this year have either been replaced or have forth coming replacements.

 

 

EA in their metrics sees both drawing from the same core of players. It doesn't matter what the ppl who may or may not respond on fleet might say.

 

 

So to be clear. James Ohlen said in an interview that there would be new FPs. Yet your dubious and unofficial information says that they don't currently exist, so you are going to take an unofficial source over an official one... Yeah that makes sense.

 

Wouldn't be the first time EA lied about one of their games to the customers http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/03/17/ea-admits-simcity-could-have-run-offline-went-against-developers-vision/

http://www.insidecounsel.com/2013/12/26/ea-could-face-securities-litigation-action-followi

 

Just saying while you might call these sources unofficial they have access to official data no different then the data that the official sources have access to.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Kaizersan

[Andryah]

Wouldn't be the first time EA lied about one of their games to the customers http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/03/17/ea-admits-simcity-could-have-run-offline-went-against-developers-vision/

http://www.insidecounsel.com/2013/12/26/ea-could-face-securities-litigation-action-followi

 

Just saying while you might call these sources unofficial they have access to official data no different then the data that the official sources have access to.

 

Read the posts you linked. Neither speaks to lying to customers.

 

The first one simply states that they could have made SimCity an offline game but since they are moving to an always connected business model for all their software products... they made a decision to not offer an offline version. well DUH. You could argue that they did not give customers what they wanted... but welcome to large game producers in the modern era.

 

The second conjectures that there is some merit in the claim that they mislead investors. The lawsuit was found to lack merit and was tossed (for a second time) by a federal judge. http://www.law360.com/articles/650295/ea-guns-down-shareholder-suit-over-battlefield-4-bugs

 

I'm not defending EA.. I am questioning your rather superficial reading of internet articles and claiming they are something other then they actually are.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Andryah

[TUXs]

That comment alone embarrasses you but ok I'll play along. Proof or it never happened ( and even then I would be rather at odds if I were you why anyone would privately msg me support as opposed to publicly supporting your position on the forums which almost no one is doing ).

I don't know why my earlier comment was removed, so let me try this again...

 

I'm "proof". I PMd him. I PMd him privately because some debates aren't worth dealing with the drama queens who'd jump all over it. I enjoy debate, I despise drama for the sake of drama.

[Kaizersan]

Read the posts you linked. Neither speaks to lying to customers.

 

The first one simply states that they could have made SimCity an offline game but since they are moving to an always connected business model for all their software products... they made a decision to not offer an offline version. well DUH. You could argue that they did not give customers what they wanted... but welcome to large game producers in the modern era.

 

The second conjectures that there is some merit in the claim that they mislead investors. The lawsuit was found to lack merit and was tossed (for a second time) by a federal judge. http://www.law360.com/articles/650295/ea-guns-down-shareholder-suit-over-battlefield-4-bugs

 

I'm not defending EA.. I am questioning your rather superficial reading of internet articles and claiming they are something other then they actually are.

 

Actually it does EA had told the customers that Sim City couldn't be played offline no matter that which is a lie because all the was stopping one from doing so was one line of code that modders were able to remove and the fact that they were able to bring up the lawsuit in the 1st place says a lot and honestly you haven't even read all of the article you linked to as it only gives you a big of info.

 

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130312/15405822302/maxis-insider-ea-lying-about-needing-servers-single-player-simcity.shtml

Edited August 24, 2015 by Kaizersan

[Andryah]

Actually it does EA had told the customers that Sim City couldn't be played offline no matter that which is a lie because all the was stopping one from doing so was one line of code that modders were able to remove and the fact that they were able to bring up the lawsuit in the 1st place says a lot and honestly you haven't even read all of the article you linked to as it only gives you a big of info.

 

Weak-sauce argument on your part.

 

They made a design decision to not make it playable offline. Hence.... it could not be played off line.. unless you hacked it. They lied to nobody. The fact that the code could be changed if they chose to is irrelevant.

 

But keep trying.... maybe find something substantial if you want to use links to support your position.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Andryah

[Kaizersan]

Weak-sauce argument on your part.

 

They made a design decision to not make it playable offline. Hence.... it could not be played off line.. unless you hacked it. They lied to nobody. The fact that the code could be changed if they chose to is irrelevant.

 

But keep trying.... maybe find something substantial if you want to use links to support your position.

 

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130312/15405822302/maxis-insider-ea-lying-about-needing-servers-single-player-simcity.shtml

[Andryah]

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130312/15405822302/maxis-insider-ea-lying-about-needing-servers-single-player-simcity.shtml

 

And your point? You found internet opinion that calls a deliberate design choice to be a lie? LOL.

 

Of course it is technically feasible, but they made a design decision (right or wrong is irrelevant) to not allow it. Their game, their choice. They coded it that way, and when players complained... they stated that NO, you cannot play it offline. The reasons are irrelevant.

 

Note: I do not agree with this penchant for game companies to FORCE players to have an on-line connection for games that do not actually require online data interactions between players.... but it IS very much the way all game companies seem to be moving. Not sure if it is to try to preclude pirating or what.. but it is common and I personally do not like it. But their choices do not make it a lie to the players.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Andryah

[DOHboy]

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130312/15405822302/maxis-insider-ea-lying-about-needing-servers-single-player-simcity.shtml

 

whats your point? Article doesn't disprove anything she said. They made a choice to make it always online, hence unless they change the code it must be played online. You could not (legally) play the game without connecting to their servers. Was it possible sure, but thats not how the game was implemented nor how they intended it to be played. Doing so changed the nature of the game and may or may not have been illegal.

 

the whole "they lied" thing is just the authors opinion.

[Kaizersan]

And your point? You found internet opinion that calls a deliberate design choice to be a lie? LOL.

 

Of course it is technically feasible, but they made a design decision (right or wrong is irrelevant) to not allow it. Their game, their choice. They coded it that way, and when players complained... they stated that NO, you cannot play it offline. The reasons are irrelevant.

 

Note: I do not agree with this penchant for game companies to FORCE players to have an on-line connection for games that do not actually require online data interactions between players.... but it IS very much the way all game companies seem to be moving. Not sure if it is to try to preclude pirating or what.. but it is common and I personally do not like it. But their choices do not make it a lie to the players.

 

How is this not a lie" EA's claims that an offline, single-player mode would be a massive undertaking because of the amount of calculations being done server-side." because it clearly was due to the fact that it could be played offline with no issues?

[Andryah]

How is this not a lie" EA's claims that an offline, single-player mode would be a massive undertaking because of the amount of calculations being done server-side." because it clearly was due to the fact that it could be played offline with no issues?

 

If you want to prosecute EA in the world of internet opinion... you need clear objective facts, not just opinions presented as fact by players who are angry.

 

Now.. if you want to argue a difference in opinions between a company and the players... fine.. but don't resort to different opinions = lies. From a business perspective... "massive" or "difficult" or whatever term one chooses to use is both subjective and irrelevant when framed by players as a "lie".

 

The article link about a legal claim filed of course would carry such weight... IF.. IF it actually said it was a player class action lawsuit for tangible causes... rather then a shareholder lawsuit... which was thrown out by a federal judge, rewritten and refiled, and then tossed again.

 

EA are not angels of the gaming industry by any means ... but if you want to prosecute them to support your distaste.. at least use factual links, rather then internet opinions.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Andryah