"...the game’s most exciting year yet." [Casey Hudson]

[Paulsutherland]

Maybe EA will give SWTOR more funding next year, now that it looks like Battlefield V is going up in flames. Edited August 21, 2018 by Paulsutherland

[Holocron]

The upcoming what now?

 

There is an upcoming star wars game that's in development now. People initially thought it was going to be an new mmo, but based on the job descriptions post, it's going to be the star wars version of destiny.

[Andryah]

Maybe EA will give SWTOR more funding next year, now that it looks like Battlefield V is going up in flames.

 

There is only one certainty here ---> EA will budget how they see fit on their various products and none of us has any say so in it other then to use it as an imaginary soapbox to complain from.

 

The real issue for an MMO in the EA portfolio is they don't really have a business model that is focused on the MMO market. They always have been, and will continue to be, a large game holding company that is focused on box sales (be they real boxes or digital equivalents) + micro-transactions. EA is not set up to run an MMO as a core cash cow to their revenue... nor do they have to. MMOs generate revenue and as long as they turn a profit... even EA will keep one running because it's essentially free profit for them. But with rare exceptions, MMOs simply do not generate the scale of revenue that companies like EA are looking for in their book of business.

 

Now.. if SWTOR had actually lived up to all the hype (which let's be honest.... was as much player generated hype as it was studio generated hype)... then it might have become the 800 lb gorilla in the MMO market and squashed WoW. But it did not.. and there is room in the market for only one 800 lb gorilla. So... EA recognized this and has moved on (you don't see them creating any more MMOs do you?????). Heck.. even Blizzard will likely move on from MMOs once their gorilla dies of old age sometime down the road.

 

You have to give MMOs credit for one thing.. no matter what studio or MMO is being recognized ---> they have very long and persistent life cycles, whereas boxed single player or small group games have very short life cycles.

[Holocron]

^^ 100% spin by a disgruntled player.

 

A publicly traded company (which EA is) cannot present false sales numbers in any public analysis, investor calls, or even press releases. If they do.. they run face first into Sarbanes Oxley legislation that can and will put executives in jail for fraud. Period... full stop. Further.... the companies auditors go to jail too.. and this has the result that auditors won't accept false claims and in fact are the most likely to turn the company executives in to the feds for misrepresentation.

 

Now.. you personally can have any viewpoint you choose... but that does not make it true. In this case you are role playing an old episode of Fantasy Island.

 

I hate to break it to you, but companies do it all the time. They know the risk, but when millions and billions are involved they do their best to get creative with the numbers in hopes of not getting caught. Heck, I was part of large billion dollar company that was over producing product, but making it look like the finished products had been sold to vendors and no longer part of our inventory. It was to inflate the stock prices for share holders, and appear we were doing better than we were. They were able to get away with it for years. So yes, companies can, and often do, lie publicly. Enron anybody?

[Andryah]

I hate to break it to you, but companies do it all the time. They know the risk, but when millions and billions are involved they do their best to get creative with the numbers in hopes of not getting caught. Heck, I was part of large billion dollar company that was over producing product, but making it look like the finished products had been sold to vendors and no longer part of our inventory. It was to inflate the stock prices for share holders, and appear we were doing better than we were. They were able to get away with it for years. So yes, companies can, and often do, lie publicly. Enron anybody?

 

THIS is precisely why we have Sarbanes Oxley legislation on the books now days... because of Enron and MCI, et al. AND.. if we are going to go into the way-back machine... keep in mind Enron and the Auditing Firm that managed their books during their great deception ---> convicted, prison time, and no longer exist as a firm. [Arthur Anderson, Enrons auditing firm with a $9.5B annual client revenue base, ceased operations in 2002 over the Enron scandal].

 

An old trick that is no longer viable for a publicly traded company. A private firm might get away with this still.. but not a publicly traded company. Their auditors would uncover it and expose it.. forcing them to restate or get turned in to the feds. No auditing company is going to risk their business on supporting a companies malfeasance in the SoX era.

 

I hate to break it to you... but no they do not.. not in the US, not anymore. The risks are just too large.. and by risks I mean actual jail time for executives and their auditors.

 

Now.. will a company work to put their best spin on their numbers to investors? Absolutely. But what is different today (as opposed to the days of Enron) is actual legislation with teeth to it.. so they WILL NOT misrepresent numbers to shareholders. Period.. full stop. They may try to convince shareholders and analysts that the numbers are not as bad as they appear on paper... but that does get them very far any more... so even that is on the wane.

 

Having been responsible for large Services Projects and been called in to an auditing session on several occasions post SoX legislation... I can say for a fact that auditors are very aggressive in ferreting out corporate shenanigans now days. The most hilarious part of an audit session was watching the CFO and CEO squirming and probing to make sure that the financial statements they were going to sign off on... were accurate enough to keep them out of jail. That was some fun observations. I do remember pre-Enron though... auditors being pretty company friendly and actually enabling some of the shenanigans... because they technically were not illegal at the time. That time passed years ago however.

Edited August 21, 2018 by Andryah

[Holocron]

THIS is precisely why we have Sarbanes Oxley legislation on the books now days... because of Enron and MCI, et al. AND.. if we are going to go into the way-back machine... keep in mind Enron and the Auditing Firm that managed their books during their great deception ---> convicted, prison time, and no longer exist as a firm. [Arthur Anderson, Enrons auditing firm with a $9.5B annual client revenue base, ceased operations in 2002 over the Enron scandal].

 

An old trick that is no longer viable for a publicly traded company. A private firm might get away with this still.. but not a publicly traded company. Their auditors would uncover it and expose it.. forcing them to restate or get turned in to the feds. No auditing company is going to risk their business on supporting a companies malfeasance in the SoX era.

 

I hate to break it to you... but no they do not.. not in the US, not anymore. The risks are just too large.. and by risks I mean actual jail time for executives and their auditors.

 

Now.. will a company work to put their best spin on their numbers to investors? Absolutely. But what is different today (as opposed to the days of Enron) is actual legislation with teeth to it.. so they WILL NOT misrepresent numbers to shareholders. Period.. full stop. They may try to convince shareholders and analysts that the numbers are not as bad as they appear on paper... but that does get them very far any more... so even that is on the wane.

 

Having been responsible for large Services Projects and been called in to an auditing session on several occasions post SoX legislation... I can say for a fact that auditors are very aggressive in ferreting out corporate shenanigans now days. The most hilarious part of an audit session was watching the CFO and CEO squirming and probing to make sure that the financial statements they were going to sign off on... were accurate enough to keep them out of jail. That was some fun observations. I do remember pre-Enron though... auditors being pretty company friendly and actually enabling some of the shenanigans... because they technically were not illegal at the time. That time passed years ago however.

 

This went on as little as 2 years ago, so it happens a lot more than you think.

 

A quick google search will give you a lot of results of companies that have done exactly what you are saying they can't do. Do some go to jail? Sure, but obviously that hasn't stopped the crimes from happening. To act like the law is a 100% deterrent, and no one would dare to break the law, is folly. But if you believe that, I have some premium crime free real-estate in Detroit for sale you might be interested in.

Edited August 21, 2018 by Holocron

[Eksenia]

This went on as little as 2 years ago, so it happens a lot more than you think.

 

A quick google search will give you a lot of results of companies that have done exactly what you are saying they can't do. Do some go to jail? Sure, but obviously that hasn't stopped the crimes from happening. To act like the law is a 100% deterrent, and no one would dare to break the law, is folly. But if you believe that, I have some premium crime free real-estate in Detroit for sale you might be interested in.

 

Let him live a cuddly life among the pink clouds, don’t ruin him!

[Vember]

I don't think gamers are being entitled

 

I do. People would rather have games driven by cash shops than pay the cost of a two hour movie or one decent lunch for a month of entertainment. I've never seen so much complaining over sub costs as you see these days. I absolutely think gamers are why MMORPG's are practically a dead genre.

 

That being said, when it comes to SWTOR specifically, I can see people not wanting to pay for a game that doesn't provide any content, but I'm talking about gamers in general.

Edited August 21, 2018 by Vember

[Lhancelot]

I do. People would rather have games driven by cash shops than pay the cost of a two hour movie or one decent lunch for a month of entertainment. I've never seen so much complaining over sub costs as you see these days. I absolutely think gamers are why MMORPG's are practically a dead genre.

 

I admit that I never seen whining or complaining about sub costs on EQ1 or EQ2 back when I played those MMOs.

 

No idea what it is, I guess people are just spoiled by the market operating free to play platforms and swtor having a very limited one.

 

I still wouldn't complain if they opened up queues for free to play players on swtor, and I am a paying sub. If it improved the game and I believe more active queues would, then I support it.

[Vember]

I admit that I never seen whining or complaining about sub costs on EQ1 or EQ2 back when I played those MMOs.

 

No idea what it is, I guess people are just spoiled by the market operating free to play platforms and swtor having a very limited one.

 

I still wouldn't complain if they opened up queues for free to play players on swtor, and I am a paying sub. If it improved the game and I believe more active queues would, then I support it.

 

It's not just SWTOR. Every game that has any kind of sub component brings constant salt from what I can only assume are children without jobs.

[Char_Ell]

I hate to break it to you, but companies do it all the time. They know the risk, but when millions and billions are involved they do their best to get creative with the numbers in hopes of not getting caught. Heck, I was part of large billion dollar company that was over producing product, but making it look like the finished products had been sold to vendors and no longer part of our inventory. It was to inflate the stock prices for share holders, and appear we were doing better than we were. They were able to get away with it for years. So yes, companies can, and often do, lie publicly. Enron anybody?

 

 

Yes, companies misrepresent revenues and other key financial metrics. No, not all companies misreport. You're taking your personal experience and Enron scandal from 2001, over 15 years ago, and apparently applying that to to all publicly traded companies or at least EA. I mean, maybe EA is inflating some numbers but who really knows except for EA finance folks? It's not at all a certainty that EA is misrepresenting numbers. What is clear is your viewpoint is skewed by your negative bias.

 

It's also clear that Casey Hudson is BioWare's GM and wants to positively promote his studio's games. Of course, referring to SWTOR having its "most exciting year yet" comes off as highly suspect. Considering SWTOR's current low volume content release cadence it seems unlikely that SWTOR is poised to have its most "exciting year yet."

 

[Rion_Starkiller]

As a firm Bioware fan its easy to be negative about a game that has nothing in it that I love Bioware for.

Companions, Single play rpg stories(anthem has minimal single play), conversation wheels, romances, friendships and so on.

 

I didn't play Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Kotor and SWTOR for thier 'combat'. I played them for their unique story telling adventures.

 

As a Bioware fan, anthem is not going to deliver the goods, they already stated it won't.

 

If I want to play an fps theres already a billion out there its a saturated market but Biowares RPGs are unique to Bioware, no one does it the same. Couldn't care less about anthem.

 

Yes, that is your expectation. And it it seems valid. But the guy I was quoting said the game was a POS before it's even released. Being a POS and "not my cup of tea" are completely different.

 

As a BG, KOTOR, NWN, SWTOR, and DA fan -- Mass Effect wasn't my cup of tea. So I don't expect Anthem to be either, but I plan to try it.

 

The real issue for an MMO in the EA portfolio is they don't really have a business model that is focused on the MMO market.

 

This is exactly why I think SWTOR hasn't been canned yet. They can sink minimal money into the game to keep it running, while still potentially making a profit. Meanwhile, EA can say it has a 'portfolio of genres' or some such.

Edited August 21, 2018 by Rion_Starkiller

[Holocron]

Yes, companies misrepresent revenues and other key financial metrics. No, not all companies misreport. You're taking your personal experience and Enron scandal from 2001, over 15 years ago, and apparently applying that to to all publicly traded companies or at least EA. I mean, maybe EA is inflating some numbers but who really knows except for EA finance folks? It's not at all a certainty that EA is misrepresenting numbers. What is clear is your viewpoint is skewed by your negative bias.

 

It's also clear that Casey Hudson is BioWare's GM and wants to positively promote his studio's games. Of course, referring to SWTOR having its "most exciting year yet" comes off as highly suspect. Considering SWTOR's current low volume content release cadence it seems unlikely that SWTOR is poised to have its most "exciting year yet."

 

 

Your mistaking me for someone that cares what EA does, or reports. I'm not the poster who made the original point. I was simply playing devils advocate here, because to assume that no publicly traded company will ever lie to their shareholders is really naive. I'm not saying EA did or didn't do that. But I did give a personal example that businesses can and do lie to shareholders. I also just plucked enron into the convo to drive the point home, simply because it's one of the better known circumstances. But if you hop on google right now, you can find companies that have done similar even as late as 2017.

[Andryah]

This went on as little as 2 years ago, so it happens a lot more than you think.

 

IF true.... and if you live in the US.... then you missed a great opportunity. SoX includes whistleblower statues and protections that would in fact award you as a whistleblower a percentage of any recovered funds (be they fines, or forced restatements or claw-backs) for simply blowing the whistle and providing hard evidence to the feds.

 

Further.. if you knew about this, and failed to report it ... you are culpable and subject to prosecution as well.

 

OR... you could just be making stuff up to fluff your pillow here. Your Enron statement makes you appear to be living way in the past (ie: 18 years ago), in the Pre-SoX world.

 

Note: I am in no way saying that some company somewhere would not break the law in reporting.... simply that the motivations to do so are severely diminished in the post SoX world... to the point that what used to be rampant in the US 20 years ago, is now the exception to the norm... and even more so for large multi-billion dollar corporations.

Edited August 21, 2018 by Andryah

[Holocron]

IF true.... and if you live in the US.... then you missed a great opportunity. SoX includes whistleblower statues and protections that would in fact award you as a whistleblower a percentage of any recovered funds (be they fines, or forced restatements or claw-backs) for simply blowing the whistle and providing hard evidence to the feds.

 

Further.. if you knew about this, and failed to report it ... you are culpable and subject to prosecution as well.

 

OR... you could just be making stuff up to fluff your pillow here. Your Enron statement however makes you appear to be living way in the past (ie: 18 years ago).

 

Note: I am in no way saying that some company somewhere would not break the law in reporting.... simply that the motivations to do so are severely diminished in the post SoX world... to the point that what used to be rampant in the US 20 years ago, is now the exception to the norm... and even more so for large multi-billion dollar corporations.

 

By the time I knew so did everyone else. It came to a head and the ceo was removed etc etc. No one went to jail, but people lost their jobs, their wealth, and the stock took serious hits. The enron name drop was because it was one of the better known public cases, but google will bring up a lot of other more current examples.

[matthobbit]

I hope "most exciting year yet" means completely lawful distribution of completely lawful hallucinogens, since that's the only thing I can envision will make the game experience better, since they routinely ignore player requests.

[xordevoreaux]

I hope "most exciting year yet" means completely lawful distribution of completely lawful hallucinogens, since that's the only thing I can envision will make the game experience better, since they routinely ignore player requests.

 

I wanted a rope bridge from the deck on Rishi's stronghold to the beach. Done.

Lunafox wanted the trash piles on Rishi's stronghold removed. Done.

People wanted an area overlooking the beach. Done.

People wanted more hooks. Done.

 

I could go on. BW did a great job of reacting to feedback in developing the stronghold, so they can react positively to player feedback.

 

So I must disagree with your use of the word "routinely." Not true.

Edited August 21, 2018 by xordevoreaux

[AshenK]

I hope "most exciting year yet" means completely lawful distribution of completely lawful hallucinogens, since that's the only thing I can envision will make the game experience better, since they routinely ignore player requests.

EA over all ignores players.

 

If they didn't? DA 2 would have been a full game. DA:I wouldn't have been a single player MMO. TOR would be an MMO and we would have had a lot more raids and pvp rather then awful story. Battlefront 1 and 2 would have been just like the far better older games. Mass Effect 3 would have changed the ending and made it meaningful. ME:A would have had tons of new alien races and wouldn't have had someone who is a racist as lead dev.

 

Really EA, Microsoft, Ubisoft and Bethesda are all guilty of so much now. They are why gaming is in a sorry state, thankfully we have a number of good companies that understand how to make things for the players.

[AlienEyeTX]

SoX includes whistleblower statues...

 

I just want a whistleblower statue... for collector reasons.

[Valin_Marr]

I'm not buying anymore bioware games unless they improve this game. I bought BF2 thinking if I bought that game things would improve on this game and it seemingly has gotten worse. I realize it was two different studios but I was being hopeful.

 

Anthem doesn't interest me in the least. Star wars games and this game interest me. Want me shell out money on Anthem drop 6.0 this year and i'll buy Anthem. It will sit in the box or maybe i'll give it my brother in law who like counsel games better than cpu games.

[IshtarScorpio]

I wanted a rope bridge from the deck on Rishi's stronghold to the beach. Done.

Lunafox wanted the trash piles on Rishi's stronghold removed. Done.

People wanted an area overlooking the beach. Done.

People wanted more hooks. Done.

 

I could go on. BW did a great job of reacting to feedback in developing the stronghold, so they can react positively to player feedback.

 

So I must disagree with your use of the word "routinely." Not true.

 

They gave us a stronghold no one wanted...done.

 

Also, anecdote does not equal evidence.

 

The vast majority of reactions appear to be superficial fixes while ignoring the game killing features.

 

Kind of like rope bridges and trash heaps.

Edited August 22, 2018 by IshtarScorpio

[SourOrange]

I don't think gamers are being entitled, I think it has more to do with how much they're willing to be charged for increasingly inferior products.

 

I agree completely!!!

 

To add to my original post, I would like to point out that while I think that gamers are often rightfully unsatisfied with games that were obviously made to exploit their wallets, I think modern gamers do have a fatal flaw- and that is a very common inability to distinguish between "I personally dislike this" and "this is objectively bad".

 

A lot of the time, the harshest criticizers of any game or studio tend to err on the side of "this doesn't suit my personal taste, so therefor I believe it is bad"- regardless of how well made or enjoyable a game actually was. This can do some severe injustice to a game's reputation, and often does so even before the game has been published at all.

 

Overall I think the gaming community could stand to own its opinions more than it does, and not speak too unfairly of a game that clearly wasn't made for them. Not every game for a franchise you like is going to be structured the exact same way, or provide exactly what you want, or even be the same genre, and that's okay. There will be other games that are, and in the meantime, it doesn't hurt to allow others to enjoy something that was made more to their personal taste.

Edited August 24, 2018 by SourOrange

[FlameYOL]

To add to my original post, I would like to point out that while I think that gamers are often rightfully unsatisfied with games that were obviously made to exploit their wallets, I think modern gamers do have a fatal flaw- and that is a very common inability to distinguish between "I personally dislike this" and "this is objectively bad".

 

A lot of the time, the harshest criticizers of any game or studio tend to err on the side of "this doesn't suit my personal taste, so therefor I believe it is bad"- regardless of how well made or enjoyable a game actually was. This can do some severe injustice to a game's reputation, and often does so even before the game has been published at all.

 

Overall I think the gaming community could stand to own its opinions more than it does, and not speak too unfairly of a game that clearly wasn't made for them. Not every game for a franchise you like is going to be structured the exact same way, or provide exactly what you want, or even be the same genre, and that's okay. There will be other games that are, and in the meantime, it doesn't hurt to allow others to enjoy something that was made more to their personal taste.

I agree with you completely. Enjoyment on a game is more of a matter of opinion and personal preference really, there isn't a right or wrong when it comes to that. We can talk about the objectivity of it, like quantity of bugs at launch, poorly implemented mechanics and the like but unfortunately too much have I seen someone think a game is outright bad merely because they don't like. And the 2 are different, this game is a big example of this, while there are certain aspects of the vanilla game I think could've been done better (More companion quests for exampled as opposed to just 1 companion having them per class) I'm ultimately satisfied with the product, however one who might not be into MMORPGs or more specifically into SWTOR might not have the same positive experience I had and goes to bash the game online calling it trash whilst ignoring any positive aspects to it. This is just an subjective example of course, but too much have I seen it happening with multiple games that are clearly not to the person's liking yet they ignore the subjectivity of entertainment and try to apply their own opinion as objective truth.

[olagatonjedi]

To add to my original post, I would like to point out that while I think that gamers are often rightfully unsatisfied with games that were obviously made to exploit their wallets, I think modern gamers do have a fatal flaw- and that is a very common inability to distinguish between "I personally dislike this" and "this is objectively bad".

 

A lot of the time, the harshest criticizers of any game or studio tend to err on the side of "this doesn't suit my personal taste, so therefor I believe it is bad"- regardless of how well made or enjoyable a game actually was. This can do some severe injustice to a game's reputation, and often does so even before the game has been published at all.

 

Overall I think the gaming community could stand to own its opinions more than it does, and not speak too unfairly of a game that clearly wasn't made for them. Not every game for a franchise you like is going to be structured the exact same way, or provide exactly what you want, or even be the same genre, and that's okay. There will be other games that are, and in the meantime, it doesn't hurt to allow others to enjoy something that was made more to their personal taste.

You just brought a tear to my eye.

[Jdast]

To add to my original post, I would like to point out that while I think that gamers are often rightfully unsatisfied with games that were obviously made to exploit their wallets, I think modern gamers do have a fatal flaw- and that is a very common inability to distinguish between "I personally dislike this" and "this is objectively bad".

 

A lot of the time, the harshest criticizers of any game or studio tend to err on the side of "this doesn't suit my personal taste, so therefor I believe it is bad"- regardless of how well made or enjoyable a game actually was. This can do some severe injustice to a game's reputation, and often does so even before the game has been published at all.

 

You raise a fair point, but there is a but...In my 14 years of online gaming experience, I think this is forum is on the upper end of degree of contention. To some extent that is the nature and passion of Star Wars fans. For me, I'm not particularly a Star Wars fan (only seen the movies) other than the fact it's in space, has funky aliens, cool planets to explore -- and frankly -- I was getting sick and tired of fireballs, swords, and orcs. Of course, it's not lost on me that in this game it's lightning, lightsabers, and droids.

 

But to some extent I think forum-goers here have a right to discuss personal taste here more because all of us who have spent any time here have seen the game not just evolve, but positively lurch from one extreme to another in terms of the market demographic BW Austin is trying to capture.

 

With the exception of the Conquest changes (which fundamentally goes against so many other aspects of the game), I'm happy with the general direction the game is going -- if not the pace. Fortunately, I am enjoying WoW after a year long break and a huge new expansion. But I fully understand some complaints here discussing personal taste because at one point, that so-called taste was catered to by the studio.

 

Dasty

Edited August 25, 2018 by Jdast