I have never worked in game industry, so I don't know.
Maybe educate yourself before talking bollocks then? Just a thought.
It's not entire bollocks though. One of the other guys on my MA course wrote an essay for our creative economies module about exactly this:
Large publishers have a tendency to purchase studios with successful IP's, milk those IP's, and then close the studio when the IP is dry. They are all about short term profit, plain and simple. How can we make the next quarter look better than the last. They legitimately don't care about 2, 3, or 5 years time.
The only difference here, is that Visceral was already an EA studio (Redwood Shores, i believe?).
As already pointed out, EA are a business, they want to make money. Star Wars games outside of the ability to play as a Jedi are always seen as a risk, unfortunately. And Visceral at this point were just burning cash on developing something that may not have recouped those losses. Personally, i love Visceral's games. But EA made it no secret that just about all of their titles after Dead Space hadn't met expectations in terms of sales.
Don't get me wrong here, the entire thing is just a massive dick move. EA keep doing this and people keep being surprised when it happens. But those are the facts.
pmache appears to be talking about the purchase of Respawn, not the closure of visceral, which obviously sucked balls. Thats why I think he's talking bollocks, nothing to do with the closure of visceral, or some blokes essay.
EA didn't instigate the chain of events that lead to buying Respawn, that was Nexon wanting to get a foothold in the western markets from the look of it. EA had first refusal after Nexon made a bid, and according to the interviews the release date for Titanfall 2 was decided on by Respawn to go head to head with CoD, not a plan by EA to scupper the release and secure a cheap purchase price for the studio. EA aren't saints by a long long shot but a lot of the stories around the Respawn situation are crazy.
I rarely want to get into any issues on this forum about other companies, but after seeing EA getting caught red handed in trying to exploit Battlefront II with their pay-to-win model, I have finally decided to #BoycottEA and to #BOYTCOTTBATTLEFRONT. Its sad, some of the artists that have been working on it is some I follow and appreciate the work they do immensely. But seeing that BFII was built from the ground up with the mindset of "how can we lure the most money out of people", instead of "how can we give our customers their best experience", I feel their development policy is starting to be seriously detrimental to the gaming industry. It spreads like an infection that only gets worse, and new players on the market might feel like they have to cater too these horrible ideals.
I rarely want to get into any issues on this forum about other companies, but after seeing EA getting caught red handed in trying to exploit Battlefront II with their pay-to-win model, I have finally decided to #BoycottEA and to #BOYTCOTTBATTLEFRONT. Its sad, some of the artists that have been working on it is some I follow and appreciate the work they do immensely. But seeing that BFII was built from the ground up with the mindset of "how can we lure the most money out of people", instead of "how can we give our customers their best experience", I feel their development policy is starting to be seriously detrimental to the gaming industry. It spreads like an infection that only gets worse, and new players on the market might feel like they have to cater too these horrible ideals.
I mean it's not something new though, if you look at the origin store you can purchase get ahead kits for all of the battlefield games, they even seem more over the top than the one for battlefront, so I guess it just became a thing with this one.
Also looking at the prices, I could get the same amount of credits by playing 3 hours that I would have gotten by paying 50$ doesn't seem like many people would take a micro transaction route only.
Also the talk about characters being behind paywalls, you don't get the whole game etc, it's the same for all games, if you play an RPG you won't have access to everything from the start, some stuff you might even have to spend 200h to get.
But yeah they made some bad business decisions, they should stick to cosmetic micro transactions, because in the bigger picture for EA and Disney it's more important to have a good image and to keep up their stock value.
I roughly crunched the numbers for Battlefront 2 and for League of Legends, and it seems like you make about $0.30 of in game currency per hour played. So unless your free time isn't valuable, spending is a far money is far more efficient use of time. "Why grind for 40 hours to get Darth Vader when I can work an hour of overtime instead."
And if Darth Vader is still OP and the best hero like in Battlefront 1, it's literally pay to win.
I rarely want to get into any issues on this forum about other companies, but after seeing EA getting caught red handed in trying to exploit Battlefront II with their pay-to-win model, I have finally decided to #BoycottEA and to #BOYTCOTTBATTLEFRONT. Its sad, some of the artists that have been working on it is some I follow and appreciate the work they do immensely. But seeing that BFII was built from the ground up with the mindset of "how can we lure the most money out of people", instead of "how can we give our customers their best experience", I feel their development policy is starting to be seriously detrimental to the gaming industry. It spreads like an infection that only gets worse, and new players on the market might feel like they have to cater too these horrible ideals.
I mean it's not something new though, if you look at the origin store you can purchase get ahead kits for all of the battlefield games, they even seem more over the top than the one for battlefront, so I guess it just became a thing with this one.
Also looking at the prices, I could get the same amount of credits by playing 3 hours that I would have gotten by paying 50$ doesn't seem like many people would take a micro transaction route only.
Also the talk about characters being behind paywalls, you don't get the whole game etc, it's the same for all games, if you play an RPG you won't have access to everything from the start, some stuff you might even have to spend 200h to get.
But yeah they made some bad business decisions, they should stick to cosmetic micro transactions, because in the bigger picture for EA and Disney it's more important to have a good image and to keep up their stock value.
True. I have actually felt that Ubi and EA have ruined it for a lot of Indy-studios by exploiting pre-orders and DLCs, so personally I stopped buying DLCs, even If they had good content, a year ago. I love the battlefield artists and the work they do, but in BF1 I have chosen not to buy those DLCs either. And those things gets me caught in my own web, because I do want to study what these fantastic artist have done in the game, but at the same time I want a more healthy industry.
And the 3% drop in EA stocks is probably the only thing that made them turn off micro-transactions (for now), as you pointed out. I think this time around its different due to that, since the community seems to have some minor power to influence the direction of game development some. When I look at BFII, it seems like they have based the main core "game mechanic" around the idea of making money, which is really removing development away from creating a good experience in the first place. The mindset is totally wrong. I believe all the good original games came from a place of creating an experience, and of course you have too adjust some things to make money as well, but as long as the core mindset is creating an experience, a lot is done.
I would say 99% of people going all in and taking a huge risk to start their own company eventually want to sell it for a huge payday at some point. having a big exit during your life means you have freedom to do whatever you want, fund a new studio, travel, etc etc.
It blows my mind when people bash studios for getting acquired, it shows they have zero awareness of how business works.
I don;t think it has something to do with business awareness but with the side we identify with. Most of us are gamers, i.e. customers, and not business owners. When corporate-mega-games-factory takes over a promising studio we think about employees affected (our fellow game artists) and the products (the awesome games we were hoping for). That a few people got lucky (which isn't necessary always the case in take-overs!) may not be on everyone's mind. Now this sadness may be unfounded because nobody can predict alternative futures, but the past has many examples where once great studios got swallowed up by seemingly uncaring megacorps.
Maybe things would've been different if we had more win-win examples, where acquired studios would flourish under their new ownership and rise to unexpected heights within their parent conglomerate.
I would say 99% of people going all in and taking a huge risk to start their own company eventually want to sell it for a huge payday at some point. having a big exit during your life means you have freedom to do whatever you want, fund a new studio, travel, etc etc.
It blows my mind when people bash studios for getting acquired, it shows they have zero awareness of how business works.
I don;t think it has something to do with business awareness but with the side we identify with. Most of us are gamers, i.e. customers, and not business owners. When corporate-mega-games-factory takes over a promising studio we think about employees affected (our fellow game artists) and the products (the awesome games we were hoping for). That a few people got lucky (which isn't necessary always the case in take-overs!) may not be on everyone's mind. Now this sadness may be unfounded because nobody can predict alternative futures, but the past has many examples where once great studios got swallowed up by seemingly uncaring megacorps.
Maybe things would've been different if we had more win-win examples, where acquired studios would flourish under their new ownership and rise to unexpected heights within their parent conglomerate.
Pretty much this...
Studio acquisitions are always seen as a take-over, not a merger. One side expands, the other dies, when really both should be looking to grow, because surely if the acquired are allowed to grow and prosper, the purchaser will reap the rewards too?
The State of Hawaii is now looking at introducing legislation to deal with micro transactions due to EA's Battlefront II fiasco: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_akwfRuL4os
The State of Hawaii is now looking at introducing legislation to deal with micro transactions due to EA's Battlefront II fiasco: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_akwfRuL4os
Now EA is the scapegoat for what is common practice for years in the mobile market because they have the Star Wars label and produced the best looking mobile game for PC and consoles... a bit strange.
I do agree that there are lot's of "games" (mostly mobile) which are essentially just frameworks with the goal to keep people addicted and pay. I have doubts that there will be any court decision that this counts as gambling, if so, all kind of physical collection card games, luck vendor machines (how do you call this things?), candy with random collectible toys etc. will have to be treated the same.
I dunno man, i can understand why it's a difficult legal issue, however as a person, and a parent my view is this:
Teaching children that paying money for the CHANCE to get something they want, leads to the learned behaviour that gambling is fun. There are enough adults out there who know gambling can cause problems, who make the decision to do it, who can't deal with the consequences, we don't need an entire generation of children being led to believe that it's both a normal and fun activity to do.
Children and young teens especially won't truly understand the consequences of this.
I dunno man, i can understand why it's a difficult legal issue, however as a person, and a parent my view is this:
Teaching children that paying money for the CHANCE to get something they want, leads to the learned behaviour that gambling is fun. There are enough adults out there who know gambling can cause problems, who make the decision to do it, who can't deal with the consequences, we don't need an entire generation of children being led to believe that it's both a normal and fun activity to do.
Children and young teens especially won't truly understand the consequences of this.
I agree, I just don't believe that there will be any change coming by means of a legal decision. I think as well that this is a bigger issue for kids compare to the physical game cards etc., because of the easy access and the amount of advertising you are bombarded with. They don't need to go to any shop and hand over their pocket money to the cashier, which I think is important to understand the concept of money. Some adults even don't like to pay by credit card because they feel they lose track.
If the only change that comes from this is games must publicly inform consumers about the drop rates of any lootbox that can be purchased with real money, that's good. But for people with gambling addictions, being informed about the odds does not prevent them from gambling.
I'd also like having an option to hide/disable all micro-transactions via the menu. I've seen some mobile games have options for this for games that kids may play, it completely gets rid of any pages, links, mentions, or options to purchase anything within the game.
Teaching children that paying money for the CHANCE to get something they want, leads to the learned behaviour that gambling is fun.
Or perhaps it will teach them early on the pitfalls of risking the little you have on low odds. Though admittedly if the money isn't theirs to begin with the lesson might not be as effective.
I have doubts that there will be any court decision that this counts as gambling, if so, all kind of physical collection card games, luck vendor machines (how do you call this things?), candy with random collectible toys etc. will have to be treated the same.
These things aren't equivalent, they are just superficially similar. The analogies completely break down when you take a closer look at the details.
Taking into account inflation cups, didn't SNES games cost more than the 60 bucks people pay nowadays or something like that? I'm all for increasing the price of games if that means we can get rid of toxic practices like microtransactions, but then again, I just don't see a future where big companies try not to suck as much money as they can from customers.
I have doubts that there will be any court decision that this counts as gambling, if so, all kind of physical collection card games, luck vendor machines (how do you call this things?), candy with random collectible toys etc. will have to be treated the same.
These things aren't equivalent, they are just superficially similar. The analogies completely break down when you take a closer look at the details.
Yeah, for example:
Magic the gathering booster packs contain an explicit number of common, uncommon, and rare cards. you know when you buy a pack exactly how many of each you can expect. you also know the complete contents of the card set that the booster pack is for, in advance.
Also, when purchasing a card booster pack, you are know that even if the cards in there aren't for your primary deck, all of the cards will have some use or value, whether in other decks or trading with other players. they are a physical commodity.
With a lot of loot chests in games, the majority of rewards you get are things like: "one match exp boost", or in the most disgusting case "one match 'arbitrary secondary grind currency' boost".
Yeah, great... it gives you basically fuck all. you're paying extra for the privilege of being encouraged to grind more. You're not being given anything of tangible value.
EA is trying very hard now to make it even worse...
"We pulled off on the MTX, because the real issue the consumer had was they felt it was a pay-to-win mechanic. The reality is there are different types of players in games. Some people have more time than money, and some people have more money than time. You want to always balance those two." EA CFO Blake Jorgensen
Basically it is the consumers fault for not understanding that Battlefield 2 is not Pay2Win, it just has mechanics that enable a player with more money to keep up with others who play more or better... oh wait.
Regarding my earlier comparison, it was in regards of whether lootboxes are gambling or not. Lootboxes and collection cards etc., don't yield any money rewards, that's why they don't count as gambling to my understanding. Anyway that's for lawyers to decide.
I would personally appreciate regulations that would prevent kids as targets for MTX etc. and if big publishers would understand that gameplay revolving around MTX sucks.
Taking into account inflation cups, didn't SNES games cost more than the 60 bucks people pay nowadays or something like that? I'm all for increasing the price of games if that means we can get rid of toxic practices like microtransactions, but then again, I just don't see a future where big companies try not to suck as much money as they can from customers.
But going back to higher prices will guarantee a piracy slump, guaranteed. Getting players to agree to a higher upfront cost isn't nearly as lucrative as a lower bar of entry, keeping the players in while getting a percentage of those players buying some small MTX every month or two. I think different game genres definitely need different pricing schemes. I play Path of Exile, and I'm happy to support their production through MTX, but it's also a free title that gets significant expansions and updates. They use a Points system, which I don't really agree with, but at least the pricing isn't absurd and the offerings are varied enough.
Lootboxes and mobile app purchases are tricky. I know parents who have gotten burned because their young kids were playing some tablet or phone game and tapped a button for some purchase. I plead ignorance on how easy it actually is to do, or what permissions these apps have, but it sounds like it's just that easy. In-game boosts or whatever are just as predatory; even someone who is mostly against the idea might just have a bad day online and feed that temptation. The part that worries people is knowing the psychological effects that gambling has on people, and it's only now hitting the big spotlight.
At one point they were my most interested developer. I loved Dead Space 1 and 2! This is sad to hear but I hope a number of those guys can reconnect at another studio.
EA: We did it! We are the most hated game publisher on this planet again!! YEAH! Activision: Hold my beer! Ubisoft: ......
The amount of schadenfreude i feel right now because these 2 companies get their heads bashed in by pissed off customers is over 9000. I probably never felt this much of it my whole life before and it is so rightfully and deserved. They are bleeding money and i hope it really hurts, that's the only language they understand.
I felt slightly sorry for the people working at Bungie and Dice, but then i realized that they always had the chance to quit the company (as a whole) and set up a new one like the Call of Duty guys did when they formed Respawn ( oh the irony ). But they didn't so they are willful accomplices, so let the bad karma eat them up.
I felt slightly sorry for the people working at Bungie and Dice, but then i realized that they always had the chance to quit the company (as a whole) and set up a new one like the Call of Duty guys did when they formed Respawn ( oh the irony ). But they didn't so they are willful accomplices, so let the bad karma eat them up.
Just curious... How easy do you think it is to start your own successful studio?
In a statement, the DIA's Trish Millward said she is aware of the international discussion around loot boxes in video games in the wake of the controversy surrounding Star Wars: Battlefront II. The reasons loot boxes do not meet the legal definition of gambling, she said, is because "gamers do not purchase loot boxes seeking to win money or something that can be converted into money." Spending real money to buy a loot box that only gives you a chance to get something may "appear to be gambling," Millward admitted, but they do not meet the legal definition. As such, the DIA "has no ability to regulate the activity under the Gambling Act 2003
(relevant section under the act, I guess she's referring too...)
gambling—
(a) means paying or staking consideration, directly or indirectly, on the outcome of something seeking to win money when the outcome depends wholly or partly on chance; and
(b) includes a sales promotion scheme; and
(c) includes bookmaking; and
(d) includes betting, paying, or staking consideration on the outcome of a sporting event; but
(e) does not include an act, behaviour, or transaction that is declared not to be gambling by regulations made under section 368
Lolz...commenting as an ex-pat kiwi, the statement itself encapsulates 'bureaucratese from downunder' in it's most purest form, ala 80s era halcyon days of unadulterated greed.
slipsius If you already build a successful studio and a have a successful IP so that EA wants to buy you out, and then you follow the Infinity Ward model and quit with the majority of your old team and with a pocket full of money from EA, i guess it would be much easier then it usually is. EA sees value in the brand and IP, i see the value in the team who is able to create new ones. Just look at Mass Effect: Andromeda and how that played out. EA is wasting Biowares talent on a Destiny clone, while they pissed away a guarantied success with Mass Effect.
Interesting take. CoD was activision though. 2 main, high level dudes who created CoD left activision (IW), started their own studio (respawn), then were bought out by EA 7 years later. So that example is a poor one because they already had a successful studio to be bought out. The question was how easy it is to get to that point. If you're happy with the company you're at (in this case, DICE), and then they make a decision you dont like, just up and quitting and starting your own studio is frigging difficult and not exactly doable for the majority of people in this industry. Going indie is costly and risky. Not just on the people doing it, but for the families and friends who support those people as well. People also have bills to pay. People have families to support. The salary and bonus differences between the low/mid level and top level on games is pretty significant, and saving enough money to coast on for awhile isn't exactly easy for a lot of people. Especially if you didn't plan on doing it ahead of time.
slipsius If you already build a successful studio and a have a successful IP so that EA wants to buy you out, and then you follow the Infinity Ward model and quit with the majority of your old team and with a pocket full of money from EA, i guess it would be much easier then it usually is. EA sees value in the brand and IP, i see the value in the team who is able to create new ones. Just look at Mass Effect: Andromeda and how that played out. EA is wasting Biowares talent on a Destiny clone, while they pissed away a guarantied success with Mass Effect.
except most buyout deals are either an earn out where the total purchase price is paid over X amount of years, or its in the contract that the owners/senior staff agree to stay on for 2-5 years as part of the deal...exactly to avoid situations like a mass exodus after a buyout.
except most buyout deals are either an earn out where the total purchase price is paid over X amount of years, or its in the contract that the owners/senior staff agree to stay on for 2-5 years as part of the deal...exactly to avoid situations like a mass exodus after a buyout.
Yep, when we were acquired by a much larger architecture firm all of the senior level staff had to sign 5 year commitments. The bonus's paid out from that buyout to the senior staff are spread out over 5 years and violation of the commitment means you pay back some of the bonus's you received.
Of course, that is if the company doing the buying out chooses to even keep the senior staff. If you are in a merger and you are the company that is getting merged and there are no commitments from the senior staff, run like hell.
Welp, seems like i underestimated these companies and their army of lawyers. How naive, of course they do that kind of shit. On the other hand Dice and Bioware are how long under the umbrella of EA now? It would be a long con, but a team could still initiate a mass exodus the exact moment the Bonus is payed out and the adhesion contract is through. But i guess that is too difficult to organize and to pull off with so many people who have their own agendas, so in the end its nothing but a nice revenge fantasy. Under these circumstance i do have sympathy for the people working at Dice and Bioware, I'll take back what i said earlier.
Regarding that Decision of the Australians to declare Lootboxes as not-gambling i have to disagree because time IS money. While that doesn't mean i can cash in the time i don't waste with senseless grinding (not directly), there is value behind that stuff you can win by participating. Otherwise they could not motivate Gamer to pay for it in the first place. To bind the definition of gambling exclusively to financial gain is shortsighted in my mind. The gambling mechanism stands as a barrier in-between me and what i want. A government should see that and declare everything that abuses humans dopamine system with the intention to get money out of people as gambling-like and restrict it to adults. I have to admit it is very sneaky how they invented that system, and i am sure they collaborated with lawyers on that, that's why it is difficult to just make it illegal. But that's exactly the reason why i hate Lawyers. They always do this shit. It is perfectly legal on paper, but everybody knows that it is morally reprehensible and not right. A lawyer in a suit with a briefcase can do more damage than thousands of men with guns. Which brings me to this (bad) joke:
Whats a thousand lawyers chained to the bottom of the ocean?
Replies
EA didn't instigate the chain of events that lead to buying Respawn, that was Nexon wanting to get a foothold in the western markets from the look of it. EA had first refusal after Nexon made a bid, and according to the interviews the release date for Titanfall 2 was decided on by Respawn to go head to head with CoD, not a plan by EA to scupper the release and secure a cheap purchase price for the studio. EA aren't saints by a long long shot but a lot of the stories around the Respawn situation are crazy.
Hope you're doing alright btw man, i miss you xxx
Also looking at the prices, I could get the same amount of credits by playing 3 hours that I would have gotten by paying 50$ doesn't seem like many people would take a micro transaction route only.
Also the talk about characters being behind paywalls, you don't get the whole game etc, it's the same for all games, if you play an RPG you won't have access to everything from the start, some stuff you might even have to spend 200h to get.
But yeah they made some bad business decisions, they should stick to cosmetic micro transactions, because in the bigger picture for EA and Disney it's more important to have a good image and to keep up their stock value.
And if Darth Vader is still OP and the best hero like in Battlefront 1, it's literally pay to win.
And the 3% drop in EA stocks is probably the only thing that made them turn off micro-transactions (for now), as you pointed out. I think this time around its different due to that, since the community seems to have some minor power to influence the direction of game development some. When I look at BFII, it seems like they have based the main core "game mechanic" around the idea of making money, which is really removing development away from creating a good experience in the first place. The mindset is totally wrong. I believe all the good original games came from a place of creating an experience, and of course you have too adjust some things to make money as well, but as long as the core mindset is creating an experience, a lot is done.
Maybe things would've been different if we had more win-win examples, where acquired studios would flourish under their new ownership and rise to unexpected heights within their parent conglomerate.
Studio acquisitions are always seen as a take-over, not a merger. One side expands, the other dies, when really both should be looking to grow, because surely if the acquired are allowed to grow and prosper, the purchaser will reap the rewards too?
More here: https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/7elin7/the_state_of_hawaii_announces_action_to_address/dq62w5m/
I do agree that there are lot's of "games" (mostly mobile) which are essentially just frameworks with the goal to keep people addicted and pay. I have doubts that there will be any court decision that this counts as gambling, if so, all kind of physical collection card games, luck vendor machines (how do you call this things?), candy with random collectible toys etc. will have to be treated the same.
Teaching children that paying money for the CHANCE to get something they want, leads to the learned behaviour that gambling is fun. There are enough adults out there who know gambling can cause problems, who make the decision to do it, who can't deal with the consequences, we don't need an entire generation of children being led to believe that it's both a normal and fun activity to do.
Children and young teens especially won't truly understand the consequences of this.
I think as well that this is a bigger issue for kids compare to the physical game cards etc., because of the easy access and the amount of advertising you are bombarded with. They don't need to go to any shop and hand over their pocket money to the cashier, which I think is important to understand the concept of money. Some adults even don't like to pay by credit card because they feel they lose track.
Magic the gathering booster packs contain an explicit number of common, uncommon, and rare cards. you know when you buy a pack exactly how many of each you can expect. you also know the complete contents of the card set that the booster pack is for, in advance.
Also, when purchasing a card booster pack, you are know that even if the cards in there aren't for your primary deck, all of the cards will have some use or value, whether in other decks or trading with other players. they are a physical commodity.
With a lot of loot chests in games, the majority of rewards you get are things like: "one match exp boost", or in the most disgusting case "one match 'arbitrary secondary grind currency' boost".
Yeah, great... it gives you basically fuck all. you're paying extra for the privilege of being encouraged to grind more. You're not being given anything of tangible value.
"We pulled off on the MTX, because the real issue the consumer had was they felt it was a pay-to-win mechanic. The reality is there are different types of players in games. Some people have more time than money, and some people have more money than time. You want to always balance those two." EA CFO Blake Jorgensen
Basically it is the consumers fault for not understanding that Battlefield 2 is not Pay2Win, it just has mechanics that enable a player with more money to keep up with others who play more or better... oh wait.
Regarding my earlier comparison, it was in regards of whether lootboxes are gambling or not. Lootboxes and collection cards etc., don't yield any money rewards, that's why they don't count as gambling to my understanding. Anyway that's for lawyers to decide.
I would personally appreciate regulations that would prevent kids as targets for MTX etc. and if big publishers would understand that gameplay revolving around MTX sucks.
Lootboxes and mobile app purchases are tricky. I know parents who have gotten burned because their young kids were playing some tablet or phone game and tapped a button for some purchase. I plead ignorance on how easy it actually is to do, or what permissions these apps have, but it sounds like it's just that easy. In-game boosts or whatever are just as predatory; even someone who is mostly against the idea might just have a bad day online and feed that temptation. The part that worries people is knowing the psychological effects that gambling has on people, and it's only now hitting the big spotlight.
Activision: Hold my beer!
Ubisoft: ......
The amount of schadenfreude i feel right now because these 2 companies get their heads bashed in by pissed off customers is over 9000.
I probably never felt this much of it my whole life before and it is so rightfully and deserved.
They are bleeding money and i hope it really hurts, that's the only language they understand.
I felt slightly sorry for the people working at Bungie and Dice, but then i realized that they always had the chance to quit the company (as a whole) and set up a new one like the Call of Duty guys did when they formed Respawn ( oh the irony ).
But they didn't so they are willful accomplices, so let the bad karma eat them up.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/ea-is-crawling-steamspy-to-download-data-for-free.10859/
Someone at EA is being a real cheapskate. Might have something to do with a hackathon that's going on over there by the web team.
Also seems New Zealand has weighed in on the lootbox issue and have decided it's not equivalent to gambling.
(relevant section under the act, I guess she's referring too...)
gambling—
Lolz...commenting as an ex-pat kiwi, the statement itself encapsulates 'bureaucratese from downunder' in it's most purest form, ala 80s era halcyon days of unadulterated greed.
"sweet as bro..."
If you already build a successful studio and a have a successful IP so that EA wants to buy you out, and then you follow the Infinity Ward model and quit with the majority of your old team and with a pocket full of money from EA, i guess it would be much easier then it usually is.
EA sees value in the brand and IP, i see the value in the team who is able to create new ones. Just look at Mass Effect: Andromeda and how that played out. EA is wasting Biowares talent on a Destiny clone, while they pissed away a guarantied success with Mass Effect.
Of course, that is if the company doing the buying out chooses to even keep the senior staff. If you are in a merger and you are the company that is getting merged and there are no commitments from the senior staff, run like hell.
On the other hand Dice and Bioware are how long under the umbrella of EA now?
It would be a long con, but a team could still initiate a mass exodus the exact moment the Bonus is payed out and the adhesion contract is through.
But i guess that is too difficult to organize and to pull off with so many people who have their own agendas, so in the end its nothing but a nice revenge fantasy. Under these circumstance i do have sympathy for the people working at Dice and Bioware, I'll take back what i said earlier.
Regarding that Decision of the Australians to declare Lootboxes as not-gambling i have to disagree because time IS money.
While that doesn't mean i can cash in the time i don't waste with senseless grinding (not directly), there is value behind that stuff you can win by participating. Otherwise they could not motivate Gamer to pay for it in the first place.
To bind the definition of gambling exclusively to financial gain is shortsighted in my mind. The gambling mechanism stands as a barrier in-between me and what i want.
A government should see that and declare everything that abuses humans dopamine system with the intention to get money out of people as gambling-like and restrict it to adults.
I have to admit it is very sneaky how they invented that system, and i am sure they collaborated with lawyers on that, that's why it is difficult to just make it illegal.
But that's exactly the reason why i hate Lawyers. They always do this shit. It is perfectly legal on paper, but everybody knows that it is morally reprehensible and not right.
A lawyer in a suit with a briefcase can do more damage than thousands of men with guns.
Which brings me to this (bad) joke:
Whats a thousand lawyers chained to the bottom of the ocean?