If EA loses the license (and that wouldn't break my heart), I wouldn't bet on the IP coming back to the PC, or maybe even console, in a big way.
Since Disney has acquired Lucasfilm -- I have no data, but I've seen a ton of Star Wars mobile apps. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to hear that the licensing and royalties from those apps dwarfs what they are currently getting from EA console/PC titles. That doesn't mean sales revenue - Lucasfilm/Mickey don't necessarily see that, and EA is publisher on a lot of these mobile titles. Just saying I bet their revenue from mobile is a lot larger than that from anything else right now.
In that light, a company like NetMarble (which already has some Disney IP) or TenCent... I don't know that Disney would be willing to give up on consoles all together, but I don't think they really are pushing anything specifically for the PC anymore (as much as I would love to see a XWing/Tie Fighter reboot).
As far as the big publishers go - EA is still the console gorilla. Activision and Ubisoft are up there, but so is Square/Enix, which wasn't mentioned at all.. and Kingdom Hearts, so there is some history there. All that said, Tencent dwarves them all, and of all people, Sony is #2 (at least according to 2016 Newzoo data).
Give Bethesda a chance at a SP RPG for Star Wars and let Ubisoft do the MMO part. I don't trust Activision. Of course I don't trust Ubisoft either, but I think they are the better of those two evils. Giving it to only one publisher isn't going to solve anything.
Would the Fans Win?
No. What do the fans want? To play with out cost, and that won't happen. Ever Publisher and Developer saw loot boxes as a win win solution. They wee shock, but not surprised at the public out cry. Customer are no good cheap bastards. Can Blizzard / Activision handle Star Wars? I say Yes, think SW-Overwatch. But we will hear the cry of, "It costs money to play. Therefore P2W."
I don't think it is necessarily true that fans want to play without cost.
Plenty of fans are willing to pay. Disney just jacked the price of a ticket up to their parks, and there's still plenty of people lining up to get in there. Plenty of people bought SWBF2, loot boxes or otherwise. Plenty of people paid to go see SWVIII in the theater over the holidays.
I can't presume to know what all fans want, I only know what I want.
Sure some people will always cry that it's too expensive. And the price point is a sensitive issue. But I don't think that people expect to get everything for free, that's oversimplifying the issue.
On a side note, I don't think Blizzard would touch Star Wars, they have too much invested in their own IPs (some of which are, arguably, as big as Star Wars is) to need to pay through the nose to use another one. That said, Activision has plenty of other studios in their wheelhouse.
SWG wasn't really that good,however just upgrading graphics would make it 10% better.
The whole intrigue was to get a Jedi and when that got changed,it created an uproar.
Ok now the part where i try to make sense to all those thousands that never "got it"before.
1 Are you playing for FUN,is the game FUN for YOU?So then why were you worried about others attaining FUN and why worry about how much grind you had to do to get the JEDI if you were having FUN?
Then if the whole uproar is over nerfing the ease to get Jedi,was the game really that good,were people really having FUN?
To answer the question of the OP "what would it look like?"Well right now seeing how games have really become superficial,i would expect similar,some single gimmick to make sales and if Activision gets it ...look out.
If i had to choose between the two,Bethesda in a heart beat,best of chance of a complete story game and less chance of a super lame cash shop.I would much rather see Square Enix get it but seeing they are way over there in JPN,that is not happening.Besides i am 100% certain Disney is ONLY looking at who attracts the bigger numbers and NOT who can build the best game.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
So seeing how this industry has become a BRAGGING table ,boasting numbers instead of bragging about the actual gameplay,then i would expect hands down Activision gets it.
I basically added this tidbit because,i thought of one other giant with loads of money,not sold on the idea but is a decent option and that is Rockstar games.I would pick Rockstar over Activision and or bethesda and without hesitation.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Would the Fans Win?
No. What do the fans want? To play with out cost, and that won't happen. Ever Publisher and Developer saw loot boxes as a win win solution. They wee shock, but not surprised at the public out cry. Customer are no good cheap bastards. Can Blizzard / Activision handle Star Wars? I say Yes, think SW-Overwatch. But we will hear the cry of, "It costs money to play. Therefore P2W."
I don't think it is necessarily true that fans want to play without cost.
Plenty of fans are willing to pay. Disney just jacked the price of a ticket up to their parks, and there's still plenty of people lining up to get in there. Plenty of people bought SWBF2, loot boxes or otherwise. Plenty of people paid to go see SWVIII in the theater over the holidays.
I can't presume to know what all fans want, I only know what I want.
Sure some people will always cry that it's too expensive. And the price point is a sensitive issue. But I don't think that people expect to get everything for free, that's oversimplifying the issue.
On a side note, I don't think Blizzard would touch Star Wars, they have too much invested in their own IPs (some of which are, arguably, as big as Star Wars is) to need to pay through the nose to use another one. That said, Activision has plenty of other studios in their wheelhouse.
I don't really agree. In the themepark example everyone has to pay so the price and cost is spread out amongst all the people entering the park in a fairly equitable manner. If they charged like most video games the cost would be put on a much smaller minority and be much higher per person.
I think a lot of gamers do expect to get titles essentially free. You'll see a lot of comments like, "I'd pay $20 for that but no more." for a new release when the publisher wants to get $80 - $100 per unit sold. Game development costs, especially at the single play level, have gone through the roof comparatively. They're not going down as expected and costs have plateaued on a floor. They're not trending cheaper even though tool chains and tech improvements should prove otherwise.
There is a lot of info packed in there. It's not a simple "games cost more now so gamers should pay more" but rather an breakdown of cost analysis when trying to create and ship a project. Some people drew the previous conclusion but that's not where he's going with that. I think his main point is that certain design types (specifically single player RPGs) are in danger of being non-viable especially on a trip A level.
Saying not everyone wants to pay does oversimplify the issue, but it does highlight the problem that not enough people are willing to pay their share and that it's not realistic to expect to pay the same price for new releases that we did 30 years ago. On the other hand I get that paying $80 for a game is a lot of money. It's much easier to justify an up front cost of $20 ignoring the hidden back end costs than it is to lay out that $80 in one chunk.
That's the thing: games don't cost the same they did 30 years ago. They have increased in cost.
Right around the 360/PS2 generation, majority of pricing bumped from 50 to 60 bones.
Way before that, from what I've read (back in the cartridge days) games were priced differently based upon the publisher/developer.
The fallacy that game prices have remained stagnant since the dawn of video gaming needs to end.
By the way, Kingdom Come: Deliverance has sold extremely well, by all reports, is a singleplayer open world RPG, and didn't spend twice as much on advertising as it did on development itself. But hey, I'm just sayin'.
Activision would do nothing different then EA. In fact, I submit they might even be worse. The problem, the need to push either paid loot boxes or microtransactions. Activision has not shied away from either. Why would they for a game within the Star Wars theme? They would not. Additionally, they are not any better (or worse) at providing good story to any game they make. I heard a lot of cries when SWG was out there to let Bioware make the next SW game. Well, EA bought Bioware and Bioware made that SW MMO. While it was not bad, it did not draw or more importantly keep players. There are a lot of reasons for that which I leave for another time and place but the point is, it did not make the SW game better and did not draw as most had argued. Frankly, I think Disney should the next SW game out to everyone to make a game. I would bet that there would be an indie company that could make a great SW game.
Would the Fans Win?
No. What do the fans want? To play with out cost, and that won't happen. Ever Publisher and Developer saw loot boxes as a win win solution. They wee shock, but not surprised at the public out cry. Customer are no good cheap bastards. Can Blizzard / Activision handle Star Wars? I say Yes, think SW-Overwatch. But we will hear the cry of, "It costs money to play. Therefore P2W."
I don't think it is necessarily true that fans want to play without cost.
Plenty of fans are willing to pay. Disney just jacked the price of a ticket up to their parks, and there's still plenty of people lining up to get in there. Plenty of people bought SWBF2, loot boxes or otherwise. Plenty of people paid to go see SWVIII in the theater over the holidays.
I can't presume to know what all fans want, I only know what I want.
Sure some people will always cry that it's too expensive. And the price point is a sensitive issue. But I don't think that people expect to get everything for free, that's oversimplifying the issue.
On a side note, I don't think Blizzard would touch Star Wars, they have too much invested in their own IPs (some of which are, arguably, as big as Star Wars is) to need to pay through the nose to use another one. That said, Activision has plenty of other studios in their wheelhouse.
I don't really agree. In the themepark example everyone has to pay so the price and cost is spread out amongst all the people entering the park in a fairly equitable manner. If they charged like most video games the cost would be put on a much smaller minority and be much higher per person.
I think a lot of gamers do expect to get titles essentially free. You'll see a lot of comments like, "I'd pay $20 for that but no more." for a new release when the publisher wants to get $80 - $100 per unit sold. Game development costs, especially at the single play level, have gone through the roof comparatively. They're not going down as expected and costs have plateaued on a floor. They're not trending cheaper even though tool chains and tech improvements should prove otherwise.
There is a lot of info packed in there. It's not a simple "games cost more now so gamers should pay more" but rather an breakdown of cost analysis when trying to create and ship a project. Some people drew the previous conclusion but that's not where he's going with that. I think his main point is that certain design types (specifically single player RPGs) are in danger of being non-viable especially on a trip A level.
Saying not everyone wants to pay does oversimplify the issue, but it does highlight the problem that not enough people are willing to pay their share and that it's not realistic to expect to pay the same price for new releases that we did 30 years ago. On the other hand I get that paying $80 for a game is a lot of money. It's much easier to justify an up front cost of $20 ignoring the hidden back end costs than it is to lay out that $80 in one chunk.
That's the thing: games don't cost the same they did 30 years ago. They have increased in cost.
Right around the 360/PS2 generation, majority of pricing bumped from 50 to 60 bones.
Way before that, from what I've read (back in the cartridge days) games were priced differently based upon the publisher/developer.
The fallacy that game prices have remained stagnant since the dawn of video gaming needs to end.
By the way, Kingdom Come: Deliverance has sold extremely well, by all reports, is a singleplayer open world RPG, and didn't spend twice as much on advertising as it did on development itself. But hey, I'm just sayin'.
I linked and article by an industry veteran that did extensive research and qualified his observations. You, are really going to dismiss that as a fallacy with your anecdotes about back in the day? Okay. Nothing to argue with when you go down that road.
"Back in the day" AAA games sold for $45 - $55 a pop. That was the eighties and nineties. If you don't believe Raph Koster that there is a revenue stream issue, then check out the prices in the flier. You don't even have to consider the author's inflation projections. You can see that some games were already $60 then. They weren't all $50 and cheaper. Most indie games can't sell for over $50 unless they're one of the rockstars.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make as relates to many gamers not wanting to pay their share which is my point. Games don't need to spend stupid money on advertising if they get lucky? Is that it? How does that relate to what I posted?
My point is that lots of gamers expect to game for free or cheap and that is driving up what paying customers are being charged.
The prices haven't remained stagnant; do I need to quote to you the definition of stagnant? It has fluctuated, and since consoles standardized new releases in the 360 generation, it's increased by 10 bucks. If you wanna make the point that it hasn't increased enough (which is Raph's point, from my reading of the article), cool, but quit insulting people's intelligence by telling them game prices have been the same for 3 decades when that's not the truth and the prices have been adjusted more than once by the industry.
Gamers accept what is given. If F2P is offered by a wide variety of publishers because they think nickel and diming is more important to them, then the consumer base will begin to expect to play the game for free. Best way to alter expectations of consumers is to stop telling them it's possible for them to game for free.
It would look like my ass, that's what. You can't go with these big publishers who loose sight of what there customers really want. The lights in the tunnel are CD Projeckt Red, Warhorse, Lairan studios, Paradox is pretty good too. I'd also through in Creative Assembly, even though they are part of Sega. Ubisoft has been getting better, but EA and Activision/Blizzard is a big fat NOPE.
Comments
No Bill, only EA can. They have the exclusive license, remember?
Since Disney has acquired Lucasfilm -- I have no data, but I've seen a ton of Star Wars mobile apps. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to hear that the licensing and royalties from those apps dwarfs what they are currently getting from EA console/PC titles. That doesn't mean sales revenue - Lucasfilm/Mickey don't necessarily see that, and EA is publisher on a lot of these mobile titles. Just saying I bet their revenue from mobile is a lot larger than that from anything else right now.
In that light, a company like NetMarble (which already has some Disney IP) or TenCent... I don't know that Disney would be willing to give up on consoles all together, but I don't think they really are pushing anything specifically for the PC anymore (as much as I would love to see a XWing/Tie Fighter reboot).
As far as the big publishers go - EA is still the console gorilla. Activision and Ubisoft are up there, but so is Square/Enix, which wasn't mentioned at all.. and Kingdom Hearts, so there is some history there. All that said, Tencent dwarves them all, and of all people, Sony is #2 (at least according to 2016 Newzoo data).
Plenty of fans are willing to pay. Disney just jacked the price of a ticket up to their parks, and there's still plenty of people lining up to get in there. Plenty of people bought SWBF2, loot boxes or otherwise. Plenty of people paid to go see SWVIII in the theater over the holidays.
I can't presume to know what all fans want, I only know what I want.
Sure some people will always cry that it's too expensive. And the price point is a sensitive issue. But I don't think that people expect to get everything for free, that's oversimplifying the issue.
On a side note, I don't think Blizzard would touch Star Wars, they have too much invested in their own IPs (some of which are, arguably, as big as Star Wars is) to need to pay through the nose to use another one. That said, Activision has plenty of other studios in their wheelhouse.
The whole intrigue was to get a Jedi and when that got changed,it created an uproar.
Ok now the part where i try to make sense to all those thousands that never "got it"before.
1 Are you playing for FUN,is the game FUN for YOU?So then why were you worried about others attaining FUN and why worry about how much grind you had to do to get the JEDI if you were having FUN?
Then if the whole uproar is over nerfing the ease to get Jedi,was the game really that good,were people really having FUN?
To answer the question of the OP "what would it look like?"Well right now seeing how games have really become superficial,i would expect similar,some single gimmick to make sales and if Activision gets it ...look out.
If i had to choose between the two,Bethesda in a heart beat,best of chance of a complete story game and less chance of a super lame cash shop.I would much rather see Square Enix get it but seeing they are way over there in JPN,that is not happening.Besides i am 100% certain Disney is ONLY looking at who attracts the bigger numbers and NOT who can build the best game.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I basically added this tidbit because,i thought of one other giant with loads of money,not sold on the idea but is a decent option and that is Rockstar games.I would pick Rockstar over Activision and or bethesda and without hesitation.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Right around the 360/PS2 generation, majority of pricing bumped from 50 to 60 bones.
Way before that, from what I've read (back in the cartridge days) games were priced differently based upon the publisher/developer.
The fallacy that game prices have remained stagnant since the dawn of video gaming needs to end.
By the way, Kingdom Come: Deliverance has sold extremely well, by all reports, is a singleplayer open world RPG, and didn't spend twice as much on advertising as it did on development itself. But hey, I'm just sayin'.
feasible too since Warcraft and starcraft are essentially done.
Let's party like it is 1863!
Gamers accept what is given. If F2P is offered by a wide variety of publishers because they think nickel and diming is more important to them, then the consumer base will begin to expect to play the game for free. Best way to alter expectations of consumers is to stop telling them it's possible for them to game for free.
Remastered HD or UHD versions of past games like Jedi Academy, Outcast, and KOTOR.
All new games based on similar gameplay as above.
A Star Wars game like Dark Souls, Diablo, Mass Effect