criterion-sm dice-lg ea-starwars-lg instagram lucasfilm-lg motive-lg twitch you-tube

New large scale "TITAN" game mode: Possibly delayed past February?

1356

Replies

  • F8RGE wrote: »
    As you all know, i'd gladly say stuff but in this instance I can't. The game mode is coming, and I'm hoping you'll enjoy it (we've been having fun with it).

    Full details in the not so distant future.

    Sweet contrast. We have been having fun with, and play testing, the irrational lack of information.
  • t3hBar0n wrote: »
    DarthJ wrote: »
    Lagodaki wrote: »
    Would you rather them release something unfinished or wait until March?

    No, I would just like them to stick to deadlines that they set for us

    Yup... its socializing 101... never commit to a specific time, unless you can commit to that specific time... otherwise just say "ya ya I will be there later today!"

    As far as info on this...

    w8va45poxle21.jpg

    and F8RGE also stated
    If it wasn't near ready then we've been playing some very interesting prototypes during playtests. You should know the drill on assets by now, they usually get dropped very closely the to the release of whatever they are focused on.

    and
    You should know me by now that I'm always happy to communicate things as soon as I can, even before I should in some cases. Right now though, I just need a bit more time.

    There are multiple CTs on the way, two in approvals now and I believe Jay's on Anakin should be hitting approvals by the end of this week. We've got the info, we've got assets on the way (I hope!).

    and
    Only what I said on Twitter, we'll be talking more about the new game mode in a CT (which is currently in approvals). Can't say anything else right now. Know it's frustrating, share the frustration. Sorry.

    The new guy telling us to “be patient”. Craziness.

    Hey, there’s more to this than you know buddy.
    Knights of Gareth
    XBL- JsOnMyFett 13
  • Piscettios wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    DarthJ wrote: »
    Lagodaki wrote: »
    Would you rather them release something unfinished or wait until March?

    No, I would just like them to stick to deadlines that they set for us

    Yup... its socializing 101... never commit to a specific time, unless you can commit to that specific time... otherwise just say "ya ya I will be there later today!"

    As far as info on this...

    w8va45poxle21.jpg

    and F8RGE also stated
    If it wasn't near ready then we've been playing some very interesting prototypes during playtests. You should know the drill on assets by now, they usually get dropped very closely the to the release of whatever they are focused on.

    and
    You should know me by now that I'm always happy to communicate things as soon as I can, even before I should in some cases. Right now though, I just need a bit more time.

    There are multiple CTs on the way, two in approvals now and I believe Jay's on Anakin should be hitting approvals by the end of this week. We've got the info, we've got assets on the way (I hope!).

    and
    Only what I said on Twitter, we'll be talking more about the new game mode in a CT (which is currently in approvals). Can't say anything else right now. Know it's frustrating, share the frustration. Sorry.

    The new guy telling us to “be patient”. Craziness.

    Hey, there’s more to this than you know buddy.

    x9p7rd4pfwg6.jpeg

    The other half is getting the devs to stop “having fun” with the new mode and to actually get it released.
  • Darth_Vapor3
    3136 posts Member
    edited February 5
    F8RGE wrote: »
    As you all know, i'd gladly say stuff but in this instance I can't. The game mode is coming, and I'm hoping you'll enjoy it (we've been having fun with it).

    Full details in the not so distant future.

    Ok... this.
    This is a hidden message. Perhaps a delay isn’t the case. Or if it is, maybe it’ll be in early March. I’ve been reading this thread and came upon this.
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    DarthJ wrote: »
    Lagodaki wrote: »
    Would you rather them release something unfinished or wait until March?

    No, I would just like them to stick to deadlines that they set for us

    Yup... its socializing 101... never commit to a specific time, unless you can commit to that specific time... otherwise just say "ya ya I will be there later today!"

    As far as info on this...

    w8va45poxle21.jpg

    and F8RGE also stated
    If it wasn't near ready then we've been playing some very interesting prototypes during playtests. You should know the drill on assets by now, they usually get dropped very closely the to the release of whatever they are focused on.

    and
    You should know me by now that I'm always happy to communicate things as soon as I can, even before I should in some cases. Right now though, I just need a bit more time.

    There are multiple CTs on the way, two in approvals now and I believe Jay's on Anakin should be hitting approvals by the end of this week. We've got the info, we've got assets on the way (I hope!).

    and
    Only what I said on Twitter, we'll be talking more about the new game mode in a CT (which is currently in approvals). Can't say anything else right now. Know it's frustrating, share the frustration. Sorry.

    Clearly his hands are tied. They have been before. With all of this, the picture has changed. It now appears to me that he’s trying to tell us things that he’s specifically not allowed to and using a quality read between the lines approach. We’ll see, but I’m more hopeful today than yesterday that this mode won’t be put back until the end of March. Reread the quotes above with the idea that he’s trying to divulge information, without crossing the line of actually just telling us. We’ve seen this tact before.
  • Ok yes this is good communication... He is frustrated and has his hands tied. But the expectation is growing all the time we get stuff like this .. so I'm getting excited again
  • Let me tell you secret about this game, expect nothing and enjoy all content you will get, you will be surprised. I would be surprised if we get something, I don't expect marvelous things out from this game. I have enjoyed many hours playing this game and don't let content we don't already have to bother me so much. I would like to have Hero AI , Galactic Conquest, Speeder Bike racing and many other things. Most disappointing moment was when content was removed from this game, I hope it will never happen again.
  • Piscettios wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    DarthJ wrote: »
    Lagodaki wrote: »
    Would you rather them release something unfinished or wait until March?

    No, I would just like them to stick to deadlines that they set for us

    Yup... its socializing 101... never commit to a specific time, unless you can commit to that specific time... otherwise just say "ya ya I will be there later today!"

    As far as info on this...

    w8va45poxle21.jpg

    and F8RGE also stated
    If it wasn't near ready then we've been playing some very interesting prototypes during playtests. You should know the drill on assets by now, they usually get dropped very closely the to the release of whatever they are focused on.

    and
    You should know me by now that I'm always happy to communicate things as soon as I can, even before I should in some cases. Right now though, I just need a bit more time.

    There are multiple CTs on the way, two in approvals now and I believe Jay's on Anakin should be hitting approvals by the end of this week. We've got the info, we've got assets on the way (I hope!).

    and
    Only what I said on Twitter, we'll be talking more about the new game mode in a CT (which is currently in approvals). Can't say anything else right now. Know it's frustrating, share the frustration. Sorry.

    The new guy telling us to “be patient”. Craziness.

    Hey, there’s more to this than you know buddy.

    Oh, I’m sure ;)
    PSN: BucksawBoushh
  • Dash
    11526 posts Member
    edited February 5
    Or in the meantime, my PC forum brothers here can plays Apex with me while we wait. :blush:

    #JustSayin :wink:
    Origin ID: "NWG_Dash"

    Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyUQ3FFqM-TQd-3xtZmHOGQ?view_as=subscriber
    Link to all my Guides here in Tips & Tricks: https://battlefront-forums.ea.com/discussion/113241/custom-class-hero-loadouts-builds-revisited-pt-2-6-14-2018#latest

    "When you ask for trouble, you should not be surprised when it finds you". - Plo Koon
    rjy4wg9w86wa.gif





  • Search your feelings you know it to be true.
  • the game mode proabably won't even be that great. Just port over small game modes like sabatoge, cargo, drop zone, and droid run.

    this "large scale" game mode is just going to be another disappointment because fans don't understand that games have evolved past the days of the original Battlefront 2.
  • the game mode proabably won't even be that great. Just port over small game modes like sabatoge, cargo, drop zone, and droid run.

    this "large scale" game mode is just going to be another disappointment because fans don't understand that games have evolved past the days of the original Battlefront 2.

    Wait, evolved past? How exactly?

    That would be like shipping Battlefield with Rush mode only, no Conquest, and calling it evolution.
  • the game mode proabably won't even be that great. Just port over small game modes like sabatoge, cargo, drop zone, and droid run.

    this "large scale" game mode is just going to be another disappointment because fans don't understand that games have evolved past the days of the original Battlefront 2.

    Wait, evolved past? How exactly?

    That would be like shipping Battlefield with Rush mode only, no Conquest, and calling it evolution.

    Heh. That’s what we got here. GA is Rush... And no conquest.
  • I'm glad DICE can continue to tell us how much fun they are having with the new game mode. We've been hearing that for a while too. We'd like to have at least a bit of fun too, DICE. Maybe they could at least invite some youtubers out to play and capture footage?

    The "near future" song and dance got old last year too. Hurry up and wait for an untold amount of time for news about features we will have to wait even longer for. At least now we are getting heroes and such instead of not much of anything.
  • This game has been marred by missteps since Day One. It would be out of character for communication to become suddenly robust and for things to magically become less dysfunctional.
  • the game mode proabably won't even be that great. Just port over small game modes like sabatoge, cargo, drop zone, and droid run.

    this "large scale" game mode is just going to be another disappointment because fans don't understand that games have evolved past the days of the original Battlefront 2.

    Wait, evolved past? How exactly?

    That would be like shipping Battlefield with Rush mode only, no Conquest, and calling it evolution.

    Heh. That’s what we got here. GA is Rush... And no conquest.

    Lol exactly what I was thinking. DICE Battlefront has felt like Bad Company, a game designed for last gen consoles that couldn't handle 64 player Conquest.

    But we don't even get vehicles on the map like in Bad Company LOL!!!
  • Dash wrote: »
    Or in the meantime, my PC forum brothers here can plays Apex with me while we wait. :blush:

    #JustSayin :wink:

    Apex is indeed a good game. I'm really into it. Like I said in another thread, Respawn is EA's ace up the sleeve. They put out a winner and it was 100% their idea with no EA interference.
  • the game mode proabably won't even be that great. Just port over small game modes like sabatoge, cargo, drop zone, and droid run.

    this "large scale" game mode is just going to be another disappointment because fans don't understand that games have evolved past the days of the original Battlefront 2.

    Wait, evolved past? How exactly?

    That would be like shipping Battlefield with Rush mode only, no Conquest, and calling it evolution.

    Heh. That’s what we got here. GA is Rush... And no conquest.

    Lol exactly what I was thinking. DICE Battlefront has felt like Bad Company, a game designed for last gen consoles that couldn't handle 64 player Conquest.

    But we don't even get vehicles on the map like in Bad Company LOL!!!

    Battlefield BC2 was my game. Top three every match, if not first. I was younger then. *sighs*
  • hsf_ wrote: »

    5char

    +1 million HUES for the wire reference
  • DarthLuke wrote: »
    I think it might be other way arround now. It is possible that the roadmap was just not done well.

    We assuming the roadmap did not include it on purpose. Now knowing DICE I would not be surprised if they forgot what they had planned because of the PR being on moon, while release team is on Jupiter

    Truly wonderful the mind of a child is.
    1. This is not something anybody just forgets to include in an announcement such as this.
    2. If it was accidentally left off the Community Calendar (as unlikely as that is), then why didn't Ben and Charlemagne just say that?
    The new mode has been delayed. It's not coming this month. That much is clear.

    This is the best argument I have read for the mode being delayed.
    Add more Extraction and Hunt maps please!

    What the ROADMAP should look like for 2019/2020:
    “Season” 4: Rogue One
    “Season” 5: Clone Wars Revival
    “Season” 6: Episode IX
  • I've said it before and I'll say it again, keep your expectations low and you will never be disappointed, your emotional sustenance will be filled with glee and hope when you do finally get something. Best way to play this game and continue to support it.
    Hi.
  • Yay another update with dumb skins and a hero I don't care about. These single hero updates are underwhelming and do not add longevity to the game. Considering we have no Extraction maps in the works, the new large mode is all I was looking forward to. Just another let down...
  • ^ Yup
    PSN: BucksawBoushh
  • DarthLuke wrote: »
    Sorry I gonna tell you the truth. EA only bought battlefront 2 to kill the competitor. It was never meant to be a good game.

    It was meant to kill a rival so that EA’s baby battlefield has less competition. As in markets the economics of scale tell to buy out an IP even if it’s you loose money. As it’s done to rid completion and monopolize the market

    I mean, not the craziest theory I’ve ever read.

    It's completely crazy. Everything they've said in this thread is crazy.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    My Concepts
    Clone Skin Changes | Clone Customisation & Menu | Empire Customisation & Menu
  • DarthLuke wrote: »
    Sorry I gonna tell you the truth. EA only bought battlefront 2 to kill the competitor. It was never meant to be a good game.

    It was meant to kill a rival so that EA’s baby battlefield has less competition. As in markets the economics of scale tell to buy out an IP even if it’s you loose money. As it’s done to rid completion and monopolize the market

    I mean, not the craziest theory I’ve ever read.

    It's completely crazy. Everything they've said in this thread is crazy.

    I think people have the right to be upset if the mode is in fact, delayed. No?
    PSN: BucksawBoushh
  • DarthLuke wrote: »
    Sorry I gonna tell you the truth. EA only bought battlefront 2 to kill the competitor. It was never meant to be a good game.

    It was meant to kill a rival so that EA’s baby battlefield has less competition. As in markets the economics of scale tell to buy out an IP even if it’s you loose money. As it’s done to rid competitors and monopolize the market

    * edited for spelling

    EA were given a license by Disney to produce games, they didn't buy anything.
    The Battlefront franchise was gone for 10 years before EA brought it back in 2015, so why would there be any need to "kill" what was already dead? Plus, Battlefront isn't competition for Battlefield, it's simply another franchise to add to their portfolio with its own core base of players.
    The idea that EA wouldn't want to profit off of the Star Wars brand by being utterly self-sabotaging is laughable. None of your comments in this thread have even a shred of truth to them and are completely outside the realm of reality.

    Actually it makes 100% strategic sense. Yes Disney gave them the IP, but the way internal politics works is that if it Lucas never sold it to Disney ea would have a massive enemy to combat in the FPS.

    It is why EA killed titanfall as well. Because it is a competitor. Now that’s exactly why the IP is bad. It designed just to pay for itself and maybe drain some profit. Because as long as EA BF2 breaks even, it is fine for the sake of killing competition.

    No new FPS will get developed when they are failing left and right. And anthom is a part of a major CEO spin to maximize profit.
  • DarthLuke wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    Sorry I gonna tell you the truth. EA only bought battlefront 2 to kill the competitor. It was never meant to be a good game.

    It was meant to kill a rival so that EA’s baby battlefield has less competition. As in markets the economics of scale tell to buy out an IP even if it’s you loose money. As it’s done to rid competitors and monopolize the market

    * edited for spelling

    EA were given a license by Disney to produce games, they didn't buy anything.
    The Battlefront franchise was gone for 10 years before EA brought it back in 2015, so why would there be any need to "kill" what was already dead? Plus, Battlefront isn't competition for Battlefield, it's simply another franchise to add to their portfolio with its own core base of players.
    The idea that EA wouldn't want to profit off of the Star Wars brand by being utterly self-sabotaging is laughable. None of your comments in this thread have even a shred of truth to them and are completely outside the realm of reality.

    Actually it makes 100% strategic sense. Yes Disney gave them the IP, but the way internal politics works is that if it Lucas never sold it to Disney ea would have a massive enemy to combat in the FPS.

    It is why EA killed titanfall as well. Because it is a competitor. Now that’s exactly why the IP is bad. It designed just to pay for itself and maybe drain some profit. Because as long as EA BF2 breaks even, it is fine for the sake of killing competition.

    No new FPS will get developed when they are failing left and right. And anthom is a part of a major CEO spin to maximize profit.

    It makes no sense. You don't take on a massive cash-cow license like Star Wars and then deliberately sabotage the games because it's completely self-defeating, especially when you're a company like EA whose whole schtick is maximising profits by any means necessary.
    If different games in EA's portfoliio ever do compete with one another in the sales race, that's actually good for them because it means they're making money either way. If Fanta was proving to be a close competitor with Coke, the Coca-Cola Company wouldn't stop making Fanta because then they'd lose all the money Fanta was making and there's no guarantee that consumers who preferred Fanta would now start buying Coke instead. It's the same with games too, that those who play Titanfall and Battlefront may not necessarily be keen Battlefield players, so why deliberately kill these games on the assumption that everyone will now flock to Battlefield?
    The fact is that two products made by the same company that operate in the same market aren't competitors because the parent company is making money off of both. Each will have its own core market, some people will buy both, but primarily they will both make the company a profit, one that wouldn't have been as large had there only been one of their products on the market instead of 2 or 3.
    Also, EA hasn't killed Titanfall, they've simply converted it to a more monetizable form in the shape of Apex Legends, the new battle-royale game set in the world of Titanfall but with more MTXs.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    My Concepts
    Clone Skin Changes | Clone Customisation & Menu | Empire Customisation & Menu
  • DarthLuke wrote: »
    Sorry I gonna tell you the truth. EA only bought battlefront 2 to kill the competitor. It was never meant to be a good game.

    It was meant to kill a rival so that EA’s baby battlefield has less competition. As in markets the economics of scale tell to buy out an IP even if it’s you loose money. As it’s done to rid completion and monopolize the market

    I mean, not the craziest theory I’ve ever read.

    It's completely crazy. Everything they've said in this thread is crazy.

    I think people have the right to be upset if the mode is in fact, delayed. No?

    Indeed they are, but saying that this is an intentional PR stunt to bring in/bring back players whilst simultaneously furthering a deliberate and orchestrated demise of their own franchise isn't simply being "upset", it's downright crazy.
    They're peddling insane conspiracy theories that aren't even remotely tethered to reality.

    I gave it an A for creativity.
    PSN: BucksawBoushh
  • DarthLuke wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    Sorry I gonna tell you the truth. EA only bought battlefront 2 to kill the competitor. It was never meant to be a good game.

    It was meant to kill a rival so that EA’s baby battlefield has less competition. As in markets the economics of scale tell to buy out an IP even if it’s you loose money. As it’s done to rid competitors and monopolize the market

    * edited for spelling

    EA were given a license by Disney to produce games, they didn't buy anything.
    The Battlefront franchise was gone for 10 years before EA brought it back in 2015, so why would there be any need to "kill" what was already dead? Plus, Battlefront isn't competition for Battlefield, it's simply another franchise to add to their portfolio with its own core base of players.
    The idea that EA wouldn't want to profit off of the Star Wars brand by being utterly self-sabotaging is laughable. None of your comments in this thread have even a shred of truth to them and are completely outside the realm of reality.

    Actually it makes 100% strategic sense. Yes Disney gave them the IP, but the way internal politics works is that if it Lucas never sold it to Disney ea would have a massive enemy to combat in the FPS.

    It is why EA killed titanfall as well. Because it is a competitor. Now that’s exactly why the IP is bad. It designed just to pay for itself and maybe drain some profit. Because as long as EA BF2 breaks even, it is fine for the sake of killing competition.

    No new FPS will get developed when they are failing left and right. And anthom is a part of a major CEO spin to maximize profit.

    It makes no sense. You don't take on a massive cash-cow license like Star Wars and then deliberately sabotage the games because it's completely self-defeating, especially when you're a company like EA whose whole schtick is maximising profits by any means necessary.
    If different games in EA's portfoliio ever do compete with one another in the sales race, that's actually good for them because it means they're making money either way. If Fanta was proving to be a close competitor with Coke, the Coca-Cola Company wouldn't stop making Fanta because then they'd lose all the money Fanta was making and there's no guarantee that consumers who preferred Fanta would now start buying Coke instead. It's the same with games too, that those who play Titanfall and Battlefront may not necessarily be keen Battlefield players, so why deliberately kill these games on the assumption that everyone will now flock to Battlefield?
    The fact is that two products made by the same company that operate in the same market aren't competitors because the parent company is making money off of both. Each will have its own core market, some people will buy both, but primarily they will both make the company a profit, one that wouldn't have been as large had there only been one of their products on the market instead of 2 or 3.
    Also, EA hasn't killed Titanfall, they've simply converted it to a more monetizable form in the shape of Apex Legends, the new battle-royale game set in the world of Titanfall but with more MTXs.

    +1. EA is the greediest company imo, they wouldn’t ever pass up the chance to make a quick buck. Saying that there is competition and they are trying to kill the franchise is dumb. Battlefield is the Republic, Battlefront is the CIS, and at the top of it all is EA as Palps, who is controlling both sides. EA wins either way, as we already bought it, and while the analogy isn’t completely accurate, it was the best I could do while remaining in a star wars setting.
    You guys are gonna make me rich......
    Xbox G-tag
    XJO461
    That Specialist rework was disappointing.
    nceaq2h23fqj.png



  • DarthJ
    6110 posts Member
    There probably wasn't any content for March
    So they moved the new game mode back a month
    Then they will say we gave you a new Hero February and a new game mode March
    u42ol4rhtvqs.gif
    :D

    This. Probably thinking they will give themselves some breathing space when in reality its gonna annoy people even more
    PSN: ibrajoker59
  • slarlac249
    139 posts Member
    edited February 6
    the game mode proabably won't even be that great. Just port over small game modes like sabatoge, cargo, drop zone, and droid run.

    this "large scale" game mode is just going to be another disappointment because fans don't understand that games have evolved past the days of the original Battlefront 2.

    Wait, evolved past? How exactly?

    That would be like shipping Battlefield with Rush mode only, no Conquest, and calling it evolution.

    Heh. That’s what we got here. GA is Rush... And no conquest.

    Lol exactly what I was thinking. DICE Battlefront has felt like Bad Company, a game designed for last gen consoles that couldn't handle 64 player Conquest.

    But we don't even get vehicles on the map like in Bad Company LOL!!!

    Battlefield BC2 was my game. Top three every match, if not first. I was younger then. *sighs*

    BC2 was an insult to the series.

    small maps for conquest
    rush got bigger playable area
    auto lunge teleport knife
    crap play once campaign, just like all bf's that followed....
    GenxDarchi wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    Sorry I gonna tell you the truth. EA only bought battlefront 2 to kill the competitor. It was never meant to be a good game.

    It was meant to kill a rival so that EA’s baby battlefield has less competition. As in markets the economics of scale tell to buy out an IP even if it’s you loose money. As it’s done to rid competitors and monopolize the market

    * edited for spelling

    EA were given a license by Disney to produce games, they didn't buy anything.
    The Battlefront franchise was gone for 10 years before EA brought it back in 2015, so why would there be any need to "kill" what was already dead? Plus, Battlefront isn't competition for Battlefield, it's simply another franchise to add to their portfolio with its own core base of players.
    The idea that EA wouldn't want to profit off of the Star Wars brand by being utterly self-sabotaging is laughable. None of your comments in this thread have even a shred of truth to them and are completely outside the realm of reality.

    Actually it makes 100% strategic sense. Yes Disney gave them the IP, but the way internal politics works is that if it Lucas never sold it to Disney ea would have a massive enemy to combat in the FPS.

    It is why EA killed titanfall as well. Because it is a competitor. Now that’s exactly why the IP is bad. It designed just to pay for itself and maybe drain some profit. Because as long as EA BF2 breaks even, it is fine for the sake of killing competition.

    No new FPS will get developed when they are failing left and right. And anthom is a part of a major CEO spin to maximize profit.

    It makes no sense. You don't take on a massive cash-cow license like Star Wars and then deliberately sabotage the games because it's completely self-defeating, especially when you're a company like EA whose whole schtick is maximising profits by any means necessary.
    If different games in EA's portfoliio ever do compete with one another in the sales race, that's actually good for them because it means they're making money either way. If Fanta was proving to be a close competitor with Coke, the Coca-Cola Company wouldn't stop making Fanta because then they'd lose all the money Fanta was making and there's no guarantee that consumers who preferred Fanta would now start buying Coke instead. It's the same with games too, that those who play Titanfall and Battlefront may not necessarily be keen Battlefield players, so why deliberately kill these games on the assumption that everyone will now flock to Battlefield?
    The fact is that two products made by the same company that operate in the same market aren't competitors because the parent company is making money off of both. Each will have its own core market, some people will buy both, but primarily they will both make the company a profit, one that wouldn't have been as large had there only been one of their products on the market instead of 2 or 3.
    Also, EA hasn't killed Titanfall, they've simply converted it to a more monetizable form in the shape of Apex Legends, the new battle-royale game set in the world of Titanfall but with more MTXs.

    +1. EA is the greediest company imo, they wouldn’t ever pass up the chance to make a quick buck. Saying that there is competition and they are trying to kill the franchise is dumb. Battlefield is the Republic, Battlefront is the CIS, and at the top of it all is EA as Palps, who is controlling both sides. EA wins either way, as we already bought it, and while the analogy isn’t completely accurate, it was the best I could do while remaining in a star wars setting.

    battlefield is not the republic, it's the cod competitor, and has been since cod went full mulitplatform.
    it's why dicea keep putting in a "cinematic" campaign and making mp suck
    battlefront is an afterthought for dicea, a side project, battlefields ugly sister who lives in the basement
    it's obvious they care more about screwing with battlefield than they do with battlefront.

    still..they seem to be doing just fine runing two once great games at the same time.
    Proud EX-Member of MordorHQ (RIP) A.K.A EA UK Forums (RIP)
  • slarlac249 wrote: »
    the game mode proabably won't even be that great. Just port over small game modes like sabatoge, cargo, drop zone, and droid run.

    this "large scale" game mode is just going to be another disappointment because fans don't understand that games have evolved past the days of the original Battlefront 2.

    Wait, evolved past? How exactly?

    That would be like shipping Battlefield with Rush mode only, no Conquest, and calling it evolution.

    Heh. That’s what we got here. GA is Rush... And no conquest.

    Lol exactly what I was thinking. DICE Battlefront has felt like Bad Company, a game designed for last gen consoles that couldn't handle 64 player Conquest.

    But we don't even get vehicles on the map like in Bad Company LOL!!!

    Battlefield BC2 was my game. Top three every match, if not first. I was younger then. *sighs*

    BC2 was an insult to the series.

    small maps for conquest
    rush got bigger playable area
    auto lunge teleport knife
    crap play once campaign, just like all bf's that followed...

    Disagree. Some were smaller, some not. It worked well for only 12v12.

    Rush was a lot of running... and more running.

    I’d rather not comment if you found the knife to be an issue.

    Agree. The campaign was bland.
  • DarthLuke wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    Sorry I gonna tell you the truth. EA only bought battlefront 2 to kill the competitor. It was never meant to be a good game.

    It was meant to kill a rival so that EA’s baby battlefield has less competition. As in markets the economics of scale tell to buy out an IP even if it’s you loose money. As it’s done to rid competitors and monopolize the market

    * edited for spelling

    EA were given a license by Disney to produce games, they didn't buy anything.
    The Battlefront franchise was gone for 10 years before EA brought it back in 2015, so why would there be any need to "kill" what was already dead? Plus, Battlefront isn't competition for Battlefield, it's simply another franchise to add to their portfolio with its own core base of players.
    The idea that EA wouldn't want to profit off of the Star Wars brand by being utterly self-sabotaging is laughable. None of your comments in this thread have even a shred of truth to them and are completely outside the realm of reality.

    Actually it makes 100% strategic sense. Yes Disney gave them the IP, but the way internal politics works is that if it Lucas never sold it to Disney ea would have a massive enemy to combat in the FPS.

    It is why EA killed titanfall as well. Because it is a competitor. Now that’s exactly why the IP is bad. It designed just to pay for itself and maybe drain some profit. Because as long as EA BF2 breaks even, it is fine for the sake of killing competition.

    No new FPS will get developed when they are failing left and right. And anthom is a part of a major CEO spin to maximize profit.

    It makes no sense. You don't take on a massive cash-cow license like Star Wars and then deliberately sabotage the games because it's completely self-defeating, especially when you're a company like EA whose whole schtick is maximising profits by any means necessary.
    If different games in EA's portfoliio ever do compete with one another in the sales race, that's actually good for them because it means they're making money either way. If Fanta was proving to be a close competitor with Coke, the Coca-Cola Company wouldn't stop making Fanta because then they'd lose all the money Fanta was making and there's no guarantee that consumers who preferred Fanta would now start buying Coke instead. It's the same with games too, that those who play Titanfall and Battlefront may not necessarily be keen Battlefield players, so why deliberately kill these games on the assumption that everyone will now flock to Battlefield?
    The fact is that two products made by the same company that operate in the same market aren't competitors because the parent company is making money off of both. Each will have its own core market, some people will buy both, but primarily they will both make the company a profit, one that wouldn't have been as large had there only been one of their products on the market instead of 2 or 3.
    Also, EA hasn't killed Titanfall, they've simply converted it to a more monetizable form in the shape of Apex Legends, the new battle-royale game set in the world of Titanfall but with more MTXs.

    Again incorrect. Yes both belong to EA, but I am talking about stock shares. See Disney’s battlefront may be less popular but they way it works is stocks.

    Cod / battlefield / battlefront all share stock ins EAs FPS genre. As a quota battlefront has the least. But in a constant battle for stock % it makes sense for the ceo of battlefront to let bf2 die and allow the stocks to drain in battlefield. As that allows him to make a ton of money selling on them since increased demand of stock openings to a CEO is a cash grab and run.

    Same with titan fall. And on face the failure of FPS games draws all competition to his stocks. Artifially increases all demand. As of such profit
  • DarthLuke wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    Sorry I gonna tell you the truth. EA only bought battlefront 2 to kill the competitor. It was never meant to be a good game.

    It was meant to kill a rival so that EA’s baby battlefield has less competition. As in markets the economics of scale tell to buy out an IP even if it’s you loose money. As it’s done to rid competitors and monopolize the market

    * edited for spelling

    EA were given a license by Disney to produce games, they didn't buy anything.
    The Battlefront franchise was gone for 10 years before EA brought it back in 2015, so why would there be any need to "kill" what was already dead? Plus, Battlefront isn't competition for Battlefield, it's simply another franchise to add to their portfolio with its own core base of players.
    The idea that EA wouldn't want to profit off of the Star Wars brand by being utterly self-sabotaging is laughable. None of your comments in this thread have even a shred of truth to them and are completely outside the realm of reality.

    Actually it makes 100% strategic sense. Yes Disney gave them the IP, but the way internal politics works is that if it Lucas never sold it to Disney ea would have a massive enemy to combat in the FPS.

    It is why EA killed titanfall as well. Because it is a competitor. Now that’s exactly why the IP is bad. It designed just to pay for itself and maybe drain some profit. Because as long as EA BF2 breaks even, it is fine for the sake of killing competition.

    No new FPS will get developed when they are failing left and right. And anthom is a part of a major CEO spin to maximize profit.

    It makes no sense. You don't take on a massive cash-cow license like Star Wars and then deliberately sabotage the games because it's completely self-defeating, especially when you're a company like EA whose whole schtick is maximising profits by any means necessary.
    If different games in EA's portfoliio ever do compete with one another in the sales race, that's actually good for them because it means they're making money either way. If Fanta was proving to be a close competitor with Coke, the Coca-Cola Company wouldn't stop making Fanta because then they'd lose all the money Fanta was making and there's no guarantee that consumers who preferred Fanta would now start buying Coke instead. It's the same with games too, that those who play Titanfall and Battlefront may not necessarily be keen Battlefield players, so why deliberately kill these games on the assumption that everyone will now flock to Battlefield?
    The fact is that two products made by the same company that operate in the same market aren't competitors because the parent company is making money off of both. Each will have its own core market, some people will buy both, but primarily they will both make the company a profit, one that wouldn't have been as large had there only been one of their products on the market instead of 2 or 3.
    Also, EA hasn't killed Titanfall, they've simply converted it to a more monetizable form in the shape of Apex Legends, the new battle-royale game set in the world of Titanfall but with more MTXs.

    Again incorrect. Yes both belong to EA, but I am talking about stock shares. See Disney’s battlefront may be less popular but they way it works is stocks.

    Cod / battlefield / battlefront all share stock ins EAs FPS genre. As a quota battlefront has the least. But in a constant battle for stock % it makes sense for the ceo of battlefront to let bf2 die and allow the stocks to drain in battlefield. As that allows him to make a ton of money selling on them since increased demand of stock openings to a CEO is a cash grab and run.

    Same with titan fall. And on face the failure of FPS games draws all competition to his stocks. Artifially increases all demand. As of such profit

    Just stop.
  • DarthLuke wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    Sorry I gonna tell you the truth. EA only bought battlefront 2 to kill the competitor. It was never meant to be a good game.

    It was meant to kill a rival so that EA’s baby battlefield has less competition. As in markets the economics of scale tell to buy out an IP even if it’s you loose money. As it’s done to rid competitors and monopolize the market

    * edited for spelling

    EA were given a license by Disney to produce games, they didn't buy anything.
    The Battlefront franchise was gone for 10 years before EA brought it back in 2015, so why would there be any need to "kill" what was already dead? Plus, Battlefront isn't competition for Battlefield, it's simply another franchise to add to their portfolio with its own core base of players.
    The idea that EA wouldn't want to profit off of the Star Wars brand by being utterly self-sabotaging is laughable. None of your comments in this thread have even a shred of truth to them and are completely outside the realm of reality.

    Actually it makes 100% strategic sense. Yes Disney gave them the IP, but the way internal politics works is that if it Lucas never sold it to Disney ea would have a massive enemy to combat in the FPS.

    It is why EA killed titanfall as well. Because it is a competitor. Now that’s exactly why the IP is bad. It designed just to pay for itself and maybe drain some profit. Because as long as EA BF2 breaks even, it is fine for the sake of killing competition.

    No new FPS will get developed when they are failing left and right. And anthom is a part of a major CEO spin to maximize profit.

    It makes no sense. You don't take on a massive cash-cow license like Star Wars and then deliberately sabotage the games because it's completely self-defeating, especially when you're a company like EA whose whole schtick is maximising profits by any means necessary.
    If different games in EA's portfoliio ever do compete with one another in the sales race, that's actually good for them because it means they're making money either way. If Fanta was proving to be a close competitor with Coke, the Coca-Cola Company wouldn't stop making Fanta because then they'd lose all the money Fanta was making and there's no guarantee that consumers who preferred Fanta would now start buying Coke instead. It's the same with games too, that those who play Titanfall and Battlefront may not necessarily be keen Battlefield players, so why deliberately kill these games on the assumption that everyone will now flock to Battlefield?
    The fact is that two products made by the same company that operate in the same market aren't competitors because the parent company is making money off of both. Each will have its own core market, some people will buy both, but primarily they will both make the company a profit, one that wouldn't have been as large had there only been one of their products on the market instead of 2 or 3.
    Also, EA hasn't killed Titanfall, they've simply converted it to a more monetizable form in the shape of Apex Legends, the new battle-royale game set in the world of Titanfall but with more MTXs.

    Again incorrect. Yes both belong to EA, but I am talking about stock shares. See Disney’s battlefront may be less popular but they way it works is stocks.

    Cod / battlefield / battlefront all share stock ins EAs FPS genre. As a quota battlefront has the least. But in a constant battle for stock % it makes sense for the ceo of battlefront to let bf2 die and allow the stocks to drain in battlefield. As that allows him to make a ton of money selling on them since increased demand of stock openings to a CEO is a cash grab and run.

    Same with titan fall. And on face the failure of FPS games draws all competition to his stocks. Artifially increases all demand. As of such profit

    You were never talking about stocks and shares. You're only saying that now as an attempt at a fallback because your original point has been proven wrong and now you're compounding it with a lack of understanding about how the stock market works.
    You can't buy shares in CoD, or Battlefield, or Battlefront, you simply buy shares in the parent companies, Activision and EA respectively. Stock prices are ultimately affected by the overall performance of these companies with the products they sell, i.e. good performance/sales creates confidence which drives the price up by creating more demand for the stock, but poor performance/sales creates less confidence causing the price to go down as people sell off their stock creating more supply.
    Deliberately sabotaging one game in favour of another is completely self-defeating as it would lead to poor performance creating a lack of confidence, driving the price down and negatively affecting the company's profits. Just yesterday EA recorded its largest stock drop in 20 years due to poor sales of Battlefield V, so your "theory" about letting BFII die in favour of Battlefield is completely mute now.
    When one product fails, the whole company suffers. It's why EA's stock price has taken a dip every time there has been negative coverage about their handling of the Star Wars license; because investors lose confidence and sell off their shares. Any company or CEO that deliberately tries to sabotage one of their products is doing a pretty terrible job because it harms the company and does not produce positive results.
    Yeah there’s really no need to continue this argument. It was won way earlier. Frankly, it was never an argument at all.
  • DarthLuke wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    Sorry I gonna tell you the truth. EA only bought battlefront 2 to kill the competitor. It was never meant to be a good game.

    It was meant to kill a rival so that EA’s baby battlefield has less competition. As in markets the economics of scale tell to buy out an IP even if it’s you loose money. As it’s done to rid competitors and monopolize the market

    * edited for spelling

    EA were given a license by Disney to produce games, they didn't buy anything.
    The Battlefront franchise was gone for 10 years before EA brought it back in 2015, so why would there be any need to "kill" what was already dead? Plus, Battlefront isn't competition for Battlefield, it's simply another franchise to add to their portfolio with its own core base of players.
    The idea that EA wouldn't want to profit off of the Star Wars brand by being utterly self-sabotaging is laughable. None of your comments in this thread have even a shred of truth to them and are completely outside the realm of reality.

    Actually it makes 100% strategic sense. Yes Disney gave them the IP, but the way internal politics works is that if it Lucas never sold it to Disney ea would have a massive enemy to combat in the FPS.

    It is why EA killed titanfall as well. Because it is a competitor. Now that’s exactly why the IP is bad. It designed just to pay for itself and maybe drain some profit. Because as long as EA BF2 breaks even, it is fine for the sake of killing competition.

    No new FPS will get developed when they are failing left and right. And anthom is a part of a major CEO spin to maximize profit.

    It makes no sense. You don't take on a massive cash-cow license like Star Wars and then deliberately sabotage the games because it's completely self-defeating, especially when you're a company like EA whose whole schtick is maximising profits by any means necessary.
    If different games in EA's portfoliio ever do compete with one another in the sales race, that's actually good for them because it means they're making money either way. If Fanta was proving to be a close competitor with Coke, the Coca-Cola Company wouldn't stop making Fanta because then they'd lose all the money Fanta was making and there's no guarantee that consumers who preferred Fanta would now start buying Coke instead. It's the same with games too, that those who play Titanfall and Battlefront may not necessarily be keen Battlefield players, so why deliberately kill these games on the assumption that everyone will now flock to Battlefield?
    The fact is that two products made by the same company that operate in the same market aren't competitors because the parent company is making money off of both. Each will have its own core market, some people will buy both, but primarily they will both make the company a profit, one that wouldn't have been as large had there only been one of their products on the market instead of 2 or 3.
    Also, EA hasn't killed Titanfall, they've simply converted it to a more monetizable form in the shape of Apex Legends, the new battle-royale game set in the world of Titanfall but with more MTXs.

    Again incorrect. Yes both belong to EA, but I am talking about stock shares. See Disney’s battlefront may be less popular but they way it works is stocks.

    Cod / battlefield / battlefront all share stock ins EAs FPS genre. As a quota battlefront has the least. But in a constant battle for stock % it makes sense for the ceo of battlefront to let bf2 die and allow the stocks to drain in battlefield. As that allows him to make a ton of money selling on them since increased demand of stock openings to a CEO is a cash grab and run.

    Same with titan fall. And on face the failure of FPS games draws all competition to his stocks. Artifially increases all demand. As of such profit

    You were never talking about stocks and shares. You're only saying that now as an attempt at a fallback because your original point has been proven wrong and now you're compounding it with a lack of understanding about how the stock market works.
    You can't buy shares in CoD, or Battlefield, or Battlefront, you simply buy shares in the parent companies, Activision and EA respectively. Stock prices are ultimately affected by the overall performance of these companies with the products they sell, i.e. good performance/sales creates confidence which drives the price up by creating more demand for the stock, but poor performance/sales creates less confidence causing the price to go down as people sell off their stock creating more supply.
    Deliberately sabotaging one game in favour of another is completely self-defeating as it would lead to poor performance creating a lack of confidence, driving the price down and negatively affecting the company's profits. Just yesterday EA recorded its largest stock drop in 20 years due to poor sales of Battlefield V, so your "theory" about letting BFII die in favour of Battlefield is completely mute now.
    When one product fails, the whole company suffers. It's why EA's stock price has taken a dip every time there has been negative coverage about their handling of the Star Wars license; because investors lose confidence and sell off their shares. Any company or CEO that deliberately tries to sabotage one of their products is doing a pretty terrible job because it harms the company and does not produce positive results.
    Yeah there’s really no need to continue this argument. It was won way earlier. Frankly, it was never an argument at all.

    I know. I just can't stand ignorance and factually incorrect assertions and have a compulsion to correct it, even if it's not likely to change that person's mind.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    My Concepts
    Clone Skin Changes | Clone Customisation & Menu | Empire Customisation & Menu
  • DarthLuke wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    Sorry I gonna tell you the truth. EA only bought battlefront 2 to kill the competitor. It was never meant to be a good game.

    It was meant to kill a rival so that EA’s baby battlefield has less competition. As in markets the economics of scale tell to buy out an IP even if it’s you loose money. As it’s done to rid competitors and monopolize the market

    * edited for spelling

    EA were given a license by Disney to produce games, they didn't buy anything.
    The Battlefront franchise was gone for 10 years before EA brought it back in 2015, so why would there be any need to "kill" what was already dead? Plus, Battlefront isn't competition for Battlefield, it's simply another franchise to add to their portfolio with its own core base of players.
    The idea that EA wouldn't want to profit off of the Star Wars brand by being utterly self-sabotaging is laughable. None of your comments in this thread have even a shred of truth to them and are completely outside the realm of reality.

    Actually it makes 100% strategic sense. Yes Disney gave them the IP, but the way internal politics works is that if it Lucas never sold it to Disney ea would have a massive enemy to combat in the FPS.

    It is why EA killed titanfall as well. Because it is a competitor. Now that’s exactly why the IP is bad. It designed just to pay for itself and maybe drain some profit. Because as long as EA BF2 breaks even, it is fine for the sake of killing competition.

    No new FPS will get developed when they are failing left and right. And anthom is a part of a major CEO spin to maximize profit.

    It makes no sense. You don't take on a massive cash-cow license like Star Wars and then deliberately sabotage the games because it's completely self-defeating, especially when you're a company like EA whose whole schtick is maximising profits by any means necessary.
    If different games in EA's portfoliio ever do compete with one another in the sales race, that's actually good for them because it means they're making money either way. If Fanta was proving to be a close competitor with Coke, the Coca-Cola Company wouldn't stop making Fanta because then they'd lose all the money Fanta was making and there's no guarantee that consumers who preferred Fanta would now start buying Coke instead. It's the same with games too, that those who play Titanfall and Battlefront may not necessarily be keen Battlefield players, so why deliberately kill these games on the assumption that everyone will now flock to Battlefield?
    The fact is that two products made by the same company that operate in the same market aren't competitors because the parent company is making money off of both. Each will have its own core market, some people will buy both, but primarily they will both make the company a profit, one that wouldn't have been as large had there only been one of their products on the market instead of 2 or 3.
    Also, EA hasn't killed Titanfall, they've simply converted it to a more monetizable form in the shape of Apex Legends, the new battle-royale game set in the world of Titanfall but with more MTXs.

    Again incorrect. Yes both belong to EA, but I am talking about stock shares. See Disney’s battlefront may be less popular but they way it works is stocks.

    Cod / battlefield / battlefront all share stock ins EAs FPS genre. As a quota battlefront has the least. But in a constant battle for stock % it makes sense for the ceo of battlefront to let bf2 die and allow the stocks to drain in battlefield. As that allows him to make a ton of money selling on them since increased demand of stock openings to a CEO is a cash grab and run.

    Same with titan fall. And on face the failure of FPS games draws all competition to his stocks. Artifially increases all demand. As of such profit

    You were never talking about stocks and shares. You're only saying that now as an attempt at a fallback because your original point has been proven wrong and now you're compounding it with a lack of understanding about how the stock market works.
    You can't buy shares in CoD, or Battlefield, or Battlefront, you simply buy shares in the parent companies, Activision and EA respectively. Stock prices are ultimately affected by the overall performance of these companies with the products they sell, i.e. good performance/sales creates confidence which drives the price up by creating more demand for the stock, but poor performance/sales creates less confidence causing the price to go down as people sell off their stock creating more supply.
    Deliberately sabotaging one game in favour of another is completely self-defeating as it would lead to poor performance creating a lack of confidence, driving the price down and negatively affecting the company's profits. Just yesterday EA recorded its largest stock drop in 20 years due to poor sales of Battlefield V, so your "theory" about letting BFII die in favour of Battlefield is completely mute now.
    When one product fails, the whole company suffers. It's why EA's stock price has taken a dip every time there has been negative coverage about their handling of the Star Wars license; because investors lose confidence and sell off their shares. Any company or CEO that deliberately tries to sabotage one of their products is doing a pretty terrible job because it harms the company and does not produce positive results.
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    Sorry I gonna tell you the truth. EA only bought battlefront 2 to kill the competitor. It was never meant to be a good game.

    It was meant to kill a rival so that EA’s baby battlefield has less competition. As in markets the economics of scale tell to buy out an IP even if it’s you loose money. As it’s done to rid competitors and monopolize the market

    * edited for spelling

    EA were given a license by Disney to produce games, they didn't buy anything.
    The Battlefront franchise was gone for 10 years before EA brought it back in 2015, so why would there be any need to "kill" what was already dead? Plus, Battlefront isn't competition for Battlefield, it's simply another franchise to add to their portfolio with its own core base of players.
    The idea that EA wouldn't want to profit off of the Star Wars brand by being utterly self-sabotaging is laughable. None of your comments in this thread have even a shred of truth to them and are completely outside the realm of reality.

    Actually it makes 100% strategic sense. Yes Disney gave them the IP, but the way internal politics works is that if it Lucas never sold it to Disney ea would have a massive enemy to combat in the FPS.

    It is why EA killed titanfall as well. Because it is a competitor. Now that’s exactly why the IP is bad. It designed just to pay for itself and maybe drain some profit. Because as long as EA BF2 breaks even, it is fine for the sake of killing competition.

    No new FPS will get developed when they are failing left and right. And anthom is a part of a major CEO spin to maximize profit.

    It makes no sense. You don't take on a massive cash-cow license like Star Wars and then deliberately sabotage the games because it's completely self-defeating, especially when you're a company like EA whose whole schtick is maximising profits by any means necessary.
    If different games in EA's portfoliio ever do compete with one another in the sales race, that's actually good for them because it means they're making money either way. If Fanta was proving to be a close competitor with Coke, the Coca-Cola Company wouldn't stop making Fanta because then they'd lose all the money Fanta was making and there's no guarantee that consumers who preferred Fanta would now start buying Coke instead. It's the same with games too, that those who play Titanfall and Battlefront may not necessarily be keen Battlefield players, so why deliberately kill these games on the assumption that everyone will now flock to Battlefield?
    The fact is that two products made by the same company that operate in the same market aren't competitors because the parent company is making money off of both. Each will have its own core market, some people will buy both, but primarily they will both make the company a profit, one that wouldn't have been as large had there only been one of their products on the market instead of 2 or 3.
    Also, EA hasn't killed Titanfall, they've simply converted it to a more monetizable form in the shape of Apex Legends, the new battle-royale game set in the world of Titanfall but with more MTXs.

    Again incorrect. Yes both belong to EA, but I am talking about stock shares. See Disney’s battlefront may be less popular but they way it works is stocks.

    Cod / battlefield / battlefront all share stock ins EAs FPS genre. As a quota battlefront has the least. But in a constant battle for stock % it makes sense for the ceo of battlefront to let bf2 die and allow the stocks to drain in battlefield. As that allows him to make a ton of money selling on them since increased demand of stock openings to a CEO is a cash grab and run.

    Same with titan fall. And on face the failure of FPS games draws all competition to his stocks. Artifially increases all demand. As of such profit

    You were never talking about stocks and shares. You're only saying that now as an attempt at a fallback because your original point has been proven wrong and now you're compounding it with a lack of understanding about how the stock market works.
    You can't buy shares in CoD, or Battlefield, or Battlefront, you simply buy shares in the parent companies, Activision and EA respectively. Stock prices are ultimately affected by the overall performance of these companies with the products they sell, i.e. good performance/sales creates confidence which drives the price up by creating more demand for the stock, but poor performance/sales creates less confidence causing the price to go down as people sell off their stock creating more supply.
    Deliberately sabotaging one game in favour of another is completely self-defeating as it would lead to poor performance creating a lack of confidence, driving the price down and negatively affecting the company's profits. Just yesterday EA recorded its largest stock drop in 20 years due to poor sales of Battlefield V, so your "theory" about letting BFII die in favour of Battlefield is completely mute now.
    When one product fails, the whole company suffers. It's why EA's stock price has taken a dip every time there has been negative coverage about their handling of the Star Wars license; because investors lose confidence and sell off their shares. Any company or CEO that deliberately tries to sabotage one of their products is doing a pretty terrible job because it harms the company and does not produce positive results.

    Actually I was. I just assumed you guys knew what I was talking about. I was explaining it because my assumption most ppl do not know.

    A person who had no clue in economics may post that ‘your wrong yata yata yata...’ because when ppl don’t know they say nonsense.

    So explaining why the game to be killed of, mah make no sense if your economic knowledge of stocks is that of how a child’s of video game programming.

    So if you know good for you! If you don’t now you learned

    If ppl are still confused lmao tell me I explain you how market share works to nail the coffin in the grave
  • DarthLuke wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    Sorry I gonna tell you the truth. EA only bought battlefront 2 to kill the competitor. It was never meant to be a good game.

    It was meant to kill a rival so that EA’s baby battlefield has less competition. As in markets the economics of scale tell to buy out an IP even if it’s you loose money. As it’s done to rid competitors and monopolize the market

    * edited for spelling

    EA were given a license by Disney to produce games, they didn't buy anything.
    The Battlefront franchise was gone for 10 years before EA brought it back in 2015, so why would there be any need to "kill" what was already dead? Plus, Battlefront isn't competition for Battlefield, it's simply another franchise to add to their portfolio with its own core base of players.
    The idea that EA wouldn't want to profit off of the Star Wars brand by being utterly self-sabotaging is laughable. None of your comments in this thread have even a shred of truth to them and are completely outside the realm of reality.

    Actually it makes 100% strategic sense. Yes Disney gave them the IP, but the way internal politics works is that if it Lucas never sold it to Disney ea would have a massive enemy to combat in the FPS.

    It is why EA killed titanfall as well. Because it is a competitor. Now that’s exactly why the IP is bad. It designed just to pay for itself and maybe drain some profit. Because as long as EA BF2 breaks even, it is fine for the sake of killing competition.

    No new FPS will get developed when they are failing left and right. And anthom is a part of a major CEO spin to maximize profit.

    It makes no sense. You don't take on a massive cash-cow license like Star Wars and then deliberately sabotage the games because it's completely self-defeating, especially when you're a company like EA whose whole schtick is maximising profits by any means necessary.
    If different games in EA's portfoliio ever do compete with one another in the sales race, that's actually good for them because it means they're making money either way. If Fanta was proving to be a close competitor with Coke, the Coca-Cola Company wouldn't stop making Fanta because then they'd lose all the money Fanta was making and there's no guarantee that consumers who preferred Fanta would now start buying Coke instead. It's the same with games too, that those who play Titanfall and Battlefront may not necessarily be keen Battlefield players, so why deliberately kill these games on the assumption that everyone will now flock to Battlefield?
    The fact is that two products made by the same company that operate in the same market aren't competitors because the parent company is making money off of both. Each will have its own core market, some people will buy both, but primarily they will both make the company a profit, one that wouldn't have been as large had there only been one of their products on the market instead of 2 or 3.
    Also, EA hasn't killed Titanfall, they've simply converted it to a more monetizable form in the shape of Apex Legends, the new battle-royale game set in the world of Titanfall but with more MTXs.

    Again incorrect. Yes both belong to EA, but I am talking about stock shares. See Disney’s battlefront may be less popular but they way it works is stocks.

    Cod / battlefield / battlefront all share stock ins EAs FPS genre. As a quota battlefront has the least. But in a constant battle for stock % it makes sense for the ceo of battlefront to let bf2 die and allow the stocks to drain in battlefield. As that allows him to make a ton of money selling on them since increased demand of stock openings to a CEO is a cash grab and run.

    Same with titan fall. And on face the failure of FPS games draws all competition to his stocks. Artifially increases all demand. As of such profit

    You were never talking about stocks and shares. You're only saying that now as an attempt at a fallback because your original point has been proven wrong and now you're compounding it with a lack of understanding about how the stock market works.
    You can't buy shares in CoD, or Battlefield, or Battlefront, you simply buy shares in the parent companies, Activision and EA respectively. Stock prices are ultimately affected by the overall performance of these companies with the products they sell, i.e. good performance/sales creates confidence which drives the price up by creating more demand for the stock, but poor performance/sales creates less confidence causing the price to go down as people sell off their stock creating more supply.
    Deliberately sabotaging one game in favour of another is completely self-defeating as it would lead to poor performance creating a lack of confidence, driving the price down and negatively affecting the company's profits. Just yesterday EA recorded its largest stock drop in 20 years due to poor sales of Battlefield V, so your "theory" about letting BFII die in favour of Battlefield is completely mute now.
    When one product fails, the whole company suffers. It's why EA's stock price has taken a dip every time there has been negative coverage about their handling of the Star Wars license; because investors lose confidence and sell off their shares. Any company or CEO that deliberately tries to sabotage one of their products is doing a pretty terrible job because it harms the company and does not produce positive results.
    Yeah there’s really no need to continue this argument. It was won way earlier. Frankly, it was never an argument at all.

    I know. I just can't stand ignorance and factually incorrect assertions and have a compulsion to correct it, even if it's not likely to change that person's mind.

    Yes we all know this.
    PSN: BucksawBoushh
  • slarlac249
    139 posts Member
    edited February 6
    slarlac249 wrote: »
    the game mode proabably won't even be that great. Just port over small game modes like sabatoge, cargo, drop zone, and droid run.

    this "large scale" game mode is just going to be another disappointment because fans don't understand that games have evolved past the days of the original Battlefront 2.

    Wait, evolved past? How exactly?

    That would be like shipping Battlefield with Rush mode only, no Conquest, and calling it evolution.

    Heh. That’s what we got here. GA is Rush... And no conquest.

    Lol exactly what I was thinking. DICE Battlefront has felt like Bad Company, a game designed for last gen consoles that couldn't handle 64 player Conquest.

    But we don't even get vehicles on the map like in Bad Company LOL!!!

    Battlefield BC2 was my game. Top three every match, if not first. I was younger then. *sighs*

    BC2 was an insult to the series.

    small maps for conquest
    rush got bigger playable area
    auto lunge teleport knife
    crap play once campaign, just like all bf's that followed...

    Disagree. Some were smaller, some not. It worked well for only 12v12.

    Rush was a lot of running... and more running.

    I’d rather not comment if you found the knife to be an issue.

    Agree. The campaign was bland.


    Rush is the worst mode they ever created and when you combine it with maps with chokepoints it becomes horrible and not fun to play. GA on this game is Rush, plays a bit better as there's a bit more space to flank but some maps it's still not quite as fun as others.

    The knife in bc2 required no skill at all, you didn't even have to be right next to a player, just required hitting the fire button while aimed at an enemy and the kill was yours. I saw players teleport up from the ground to autokill an enemy that was not on the same level as them. DICEA basically put a legit aim bot in the game. The knife in bf3 was also very similar in the way it worked in bc2.

    I hate crap like that in games, puts me off playing online.

    Proud EX-Member of MordorHQ (RIP) A.K.A EA UK Forums (RIP)
  • And what are the chances this thread is still active on the 28th?
    #StarWars-y
  • DarthLuke wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    Sorry I gonna tell you the truth. EA only bought battlefront 2 to kill the competitor. It was never meant to be a good game.

    It was meant to kill a rival so that EA’s baby battlefield has less competition. As in markets the economics of scale tell to buy out an IP even if it’s you loose money. As it’s done to rid competitors and monopolize the market

    * edited for spelling

    EA were given a license by Disney to produce games, they didn't buy anything.
    The Battlefront franchise was gone for 10 years before EA brought it back in 2015, so why would there be any need to "kill" what was already dead? Plus, Battlefront isn't competition for Battlefield, it's simply another franchise to add to their portfolio with its own core base of players.
    The idea that EA wouldn't want to profit off of the Star Wars brand by being utterly self-sabotaging is laughable. None of your comments in this thread have even a shred of truth to them and are completely outside the realm of reality.

    Actually it makes 100% strategic sense. Yes Disney gave them the IP, but the way internal politics works is that if it Lucas never sold it to Disney ea would have a massive enemy to combat in the FPS.

    It is why EA killed titanfall as well. Because it is a competitor. Now that’s exactly why the IP is bad. It designed just to pay for itself and maybe drain some profit. Because as long as EA BF2 breaks even, it is fine for the sake of killing competition.

    No new FPS will get developed when they are failing left and right. And anthom is a part of a major CEO spin to maximize profit.

    It makes no sense. You don't take on a massive cash-cow license like Star Wars and then deliberately sabotage the games because it's completely self-defeating, especially when you're a company like EA whose whole schtick is maximising profits by any means necessary.
    If different games in EA's portfoliio ever do compete with one another in the sales race, that's actually good for them because it means they're making money either way. If Fanta was proving to be a close competitor with Coke, the Coca-Cola Company wouldn't stop making Fanta because then they'd lose all the money Fanta was making and there's no guarantee that consumers who preferred Fanta would now start buying Coke instead. It's the same with games too, that those who play Titanfall and Battlefront may not necessarily be keen Battlefield players, so why deliberately kill these games on the assumption that everyone will now flock to Battlefield?
    The fact is that two products made by the same company that operate in the same market aren't competitors because the parent company is making money off of both. Each will have its own core market, some people will buy both, but primarily they will both make the company a profit, one that wouldn't have been as large had there only been one of their products on the market instead of 2 or 3.
    Also, EA hasn't killed Titanfall, they've simply converted it to a more monetizable form in the shape of Apex Legends, the new battle-royale game set in the world of Titanfall but with more MTXs.

    Again incorrect. Yes both belong to EA, but I am talking about stock shares. See Disney’s battlefront may be less popular but they way it works is stocks.

    Cod / battlefield / battlefront all share stock ins EAs FPS genre. As a quota battlefront has the least. But in a constant battle for stock % it makes sense for the ceo of battlefront to let bf2 die and allow the stocks to drain in battlefield. As that allows him to make a ton of money selling on them since increased demand of stock openings to a CEO is a cash grab and run.

    Same with titan fall. And on face the failure of FPS games draws all competition to his stocks. Artifially increases all demand. As of such profit

    You were never talking about stocks and shares. You're only saying that now as an attempt at a fallback because your original point has been proven wrong and now you're compounding it with a lack of understanding about how the stock market works.
    You can't buy shares in CoD, or Battlefield, or Battlefront, you simply buy shares in the parent companies, Activision and EA respectively. Stock prices are ultimately affected by the overall performance of these companies with the products they sell, i.e. good performance/sales creates confidence which drives the price up by creating more demand for the stock, but poor performance/sales creates less confidence causing the price to go down as people sell off their stock creating more supply.
    Deliberately sabotaging one game in favour of another is completely self-defeating as it would lead to poor performance creating a lack of confidence, driving the price down and negatively affecting the company's profits. Just yesterday EA recorded its largest stock drop in 20 years due to poor sales of Battlefield V, so your "theory" about letting BFII die in favour of Battlefield is completely mute now.
    When one product fails, the whole company suffers. It's why EA's stock price has taken a dip every time there has been negative coverage about their handling of the Star Wars license; because investors lose confidence and sell off their shares. Any company or CEO that deliberately tries to sabotage one of their products is doing a pretty terrible job because it harms the company and does not produce positive results.
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    Sorry I gonna tell you the truth. EA only bought battlefront 2 to kill the competitor. It was never meant to be a good game.

    It was meant to kill a rival so that EA’s baby battlefield has less competition. As in markets the economics of scale tell to buy out an IP even if it’s you loose money. As it’s done to rid competitors and monopolize the market

    * edited for spelling

    EA were given a license by Disney to produce games, they didn't buy anything.
    The Battlefront franchise was gone for 10 years before EA brought it back in 2015, so why would there be any need to "kill" what was already dead? Plus, Battlefront isn't competition for Battlefield, it's simply another franchise to add to their portfolio with its own core base of players.
    The idea that EA wouldn't want to profit off of the Star Wars brand by being utterly self-sabotaging is laughable. None of your comments in this thread have even a shred of truth to them and are completely outside the realm of reality.

    Actually it makes 100% strategic sense. Yes Disney gave them the IP, but the way internal politics works is that if it Lucas never sold it to Disney ea would have a massive enemy to combat in the FPS.

    It is why EA killed titanfall as well. Because it is a competitor. Now that’s exactly why the IP is bad. It designed just to pay for itself and maybe drain some profit. Because as long as EA BF2 breaks even, it is fine for the sake of killing competition.

    No new FPS will get developed when they are failing left and right. And anthom is a part of a major CEO spin to maximize profit.

    It makes no sense. You don't take on a massive cash-cow license like Star Wars and then deliberately sabotage the games because it's completely self-defeating, especially when you're a company like EA whose whole schtick is maximising profits by any means necessary.
    If different games in EA's portfoliio ever do compete with one another in the sales race, that's actually good for them because it means they're making money either way. If Fanta was proving to be a close competitor with Coke, the Coca-Cola Company wouldn't stop making Fanta because then they'd lose all the money Fanta was making and there's no guarantee that consumers who preferred Fanta would now start buying Coke instead. It's the same with games too, that those who play Titanfall and Battlefront may not necessarily be keen Battlefield players, so why deliberately kill these games on the assumption that everyone will now flock to Battlefield?
    The fact is that two products made by the same company that operate in the same market aren't competitors because the parent company is making money off of both. Each will have its own core market, some people will buy both, but primarily they will both make the company a profit, one that wouldn't have been as large had there only been one of their products on the market instead of 2 or 3.
    Also, EA hasn't killed Titanfall, they've simply converted it to a more monetizable form in the shape of Apex Legends, the new battle-royale game set in the world of Titanfall but with more MTXs.

    Again incorrect. Yes both belong to EA, but I am talking about stock shares. See Disney’s battlefront may be less popular but they way it works is stocks.

    Cod / battlefield / battlefront all share stock ins EAs FPS genre. As a quota battlefront has the least. But in a constant battle for stock % it makes sense for the ceo of battlefront to let bf2 die and allow the stocks to drain in battlefield. As that allows him to make a ton of money selling on them since increased demand of stock openings to a CEO is a cash grab and run.

    Same with titan fall. And on face the failure of FPS games draws all competition to his stocks. Artifially increases all demand. As of such profit

    You were never talking about stocks and shares. You're only saying that now as an attempt at a fallback because your original point has been proven wrong and now you're compounding it with a lack of understanding about how the stock market works.
    You can't buy shares in CoD, or Battlefield, or Battlefront, you simply buy shares in the parent companies, Activision and EA respectively. Stock prices are ultimately affected by the overall performance of these companies with the products they sell, i.e. good performance/sales creates confidence which drives the price up by creating more demand for the stock, but poor performance/sales creates less confidence causing the price to go down as people sell off their stock creating more supply.
    Deliberately sabotaging one game in favour of another is completely self-defeating as it would lead to poor performance creating a lack of confidence, driving the price down and negatively affecting the company's profits. Just yesterday EA recorded its largest stock drop in 20 years due to poor sales of Battlefield V, so your "theory" about letting BFII die in favour of Battlefield is completely mute now.
    When one product fails, the whole company suffers. It's why EA's stock price has taken a dip every time there has been negative coverage about their handling of the Star Wars license; because investors lose confidence and sell off their shares. Any company or CEO that deliberately tries to sabotage one of their products is doing a pretty terrible job because it harms the company and does not produce positive results.

    Actually I was. I just assumed you guys knew what I was talking about. I was explaining it because my assumption most ppl do not know.

    A person who had no clue in economics may post that ‘your wrong yata yata yata...’ because when ppl don’t know they say nonsense.

    So explaining why the game to be killed of, mah make no sense if your economic knowledge of stocks is that of how a child’s of video game programming.

    So if you know good for you! If you don’t now you learned

    If ppl are still confused lmao tell me I explain you how market share works to nail the coffin in the grave

    Market share would still not help to explain your completely wrong assertion because it's calculated by taking the total sales of a company divided by the total sales of the industry it operates within. If we look at EA, they made $5.16 billion last year and the Global Games Market made $137.9 billion. This gives EA a market share of roughly 3.7% of the Global Games Market. So how, exactly, does this in any way prove your assertion that EA are deliberately sabotaging their own games to improve their profits/stock price/market share?
    You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and I think it's best if you just quit while you're behind.
    1mcb7scwe7b2.jpg
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    My Concepts
    Clone Skin Changes | Clone Customisation & Menu | Empire Customisation & Menu
  • DarthLuke wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    Sorry I gonna tell you the truth. EA only bought battlefront 2 to kill the competitor. It was never meant to be a good game.

    It was meant to kill a rival so that EA’s baby battlefield has less competition. As in markets the economics of scale tell to buy out an IP even if it’s you loose money. As it’s done to rid competitors and monopolize the market

    * edited for spelling

    EA were given a license by Disney to produce games, they didn't buy anything.
    The Battlefront franchise was gone for 10 years before EA brought it back in 2015, so why would there be any need to "kill" what was already dead? Plus, Battlefront isn't competition for Battlefield, it's simply another franchise to add to their portfolio with its own core base of players.
    The idea that EA wouldn't want to profit off of the Star Wars brand by being utterly self-sabotaging is laughable. None of your comments in this thread have even a shred of truth to them and are completely outside the realm of reality.

    Actually it makes 100% strategic sense. Yes Disney gave them the IP, but the way internal politics works is that if it Lucas never sold it to Disney ea would have a massive enemy to combat in the FPS.

    It is why EA killed titanfall as well. Because it is a competitor. Now that’s exactly why the IP is bad. It designed just to pay for itself and maybe drain some profit. Because as long as EA BF2 breaks even, it is fine for the sake of killing competition.

    No new FPS will get developed when they are failing left and right. And anthom is a part of a major CEO spin to maximize profit.

    It makes no sense. You don't take on a massive cash-cow license like Star Wars and then deliberately sabotage the games because it's completely self-defeating, especially when you're a company like EA whose whole schtick is maximising profits by any means necessary.
    If different games in EA's portfoliio ever do compete with one another in the sales race, that's actually good for them because it means they're making money either way. If Fanta was proving to be a close competitor with Coke, the Coca-Cola Company wouldn't stop making Fanta because then they'd lose all the money Fanta was making and there's no guarantee that consumers who preferred Fanta would now start buying Coke instead. It's the same with games too, that those who play Titanfall and Battlefront may not necessarily be keen Battlefield players, so why deliberately kill these games on the assumption that everyone will now flock to Battlefield?
    The fact is that two products made by the same company that operate in the same market aren't competitors because the parent company is making money off of both. Each will have its own core market, some people will buy both, but primarily they will both make the company a profit, one that wouldn't have been as large had there only been one of their products on the market instead of 2 or 3.
    Also, EA hasn't killed Titanfall, they've simply converted it to a more monetizable form in the shape of Apex Legends, the new battle-royale game set in the world of Titanfall but with more MTXs.

    Again incorrect. Yes both belong to EA, but I am talking about stock shares. See Disney’s battlefront may be less popular but they way it works is stocks.

    Cod / battlefield / battlefront all share stock ins EAs FPS genre. As a quota battlefront has the least. But in a constant battle for stock % it makes sense for the ceo of battlefront to let bf2 die and allow the stocks to drain in battlefield. As that allows him to make a ton of money selling on them since increased demand of stock openings to a CEO is a cash grab and run.

    Same with titan fall. And on face the failure of FPS games draws all competition to his stocks. Artifially increases all demand. As of such profit

    You were never talking about stocks and shares. You're only saying that now as an attempt at a fallback because your original point has been proven wrong and now you're compounding it with a lack of understanding about how the stock market works.
    You can't buy shares in CoD, or Battlefield, or Battlefront, you simply buy shares in the parent companies, Activision and EA respectively. Stock prices are ultimately affected by the overall performance of these companies with the products they sell, i.e. good performance/sales creates confidence which drives the price up by creating more demand for the stock, but poor performance/sales creates less confidence causing the price to go down as people sell off their stock creating more supply.
    Deliberately sabotaging one game in favour of another is completely self-defeating as it would lead to poor performance creating a lack of confidence, driving the price down and negatively affecting the company's profits. Just yesterday EA recorded its largest stock drop in 20 years due to poor sales of Battlefield V, so your "theory" about letting BFII die in favour of Battlefield is completely mute now.
    When one product fails, the whole company suffers. It's why EA's stock price has taken a dip every time there has been negative coverage about their handling of the Star Wars license; because investors lose confidence and sell off their shares. Any company or CEO that deliberately tries to sabotage one of their products is doing a pretty terrible job because it harms the company and does not produce positive results.
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    Sorry I gonna tell you the truth. EA only bought battlefront 2 to kill the competitor. It was never meant to be a good game.

    It was meant to kill a rival so that EA’s baby battlefield has less competition. As in markets the economics of scale tell to buy out an IP even if it’s you loose money. As it’s done to rid competitors and monopolize the market

    * edited for spelling

    EA were given a license by Disney to produce games, they didn't buy anything.
    The Battlefront franchise was gone for 10 years before EA brought it back in 2015, so why would there be any need to "kill" what was already dead? Plus, Battlefront isn't competition for Battlefield, it's simply another franchise to add to their portfolio with its own core base of players.
    The idea that EA wouldn't want to profit off of the Star Wars brand by being utterly self-sabotaging is laughable. None of your comments in this thread have even a shred of truth to them and are completely outside the realm of reality.

    Actually it makes 100% strategic sense. Yes Disney gave them the IP, but the way internal politics works is that if it Lucas never sold it to Disney ea would have a massive enemy to combat in the FPS.

    It is why EA killed titanfall as well. Because it is a competitor. Now that’s exactly why the IP is bad. It designed just to pay for itself and maybe drain some profit. Because as long as EA BF2 breaks even, it is fine for the sake of killing competition.

    No new FPS will get developed when they are failing left and right. And anthom is a part of a major CEO spin to maximize profit.

    It makes no sense. You don't take on a massive cash-cow license like Star Wars and then deliberately sabotage the games because it's completely self-defeating, especially when you're a company like EA whose whole schtick is maximising profits by any means necessary.
    If different games in EA's portfoliio ever do compete with one another in the sales race, that's actually good for them because it means they're making money either way. If Fanta was proving to be a close competitor with Coke, the Coca-Cola Company wouldn't stop making Fanta because then they'd lose all the money Fanta was making and there's no guarantee that consumers who preferred Fanta would now start buying Coke instead. It's the same with games too, that those who play Titanfall and Battlefront may not necessarily be keen Battlefield players, so why deliberately kill these games on the assumption that everyone will now flock to Battlefield?
    The fact is that two products made by the same company that operate in the same market aren't competitors because the parent company is making money off of both. Each will have its own core market, some people will buy both, but primarily they will both make the company a profit, one that wouldn't have been as large had there only been one of their products on the market instead of 2 or 3.
    Also, EA hasn't killed Titanfall, they've simply converted it to a more monetizable form in the shape of Apex Legends, the new battle-royale game set in the world of Titanfall but with more MTXs.

    Again incorrect. Yes both belong to EA, but I am talking about stock shares. See Disney’s battlefront may be less popular but they way it works is stocks.

    Cod / battlefield / battlefront all share stock ins EAs FPS genre. As a quota battlefront has the least. But in a constant battle for stock % it makes sense for the ceo of battlefront to let bf2 die and allow the stocks to drain in battlefield. As that allows him to make a ton of money selling on them since increased demand of stock openings to a CEO is a cash grab and run.

    Same with titan fall. And on face the failure of FPS games draws all competition to his stocks. Artifially increases all demand. As of such profit

    You were never talking about stocks and shares. You're only saying that now as an attempt at a fallback because your original point has been proven wrong and now you're compounding it with a lack of understanding about how the stock market works.
    You can't buy shares in CoD, or Battlefield, or Battlefront, you simply buy shares in the parent companies, Activision and EA respectively. Stock prices are ultimately affected by the overall performance of these companies with the products they sell, i.e. good performance/sales creates confidence which drives the price up by creating more demand for the stock, but poor performance/sales creates less confidence causing the price to go down as people sell off their stock creating more supply.
    Deliberately sabotaging one game in favour of another is completely self-defeating as it would lead to poor performance creating a lack of confidence, driving the price down and negatively affecting the company's profits. Just yesterday EA recorded its largest stock drop in 20 years due to poor sales of Battlefield V, so your "theory" about letting BFII die in favour of Battlefield is completely mute now.
    When one product fails, the whole company suffers. It's why EA's stock price has taken a dip every time there has been negative coverage about their handling of the Star Wars license; because investors lose confidence and sell off their shares. Any company or CEO that deliberately tries to sabotage one of their products is doing a pretty terrible job because it harms the company and does not produce positive results.

    Actually I was. I just assumed you guys knew what I was talking about. I was explaining it because my assumption most ppl do not know.

    A person who had no clue in economics may post that ‘your wrong yata yata yata...’ because when ppl don’t know they say nonsense.

    So explaining why the game to be killed of, mah make no sense if your economic knowledge of stocks is that of how a child’s of video game programming.

    So if you know good for you! If you don’t now you learned

    If ppl are still confused lmao tell me I explain you how market share works to nail the coffin in the grave

    Market share would still not help to explain your completely wrong assertion because it's calculated by taking the total sales of a company divided by the total sales of the industry it operates within. If we look at EA, they made $5.16 billion last year and the Global Games Market made $137.9 billion. This gives EA a market share of roughly 3.7% of the Global Games Market. So how, exactly, does this in any way prove your assertion that EA are deliberately sabotaging their own games to improve their profits/stock price/market share?
    You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and I think it's best if you just quit while you're behind.
    1mcb7scwe7b2.jpg

    We are not talking about the global game market but the NA market. Because profit in EU is large but it’s not EA’s interests to do that.

    And nor am I talking about EA as a whole but the owner of the stocks of battlefront 2. Because a ceo of battlefront division benefits from grabbing stocks by killing competition for EA within the NA market.

    But let’s stop discussion for it, as Economics can be interpreted in many ways. So this is not somethings either of us can win
  • Jett_Fett_91166
    3119 posts Member
    edited February 6
    @DarthLuke
    @meshugene89
    Thank you gentlemen for agreeing to disagree.

    I think we can all agree it is unfortunate that instead of playing the Titan mode, we are arguing about it among ourselves. Apparently Ben's hands are tied when it comes to communicating so the speculation continues until the release, which unfortunately, looks to be delayed yet again.
    A few screen shots, renderings or something we can discuss about the Titan mode other than EA/DICE/Disney business practices would be greatly welcomed by the community who've been asking for this type of mode for years.
    Edit: filter
    #StarWars-y
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!