criterion-sm dice-lg ea-starwars-lg instagram lucasfilm-lg motive-lg twitch you-tube
Community Transmission
December CC

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

1246

Replies

  • Liz4rD
    1127 posts Member
    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

    So you are not only a videogame expert and probably a George Lucas' advisor... you are even an expert in economics, an economist himself.

    XD
  • DarthLuke wrote: »
    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

    Why would EA only care about the US market? They are a GLOBAL company because people all around the world play their games. EA's interest is to maximise profits IN ALL MARKETS not just one. And, FYI, EA's market share of the U.S. games market was 5% last year as 41% of their global $5.16 billion was made in the U.S. which itself amassed $43 billion of the global total of $137.9 billion.
    I'll just say this as plainly as I can: YOU CAN'T BUY STOCKS IN A VIDEO GAME!! Video games are not listed individually on the NYSE or any other stock market around the world. The only stocks you can buy are for the parent company of the game, in this case EA, and the stock price goes up or down depending on whether or not the company and/or games perform good or bad. Trying to "kill" your own game, which is NOT a competitor to other games in your portfolio, is the business world's equivalent of punching yourself in the face.
    I'd be more than happy to stop this lecture because it's getting really irritating how you continue to live in a fantasy world and I'm honestly starting to think you're just deliberately trolling at this point.

    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    My Concepts
    Clone Skin Changes | Clone Customisation & Menu | Empire Customisation & Menu
  • Liz4rD wrote: »
    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

    So you are not only a videogame expert and probably a George Lucas advisor... you are even an expert in economics, an economist himself.

    XD

    They're also apparently a law student with a GPA of 3.85.

    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    My Concepts
    Clone Skin Changes | Clone Customisation & Menu | Empire Customisation & Menu
  • I still am in awe that someone approved releasing the month's calendar without being able to address why it's biggest feature - a whole new game mode - is not mentioned...

    If they are delaying it - it is very sad
  • Oh ma goodness........


    Can we talk about it might or might not get delay. I'm not in college classes anymore.

    Battlefront 2!
  • Got 95% in G12 economics. So ye.

    I am a criminology law student
  • DarthLuke wrote: »
    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

    Why would EA only care about the US market? They are a GLOBAL company because people all around the world play their games. EA's interest is to maximise profits IN ALL MARKETS not just one. And, FYI, EA's market share of the U.S. games market was 5% last year as 41% of their global $5.16 billion was made in the U.S. which itself amassed $43 billion of the global total of $137.9 billion.
    I'll just say this as plainly as I can: YOU CAN'T BUY STOCKS IN A VIDEO GAME!! Video games are not listed individually on the NYSE or any other stock market around the world. The only stocks you can buy are for the parent company of the game, in this case EA, and the stock price goes up or down depending on whether or not the company and/or games perform good or bad. Trying to "kill" your own game, which is NOT a competitor to other games in your portfolio, is the business world's equivalent of punching yourself in the face.
    I'd be more than happy to stop this lecture because it's getting really irritating how you continue to live in a fantasy world and I'm honestly starting to think you're just deliberately trolling at this point.

    Gonna explain- sure they need to that’s on my part badly explained. Games in the EU are no where as expensive. So yes they provide a lot of profit but games do not cost as much.

    In EU most games are like 30-40 pounds, while in NA they range from 80-150. So market competition is their primary goal. And it is where the cash flow comes from.

    ... of course your can’t buy stocks in a game. It is an over simplification for like 100ish processes that go into converting stock ownership. But the idea that we where taught was that by removing competitors you nolify stocks. So that is like adding stocks to market share because there’s is less of them. As of such the alogorythm equalizes due to how normative dividends work.

  • EA only care about NA market? Talk to me about one of their most money making games of all time, FIFA. That is not even popular in US.
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    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

  • 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.

    And in his essays nothing of substance at all 😂
  • t3hBar0n 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

    If only I had received such sage advice in business school, I would have been the CEO of the National Enquirer by now!

    Unusually high quality funny, this one. Post of the day. 🤣
  • We can agree fifa is a rare exception due to culture not game play. FIFA could literally be the worst game ever made ppl would buy it up.

    As it is a culture thing
  • DarthLuke wrote: »
    We can agree fifa is a rare exception due to culture not game play. FIFA could literally be the worst game ever made ppl would buy it up.

    As it is a culture thing

    Totally true. Minimum effort on part of developers with this. Similar effort to that of porsches design team haha
  • DarthLuke wrote: »
    We can agree fifa is a rare exception due to culture not game play. FIFA could literally be the worst game ever made ppl would buy it up.

    As it is a culture thing
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    We can agree fifa is a rare exception due to culture not game play. FIFA could literally be the worst game ever made ppl would buy it up.

    As it is a culture thing

    Totally true. Minimum effort on part of developers with this. Similar effort to that of porsches design team haha

    I am not saying that the game is good or if it is bad, just saying that they make one every year cause it makes tons of money for EA worldwide besides US
  • DarthLuke wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    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

    Why would EA only care about the US market? They are a GLOBAL company because people all around the world play their games. EA's interest is to maximise profits IN ALL MARKETS not just one. And, FYI, EA's market share of the U.S. games market was 5% last year as 41% of their global $5.16 billion was made in the U.S. which itself amassed $43 billion of the global total of $137.9 billion.
    I'll just say this as plainly as I can: YOU CAN'T BUY STOCKS IN A VIDEO GAME!! Video games are not listed individually on the NYSE or any other stock market around the world. The only stocks you can buy are for the parent company of the game, in this case EA, and the stock price goes up or down depending on whether or not the company and/or games perform good or bad. Trying to "kill" your own game, which is NOT a competitor to other games in your portfolio, is the business world's equivalent of punching yourself in the face.
    I'd be more than happy to stop this lecture because it's getting really irritating how you continue to live in a fantasy world and I'm honestly starting to think you're just deliberately trolling at this point.

    Gonna explain- sure they need to that’s on my part badly explained. Games in the EU are no where as expensive. So yes they provide a lot of profit but games do not cost as much.

    In EU most games are like 30-40 pounds, while in NA they range from 80-150. So market competition is their primary goal. And it is where the cash flow comes from.

    ... of course your can’t buy stocks in a game. It is an over simplification for like 100ish processes that go into converting stock ownership. But the idea that we where taught was that by removing competitors you nolify stocks. So that is like adding stocks to market share because there’s is less of them. As of such the alogorythm equalizes due to how normative dividends work.

    Everything so far has been badly explained by you.
    The cost of games still has no affect on stock prices going up or down. Unit sales, MTX sales, and general overall performance of the game and company from a publicity standpoint have an affect on stock prices.
    Also, game costs are relatively similar when you factor in exchange rates. The RRP of games in the UK is £50, in the EU it's €50, and in the US it's $60. At the current exchange rate, £50/€50 is around $65, so this means the game actually costs more in the UK and EU, not less, which means that after deducting the costs associated with making and selling its products, they actually get more money from the UK and EU markets per unit.
    This continued assertion that EA is trying to remove competition from within their own company is ridiculous. There is no competitor to remove because the Battlefront franchise hadn't been around for 8 years when they got exclusive rights to publish Star Wars games in 2013. What EA did was restart a franchise that they saw as something that could make them more money and the problems we're seeing now aren't through some sort of insane self-sabotage plan being orchestrated by the CEO, but simply the results of poor management of this license from EA's typically greedy tactics to monetise everything to death.
    If EA didn't want their products to compete with one another, then they'd only make one game and that would be a terrible business model. It's like if they were to deliberately ruin their NBA and NHL games because their American sports games have a similar base of fans but they'd rather prop up the Madden games because they prefer it over the others. They would never do that because all of these games make them money, even though they operate within a relatively similar sphere of players and compete for their attention, and it's the same with Battlefront.
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    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.
    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.

    And in his essays nothing of substance at all 😂

    I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you never read what I write because if facts, data and logic aren't substantive aspects of a discussion, then what is?
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    My Concepts
    Clone Skin Changes | Clone Customisation & Menu | Empire Customisation & Menu
  • DarthLuke wrote: »
    We can agree fifa is a rare exception due to culture not game play. FIFA could literally be the worst game ever made ppl would buy it up.

    As it is a culture thing

    I think that is the only thing somebody will agree with you on that thread (me included)
    May your heart be your guiding key.
  • DarthLuke wrote: »
    We can agree fifa is a rare exception due to culture not game play. FIFA could literally be the worst game ever made ppl would buy it up.

    As it is a culture thing
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    We can agree fifa is a rare exception due to culture not game play. FIFA could literally be the worst game ever made ppl would buy it up.

    As it is a culture thing

    Totally true. Minimum effort on part of developers with this. Similar effort to that of porsches design team haha

    I am not saying that the game is good or if it is bad, just saying that they make one every year cause it makes tons of money for EA worldwide besides US

    U.S. doesn't too bad, actually. They accounted for 21% of FIFA 18's sales last year which is up from previous years. But let's not forget that every sports game gets a new version each year because of all the changes that occur every off-season, so it's not simply the need to make that causes them to produce a new game each year.
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    My Concepts
    Clone Skin Changes | Clone Customisation & Menu | Empire Customisation & Menu
  • DarthJ wrote: »
    Lets keep this about the potential delay guys, I would imagine they will be itching for an excuse to get rid of this thread.

    So Ben narrowed it down...its not delayed until the summer at least :joy:

    Agree. Back on topic.

    I came across a Tweet earlier today but forgot to screenshot it. It said why the mode was being delayed and a potential release date but for the life of me I can’t recall what it said.

    I’ll try and find it.
    PSN: BucksawBoushh
  • DarthJ
    6819 posts Member
    DarthJ wrote: »
    Lets keep this about the potential delay guys, I would imagine they will be itching for an excuse to get rid of this thread.

    So Ben narrowed it down...its not delayed until the summer at least :joy:

    Agree. Back on topic.

    I came across a Tweet earlier today but forgot to screenshot it. It said why the mode was being delayed and a potential release date but for the life of me I can’t recall what it said.

    I’ll try and find it.

    Find it! Go all Taken on that tweet!
    PSN: ibrajoker59
  • DarthJ wrote: »
    Lets keep this about the potential delay guys, I would imagine they will be itching for an excuse to get rid of this thread.

    So Ben narrowed it down...its not delayed until the summer at least :joy:

    Agree. Back on topic.

    I came across a Tweet earlier today but forgot to screenshot it. It said why the mode was being delayed and a potential release date but for the life of me I can’t recall what it said.

    I’ll try and find it.

    Please, dew it (I'm on mobile and too lazy to look for the gif). Talking about tweets, Ben said there 3 CTs on approvals, so we should have info on "something" this week.
    May your heart be your guiding key.
  • DarthJ
    6819 posts Member
    TheScape wrote: »
    DarthJ wrote: »
    Lets keep this about the potential delay guys, I would imagine they will be itching for an excuse to get rid of this thread.

    So Ben narrowed it down...its not delayed until the summer at least :joy:

    Agree. Back on topic.

    I came across a Tweet earlier today but forgot to screenshot it. It said why the mode was being delayed and a potential release date but for the life of me I can’t recall what it said.

    I’ll try and find it.

    Please, dew it (I'm on mobile and too lazy to look for the gif). Talking about tweets, Ben said there 3 CTs on approvals, so we should have info on "something" this week.

    I am guessing 1 for the new mode, 1 for Anakin and 1 for the update contents itself.

    I am guessing Anakins will come first
    PSN: ibrajoker59
  • DarthJ wrote: »
    TheScape wrote: »
    DarthJ wrote: »
    Lets keep this about the potential delay guys, I would imagine they will be itching for an excuse to get rid of this thread.

    So Ben narrowed it down...its not delayed until the summer at least :joy:

    Agree. Back on topic.

    I came across a Tweet earlier today but forgot to screenshot it. It said why the mode was being delayed and a potential release date but for the life of me I can’t recall what it said.

    I’ll try and find it.

    Please, dew it (I'm on mobile and too lazy to look for the gif). Talking about tweets, Ben said there 3 CTs on approvals, so we should have info on "something" this week.

    I am guessing 1 for the new mode, 1 for Anakin and 1 for the update contents itself.

    I am guessing Anakins will come first

    There is a 4th one he will send to approvals early next week. So it's actually 4 CTs this month. The other one you missed is clone trooper customisation. I actually believe Anakin's one will be the last CT (he said something about assets closer to release, so...).
    May your heart be your guiding key.
  • Ppong_Man12
    2832 posts Member
    edited February 7
    Maybe it’s delayed to drag this thing out as long as possible, or to come as close to the upcoming RPG and Episode 9 as possible, if it’s actually delayed at all. That way any new calls for content can be subtly put on the back burner or forgotten about for the time being. Add private matches and I’m all good, still waiting on that reply. Again, speculation.
    Post edited by Ppong_Man12 on
  • agreed, lets not give @EA_Cian or other mods any excuse from taking down an important discussion
  • SO it was said that games have evolved since the 2005 Battlefront 2? hmmmmmmmm.....

    e·volve
    Dictionary result for evolve
    /ēˈvälv/
    verb
    verb: evolve; 3rd person present: evolves; past tense: evolved; past participle: evolved; gerund or present participle: evolving

    1.
    develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
    "the company has evolved into a major chemical manufacturer"
    synonyms: develop, progress, make progress, advance, move forward, make headway, mature, grow, open out, unfold, unroll, expand, enlarge, spread, extend; More
    alter, change, transform, adapt, metamorphose, differentiate;
    humoroustransmogrify
    "the economies of all four nations evolved in different ways"
    (with reference to an organism or biological feature) develop over successive generations as a result of natural selection.
    "the populations are cut off from each other and evolve independently"
    2.
    Chemistry
    give off (gas or heat).
    synonyms: emit, yield, give off, discharge, release, produce
    "on reacting the two acids, a gas is evolved"


    Battlefield 1942 in 2003 had user controllable aircraft carriers and submarines. No Battlefield (console or pc even) game to date has allowed user controllable aircraft carriers or submarines.

    Battlefront 2 in 2005 allowed easy access in and out of things like Tie fighters and X-Wings that could then be piloted in space aka starfighter assault and flew inside of a hanger and got out of where there was then a ground battle aka galactic assault.

    IMO games have not evolved since then, sure the graphics, lighting, and sounds seem to be quite an improvement over decades old pc's and consoles, but the core game play and what all players can do has not changed all that much. And I blame consoles as the reason for that. It seems the game companies treat everyone like its Christmas time and you have four children all around the same age so you buy them all the same gift to be fair to all. If pc games were not bottlenecked by this console equality and were exclusive only to pc then there might have been a serious video game evolution take place over 15 years.

    The ultimate Battlefield game IMHO, would be a map like wavebreaker or paracel storm but everything would be completely controllable and not on rails. With the addition of user controlled destroyers, aircraft carriers, and submarines.

    To me there is something about just being able to walk up to a vehicle in a game and press one button (not hold for 5 seconds) and then access that vehicle that is very arcade and I feel more in control. And being able to totally control things and not be on a rail is also something else. How interesting it would be to have someone actually controlling the capitol ships during starfighter assault.

    Something to note, as far as I know there has never been parachutes on a SW game or movie. So maybe just pressing the button you fall out. But I remember the 2005 BF2 being able to walk up to a tie fighter and fly it. And if memory serves it had this vtol or hovering thing for a bit till linear flight kicked in with speed like that one jet on Battlefield 3 or 4. They should combine the speeder physics with the starfighter physics in this game to create on the map tie fighters you could walk up to and get in and then be vtol (speeder) at slow speeds or starfighter at fast speeds.

    There are three SW movie moments that feature this -

    1. On ROTS when Anakin an Obi-1 quickly get into the capitol ship with their starfighters before the gate closes and one of them leaps out mid air with his saber. This could be done as soon as you hit the plasma shield gate of a hanger you press a button and fall out of the ship but still have the momentum of the stargfighter going. Because I've seen in this game characters can survive really high falls. Either from the top of a tree on Endor or Boba Fett dropping from the ceiling of a hanger in Death Star II

    2. On TFA Finn and Poe steal a FO Tie Fighter from the bay of a destroy, you can see the Vtol and speeder aspect for a bit as it hovers around blasting still tethered by the clamps holding it. Then it blast the clamps and flies off like a starfighter.

    3. Or on ROTJ when Luke steals a shuttle to escape the second death star before it blows.
  • DarthJ
    6819 posts Member
    TheScape wrote: »
    DarthJ wrote: »
    TheScape wrote: »
    DarthJ wrote: »
    Lets keep this about the potential delay guys, I would imagine they will be itching for an excuse to get rid of this thread.

    So Ben narrowed it down...its not delayed until the summer at least :joy:

    Agree. Back on topic.

    I came across a Tweet earlier today but forgot to screenshot it. It said why the mode was being delayed and a potential release date but for the life of me I can’t recall what it said.

    I’ll try and find it.

    Please, dew it (I'm on mobile and too lazy to look for the gif). Talking about tweets, Ben said there 3 CTs on approvals, so we should have info on "something" this week.

    I am guessing 1 for the new mode, 1 for Anakin and 1 for the update contents itself.

    I am guessing Anakins will come first

    There is a 4th one he will send to approvals early next week. So it's actually 4 CTs this month. The other one you missed is clone trooper customisation. I actually believe Anakin's one will be the last CT (he said something about assets closer to release, so...).

    Which do you think will be first?
    PSN: ibrajoker59
  • SrawDawg wrote: »
    SO it was said that games have evolved since the 2005 Battlefront 2? hmmmmmmmm.....

    e·volve
    Dictionary result for evolve
    /ēˈvälv/
    verb
    verb: evolve; 3rd person present: evolves; past tense: evolved; past participle: evolved; gerund or present participle: evolving

    1.
    develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
    "the company has evolved into a major chemical manufacturer"
    synonyms: develop, progress, make progress, advance, move forward, make headway, mature, grow, open out, unfold, unroll, expand, enlarge, spread, extend; More
    alter, change, transform, adapt, metamorphose, differentiate;
    humoroustransmogrify
    "the economies of all four nations evolved in different ways"
    (with reference to an organism or biological feature) develop over successive generations as a result of natural selection.
    "the populations are cut off from each other and evolve independently"
    2.
    Chemistry
    give off (gas or heat).
    synonyms: emit, yield, give off, discharge, release, produce
    "on reacting the two acids, a gas is evolved"


    Battlefield 1942 in 2003 had user controllable aircraft carriers and submarines. No Battlefield (console or pc even) game to date has allowed user controllable aircraft carriers or submarines.

    Battlefront 2 in 2005 allowed easy access in and out of things like Tie fighters and X-Wings that could then be piloted in space aka starfighter assault and flew inside of a hanger and got out of where there was then a ground battle aka galactic assault.

    IMO games have not evolved since then, sure the graphics, lighting, and sounds seem to be quite an improvement over decades old pc's and consoles, but the core game play and what all players can do has not changed all that much. And I blame consoles as the reason for that. It seems the game companies treat everyone like its Christmas time and you have four children all around the same age so you buy them all the same gift to be fair to all. If pc games were not bottlenecked by this console equality and were exclusive only to pc then there might have been a serious video game evolution take place over 15 years.

    The ultimate Battlefield game IMHO, would be a map like wavebreaker or paracel storm but everything would be completely controllable and not on rails. With the addition of user controlled destroyers, aircraft carriers, and submarines.

    To me there is something about just being able to walk up to a vehicle in a game and press one button (not hold for 5 seconds) and then access that vehicle that is very arcade and I feel more in control. And being able to totally control things and not be on a rail is also something else. How interesting it would be to have someone actually controlling the capitol ships during starfighter assault.

    Something to note, as far as I know there has never been parachutes on a SW game or movie. So maybe just pressing the button you fall out. But I remember the 2005 BF2 being able to walk up to a tie fighter and fly it. And if memory serves it had this vtol or hovering thing for a bit till linear flight kicked in with speed like that one jet on Battlefield 3 or 4. They should combine the speeder physics with the starfighter physics in this game to create on the map tie fighters you could walk up to and get in and then be vtol (speeder) at slow speeds or starfighter at fast speeds.

    There are three SW movie moments that feature this -

    1. On ROTS when Anakin an Obi-1 quickly get into the capitol ship with their starfighters before the gate closes and one of them leaps out mid air with his saber. This could be done as soon as you hit the plasma shield gate of a hanger you press a button and fall out of the ship but still have the momentum of the stargfighter going. Because I've seen in this game characters can survive really high falls. Either from the top of a tree on Endor or Boba Fett dropping from the ceiling of a hanger in Death Star II

    2. On TFA Finn and Poe steal a FO Tie Fighter from the bay of a destroy, you can see the Vtol and speeder aspect for a bit as it hovers around blasting still tethered by the clamps holding it. Then it blast the clamps and flies off like a starfighter.

    3. Or on ROTJ when Luke steals a shuttle to escape the second death star before it blows.

    You make a lot of sense. Is it laziness by the manufacturers or us as consumers to settle for it?
  • It will definitely be delayed past February, which is bull because I recently reinstalled this skeleton game just in anticipation of it. welp, I guess I was right the first time in having ZERO expectations of this game and those who are in charge of it. I recommend every to lower their expectations as well.

    makes me real sad to see so many people who are so passionate about Star Wars and Battlefront get treated this way. Star Wars used to be a big part of my life, but flops like this are the reason I could really care less what happens to the franchise, and that's just depressing as hell.

    see ya in another 6 months.
  • Liz4rD
    1127 posts Member
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    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

    Why would EA only care about the US market? They are a GLOBAL company because people all around the world play their games. EA's interest is to maximise profits IN ALL MARKETS not just one. And, FYI, EA's market share of the U.S. games market was 5% last year as 41% of their global $5.16 billion was made in the U.S. which itself amassed $43 billion of the global total of $137.9 billion.
    I'll just say this as plainly as I can: YOU CAN'T BUY STOCKS IN A VIDEO GAME!! Video games are not listed individually on the NYSE or any other stock market around the world. The only stocks you can buy are for the parent company of the game, in this case EA, and the stock price goes up or down depending on whether or not the company and/or games perform good or bad. Trying to "kill" your own game, which is NOT a competitor to other games in your portfolio, is the business world's equivalent of punching yourself in the face.
    I'd be more than happy to stop this lecture because it's getting really irritating how you continue to live in a fantasy world and I'm honestly starting to think you're just deliberately trolling at this point.

    Gonna explain- sure they need to that’s on my part badly explained. Games in the EU are no where as expensive. So yes they provide a lot of profit but games do not cost as much.

    In EU most games are like 30-40 pounds, while in NA they range from 80-150. So market competition is their primary goal. And it is where the cash flow comes from.

    ... of course your can’t buy stocks in a game. It is an over simplification for like 100ish processes that go into converting stock ownership. But the idea that we where taught was that by removing competitors you nolify stocks. So that is like adding stocks to market share because there’s is less of them. As of such the alogorythm equalizes due to how normative dividends work.

    Gonna explain:

    I live in the EU, games here do cost 60 euros. 60 euros are more or less 68 USD.

    Anthem is 60 euros in Origin (Europe) and 59,99 USD in Microsoft US store, and Origin US store.

    So IN FACT we pay MORE in Europe for the same game.

    Anything else you want to explain to us, the gamers who live and play in Europe?
  • Liz4rD wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    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

    Why would EA only care about the US market? They are a GLOBAL company because people all around the world play their games. EA's interest is to maximise profits IN ALL MARKETS not just one. And, FYI, EA's market share of the U.S. games market was 5% last year as 41% of their global $5.16 billion was made in the U.S. which itself amassed $43 billion of the global total of $137.9 billion.
    I'll just say this as plainly as I can: YOU CAN'T BUY STOCKS IN A VIDEO GAME!! Video games are not listed individually on the NYSE or any other stock market around the world. The only stocks you can buy are for the parent company of the game, in this case EA, and the stock price goes up or down depending on whether or not the company and/or games perform good or bad. Trying to "kill" your own game, which is NOT a competitor to other games in your portfolio, is the business world's equivalent of punching yourself in the face.
    I'd be more than happy to stop this lecture because it's getting really irritating how you continue to live in a fantasy world and I'm honestly starting to think you're just deliberately trolling at this point.

    Gonna explain- sure they need to that’s on my part badly explained. Games in the EU are no where as expensive. So yes they provide a lot of profit but games do not cost as much.

    In EU most games are like 30-40 pounds, while in NA they range from 80-150. So market competition is their primary goal. And it is where the cash flow comes from.

    ... of course your can’t buy stocks in a game. It is an over simplification for like 100ish processes that go into converting stock ownership. But the idea that we where taught was that by removing competitors you nolify stocks. So that is like adding stocks to market share because there’s is less of them. As of such the alogorythm equalizes due to how normative dividends work.

    Gonna explain:

    I live in the EU, games here do cost 60 euros. 60 euros are more or less 68 USD.

    Anthem is 60 euros in Origin (Europe) and 59,99 USD in Microsoft US store, and Origin US store.

    So IN FACT we pay MORE in Europe for the same game.

    Anything else you want to explain to us, the gamers who live and play in Europe?

    this is a very good conversation.
  • Yes but your most expensive games cost as much as our cheapest. Yes 50£ = approximately 100 but most of them do not.

    Unless my information is outdated most games unless you buy at launch- that’s on you for wasting money- cost are 30-40£. Here in NA our min cost is 80$ now. Look at AC OD for us, the min price =80 for bair bones. It’s closer to min of 130$ for us.

    Now it depends though on what games are popular in your region. Games like fifa will cost more in EU because no one plays then in NA.

    So there are trends that can be disputed, as a fact the law for this is called the expection law- the fact that to any law there are exceptions.

    So which game did you say cost more? Prob not a game or genre that is popular in NA
  • So.... Back to star wars....... Nobody cares about economics! Most have already took the classes!

    So I was wondering with things possibly being delayed or parts of it. Do you think what if it was two modes and one will be coming later than the other?
  • 4 CTs:
    1. Anakin Skywalker
    2. Clone Customization
    3. Lightsaber Combat Changes
    4. General Bug Fixes

    Even if there are 4 CTs this month, this doesn’t guarantee that the new mode will come this month.
    Bring back Extraction to the main menu please!

    What the ROADMAP should look like for 2019/2020:
    “Season” 4: Episode IX
    “Season” 5: Rogue One
  • Do they actually expect us to believe they are really "testing" this mode?

    Aren't WE the proven test team? We still are...for just about everything in the game.
  • Liz4rD
    1127 posts Member
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    Yes but your most expensive games cost as much as our cheapest. Yes 50£ = approximately 100 but most of them do not.

    Unless my information is outdated most games unless you buy at launch- that’s on you for wasting money- cost are 30-40£. Here in NA our min cost is 80$ now. Look at AC OD for us, the min price =80 for bair bones. It’s closer to min of 130$ for us.

    Now it depends though on what games are popular in your region. Games like fifa will cost more in EU because no one plays then in NA.

    So there are trends that can be disputed, as a fact the law for this is called the expection law- the fact that to any law there are exceptions.

    So which game did you say cost more? Prob not a game or genre that is popular in NA

    False, All games cost here 60 EUROS at launch. Stop using pounds to talk about games and prices in EU. Pounds are UK money. In UE we use EUROS. And all of AAA games cost at least 60 euros here, so we always pay more at launch for the same game at launch) than in US. Do you buy games at launch? Maybe not, but we are not talking about you, we are talking about prices and games. And If we want to be fair in the comparision, we got to check what are the prices AT LAUNCH in US compared with the same products at launch in EU.

    Games here are, in general, more expensive.
  • Liz4rD wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    Yes but your most expensive games cost as much as our cheapest. Yes 50£ = approximately 100 but most of them do not.

    Unless my information is outdated most games unless you buy at launch- that’s on you for wasting money- cost are 30-40£. Here in NA our min cost is 80$ now. Look at AC OD for us, the min price =80 for bair bones. It’s closer to min of 130$ for us.

    Now it depends though on what games are popular in your region. Games like fifa will cost more in EU because no one plays then in NA.

    So there are trends that can be disputed, as a fact the law for this is called the expection law- the fact that to any law there are exceptions.

    So which game did you say cost more? Prob not a game or genre that is popular in NA

    False, All games cost here 60 EUROS at launch. Stop using pounds to talk about games and prices in EU. Pounds are UK money. In UE we use EUROS. And all of AAA games cost at least 60 euros here, so we always pay more at launch for the same game at launch) than in US. Do you buy games at launch? Maybe not, but we are not talking about you, we are talking about prices and games. And If we want to be fair in the comparision, we got to check what are the prices AT LAUNCH in US compared with the same products at launch in EU.

    Games here are, in general, more expensive.

    Genuinely interesting post.
  • Liz4rD
    1127 posts Member
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    Yes but your most expensive games cost as much as our cheapest. Yes 50£ = approximately 100 but most of them do not.

    Unless my information is outdated most games unless you buy at launch- that’s on you for wasting money- cost are 30-40£. Here in NA our min cost is 80$ now. Look at AC OD for us, the min price =80 for bair bones. It’s closer to min of 130$ for us.

    Now it depends though on what games are popular in your region. Games like fifa will cost more in EU because no one plays then in NA.

    So there are trends that can be disputed, as a fact the law for this is called the expection law- the fact that to any law there are exceptions.

    So which game did you say cost more? Prob not a game or genre that is popular in NA

    Again, Its better on pics...

    PS4 Store for US:

    fzfoiuuuwc2z.jpg


    PS4 Store for Spain (same prices in the rest of Europe as UE is the same REGION inside the PS4 store)

    g3yk3quznkuj.jpg

    So, today, we still are paying more than you do.

  • Liz4rD wrote: »
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    Yes but your most expensive games cost as much as our cheapest. Yes 50£ = approximately 100 but most of them do not.

    Unless my information is outdated most games unless you buy at launch- that’s on you for wasting money- cost are 30-40£. Here in NA our min cost is 80$ now. Look at AC OD for us, the min price =80 for bair bones. It’s closer to min of 130$ for us.

    Now it depends though on what games are popular in your region. Games like fifa will cost more in EU because no one plays then in NA.

    So there are trends that can be disputed, as a fact the law for this is called the expection law- the fact that to any law there are exceptions.

    So which game did you say cost more? Prob not a game or genre that is popular in NA

    Again, Its better on pics...

    PS4 Store for US:

    fzfoiuuuwc2z.jpg


    PS4 Store for Spain (same prices in the rest of Europe as UE is the same REGION inside the PS4 store)

    g3yk3quznkuj.jpg

    So, today, we still are paying more than you do.

    That doesn't seem fair to me
  • Do they actually expect us to believe they are really "testing" this mode?

    Aren't WE the proven test team? We still are...for just about everything in the game.

    this
  • Liz4rD
    1127 posts Member
    Its not fair, but its the market policy the sellers, game platforms and resellers have here. Some 5 years ago they decided to not convert prices but instead just put the EURO sign to the US prices, and voilá.

    :(
  • meshugene89
    3751 posts Member
    edited February 7
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    Yes but your most expensive games cost as much as our cheapest. Yes 50£ = approximately 100 but most of them do not.

    100 what? Certainly not dollars because £50 is around $65 at today's exchange rates.
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    Unless my information is outdated most games unless you buy at launch- that’s on you for wasting money- cost are 30-40£. Here in NA our min cost is 80$ now. Look at AC OD for us, the min price =80 for bair bones. It’s closer to min of 130$ for us.

    Yes, there are shops where you can get new games for between £35-50, but digital version costs are always at RRP which is £59.99 and Amazon prices for physical copies are often similar. The RRP of games in the U.S. is $59.99, so wherever you're getting your games from, you're clearly getting fleeced or you're always buying the special/limited edition versions.
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    Now it depends though on what games are popular in your region. Games like fifa will cost more in EU because no one plays then in NA.

    Patently false. FIFA's RRP is £59.99 , the same as every other game in the UK, and its RRP in the U.S. is $59.99, the same as every other game in the U.S.
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    So there are trends that can be disputed, as a fact the law for this is called the expection law- the fact that to any law there are exceptions.

    Exception law? Man, at least use Google before you just make stuff up. There is a legal term known as "law of exception" but it has absolutely nothing to do with whatever it is you're trying to say here.
    DarthLuke wrote: »
    So which game did you say cost more? Prob not a game or genre that is popular in NA.

    EU games cost more than U.S. games at their RRP, which is also the cost of the digital versions, regardless of their genre or perceived regional popularity.
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    My Concepts
    Clone Skin Changes | Clone Customisation & Menu | Empire Customisation & Menu
  • Liz4rD
    1127 posts Member
    On the topic I must say that probability of the new mode coming in late february is below 30%.

    But probability is just a prediction that something will occur based on statistics. But reality is that the new mode can, in fact, come late this month.

    The only way we have to know what will happen is to just wait for the CT or any devs info on the matter. LOL
  • Liz4rD wrote: »
    On the topic I must say that probability of the new mode coming in late february is below 30%.

    But probability is just a prediction that something will occur based on statistics. But reality is that the new mode can, in fact, come late this month.

    The only way we have to know what will happen is to just wait for the CT or any devs info on the matter. LOL

    If it ain't on the Community Calendar, it ain't coming this month.
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    My Concepts
    Clone Skin Changes | Clone Customisation & Menu | Empire Customisation & Menu
  • I was referring to physics, not law lol. It is a slang not really a real term. But there is one in law.
  • This post has gotten really derailed. To the point where I'm actually laughing at how economics has somehow got anything to do with the new mode being delayed. Please stop before this gets locked.
    Hi.
  • Chem0
    185 posts Member
    Quite useless thread anyways. Speculating on if the new mode is delayed or not before any concrete information about it.
Sign In or Register to comment.