Star Wars Galaxies

Originally posted by Nifa

Is it time for the EULA's to change?  Probably.  But then, that would have the potential of creating legal issues for all game companies.  Think about it:  enough of the playerbase gets pissed off about a major change, just sue!  Were that to happen, we would have a bit more control, player-side, over what happens in the games we choose to play, but at what cost?  If game companies were spending all their time and money in civil courts defending business decisions (even clearly idiotic ones), how much money would be left over for development and improvement on current games or development of new games?  Who wants to pay twice - or more - what they pay now for a single subscription due to lawsuits filed by disgruntled players?

As you've said it's only a potential - but it doesn't have to be even that with a clearly defined EULA. As a matter of fact it could potentially work to the interests of the developers as well. Really the only tricky part is how to define "core game mechanics". I don't have that answer but would be interested to see how it could be defined.

Obviously much more discussion must happen on this but we must initiate it as it's highly unlikely that redefining a EULA is a high priority for developers. But as time goes on and more developers consider making core game changes to their struggling titles it could have a profound affect on the industry. As I've said before if SWG was a massive success after their changes then the flood gates would have been released for others to do the same.

---

Originally posted by Suvroc

---

Originally posted by Nifa

Is it time for the EULA's to change? Probably. But then, that would have the potential of creating legal issues for all game companies. Think about it: enough of the playerbase gets pissed off about a major change, just sue! Were that to happen, we would have a bit more control, player-side, over what happens in the games we choose to play, but at what cost? If game companies were spending all their time and money in civil courts defending business decisions (even clearly idiotic ones), how much money would be left over for development and improvement on current games or development of new games? Who wants to pay twice - or more - what they pay now for a single subscription due to lawsuits filed by disgruntled players?

---

As you've said it's only a potential - but it doesn't have to be even that with a clearly defined EULA. As a matter of fact it could potentially work to the interests of the developers as well. Really the only tricky part is how to define "core game mechanics". I don't have that answer but would be interested to see how it could be defined.
Obviously much more discussion must happen on this but we must initiate it as it's highly unlikely that redefining a EULA is a high priority for developers. But as time goes on and more developers consider making core game changes to their struggling titles it could have a profound affect on the industry. As I've said before if SWG was a massive success after their changes then the flood gates would have been released for others to do the same.

---

it pains me to make this argument but what's the difference between changing core game mechanics and shutting a game down? They are two different solutions to the same problem. So if you want to have rights as far as game changes then you should also have rights as to when the game is shut down. And it seems ridiculous when viewed in that way. Shutting the game down is also not what the current player base wants, yet there are never community uprisings arguing "player rights" because it's generally understood why a game gets shut down. So why isn't it generally understood why a game could get so drastically changed?

This is not an ethics argument. There are plenty ethical arguments against other things that were done, or how they were done. This is just a straight forward argument about player rights and core game changes.

Originally posted by hellbenthagg

 

I played pre nge and didn't like the game as much, it was all over the place 

yeah...usualy when i jump in a sandbox i prefur to have my castles pre made.

Originally posted by PreCU

 

---

Originally posted by Suvroc

---

Originally posted by Nifa

 

Is it time for the EULA's to change? Probably. But then, that would have the potential of creating legal issues for all game companies. Think about it: enough of the playerbase gets pissed off about a major change, just sue! Were that to happen, we would have a bit more control, player-side, over what happens in the games we choose to play, but at what cost? If game companies were spending all their time and money in civil courts defending business decisions (even clearly idiotic ones), how much money would be left over for development and improvement on current games or development of new games? Who wants to pay twice - or more - what they pay now for a single subscription due to lawsuits filed by disgruntled players?

---

 

As you've said it's only a potential - but it doesn't have to be even that with a clearly defined EULA. As a matter of fact it could potentially work to the interests of the developers as well. Really the only tricky part is how to define "core game mechanics". I don't have that answer but would be interested to see how it could be defined.
Obviously much more discussion must happen on this but we must initiate it as it's highly unlikely that redefining a EULA is a high priority for developers. But as time goes on and more developers consider making core game changes to their struggling titles it could have a profound affect on the industry. As I've said before if SWG was a massive success after their changes then the flood gates would have been released for others to do the same.

---

 

it pains me to make this argument but what's the difference between changing core game mechanics and shutting a game down? They are two different solutions to the same problem. So if you want to have rights as far as game changes then you should also have rights as to when the game is shut down. And it seems ridiculous when viewed in that way. Shutting the game down is also not what the current player base wants, yet there are never community uprisings arguing "player rights" because it's generally understood why a game gets shut down. So why isn't it generally understood why a game could get so drastically changed?

This is not an ethics argument. There are plenty ethical arguments against other things that were done, or how they were done. This is just a straight forward argument about player rights and core game changes.

I guess it's really an issue of a notice of intent. In the case of SWG we had 2 weeks notice and that was really unfair IMO.

I would think it's a pretty fair expectation to have a reasonable amount of notice - 2 months perhaps.

---

Originally posted by Suvroc

 
I guess it's really an issue of a notice of intent. In the case of SWG we had 2 weeks notice and that was really unfair IMO.
I would think it's a pretty fair expectation to have a reasonable amount of notice - 2 months perhaps.

---

I definitely agree since core game changes can be viewed the same as shutting the game down to current players. So the warning should be at least the same amount of time as a warning for when the game shuts down, and I think all mmo game developers need to give a one month notice as legally defined - correct me if I'm wrong, that's what I remember someone saying.

so then it's still a matter of defining "core game mechanics", as you said.

Originally posted by Sharkypal

Originally posted by Nifa

Originally posted by Thunderous

I am very skeptical about TOR because it has an affilation with Lucas, period.  Let's hope that Bioware has enough clout to keep guys like JulioTorres out of decision-making related to gameplay mechanics.

 

Having seen some of the screenshots and other materials coming out of TOR, I'm not impressed.  It's basically, in my opinion, just another Lucas money grab.  Then again, the Clone Wars movie and series on which they seem to be basing their artwork doesn't impress me, either:  I'm of the opinion that it all looks like crap, particularly the current character and weapon design that they're showing for TOR.  But then, I won't be throwing my money at it, either. ;)

A-freakin'-men!

 

Ditto.

As I've said before, SW:TOR looks like it is being designed from the ground up to coincide with all the other Lucas garbage that exists today. I guess one of the things that has kept me in SWG for so long is the fact that it draws on the lore of the original films (unfortunately mixed with content from the new films in another LA "money grab" with a generous helping of SOE's unethical behaviour).

The only salvation for SW:TOR is that it is being handled by Bioware who are a very reputable company with a track record of entertaining, quality titles. This will no doubt be overshadowed by the "suits" at LA who have convinced Lucas to destroy the rest of his franchise in favour of the dollar and who still believe that they can take on WoW.

S

Like Star Wars:Galaxies NGE   Still broken, still empty, still boring to play.

meh

 To be honest, SWG at this point is probably the most fun its ever been.  If you are a high level.  If you're just starting? The grind is so long tedious and boring you will quit.  Rolling a new toon sucks!  The legacy quest is enough to make you jump off of a cliff.  

Oh yeah and you have to be on one of the 5 or 6 big severs. If not you will be all alone.