Poll of the Day > Hawaii will introduce legislature to prohibit gambling systems in video games.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Jen0125 posted...

Veedrock- posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

They could easily find enough people to testify that BF2 has negatively affected their opinion of the IP.

Could they? There's not really any confusion here, everyone's blaming EA directly, not Star Wars. Like I've not seen one person say they're boycotting Star Wars over this, but plenty of people boycotting EA. It'd be far easier to prove that.

true

and most people are actually mad this is happening with a star wars IP because they'd buy the game if not for the bullshit

BUT that still is loss of profit if people are not buying because of the mishandling

Yeah, its not going to destroy the brand, but future SW games will definitely see a loss of money and prestige because of this, which can be interpreted as damaging to the IP. Disney can argue that its a lost revenue branch that was previously more beloved and profitable and now needs to be rebuilt and/or temporarily suspended.

It is irrelevant if toy or movie sales are affected, honestly, because EA diminishing the value in the gaming space is still causing harm to the brand in that one area.
---

Xfma100 posted...

A lot of games still have a season pass.
Some games even get multiple season passes now...

Hmmm actually you're right. My B.
Still Battlefront 2 got rid of it surprisingly.
---

If this can somehow put a dent in Loot Boxes, I say go for it, Anything to decrease the amount of Microtransactions and Loot Boxes in Full Priced games, Keep that shit in F2P games where they make more sense, Greedy Devs ruining perfectly good games.....
---

Kaguya_Kimimaro posted...

Greedy Devs ruining perfectly good games.....

It's often the publishers that make this call.
---

Prudes, being annoying and crazy since forever.
---

I hate lootboxes, but making it illegal is dumb af.

Just stop buying that shit. Jesus.
---

While I don't like lootboxes and rng-mtx, I'm honestly not sure where I stand concerning legislation on this matter. It's certainly gambling in some senses of the term (which generally and should be illegal), but there's no monetary returns involved. And, while any legislation might be government overreach, things like lootboxes are a scummy industry practice which I want to see gone.
---

Smarkil posted...

I hate lootboxes, but making it illegal is dumb af.

Just stop buying that shit. Jesus.

The average gamer is smart enough not to. But you get kids buying this shit on their parents dime.
---

Another thing people really need to understand is the greedy business tactics are affecting the quality of games too because the creators are forced to create things that wasn't their intended vision. The newest Mass Effect game was one such example. EA wanted open world game with microtransactions. That wasn't where Bioware wanted to go with the series but EA forced them into it, now everybody, including Bioware is unhappy with where the Mass Effect series went.
---

Ogurisama posted...

Smarkil posted...

I hate lootboxes, but making it illegal is dumb af.

Just stop buying that shit. Jesus.

The average gamer is smart enough not to. But you get kids buying this shit on their parents dime.

If your parents allow you to buy shit on their credit card, that's their own idiotic problem. But I suspect the sales figures would not prove that to be the case.

I would wager there are more people in their 20's and 30's with disposable income that say, "Eh, it's 5 bucks".
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Yes, but the license will expire, and unless EA no longer wants to make any Star Wars games (or even be able to continue to sell existing ones) they cant piss off Disney by backtalking them with technicalities. They have to play nice or risk Disney simply refusing to ever work with them again.

Not wanting to work with someone again is completely different than suing them.
Disney not working with EA is completely fine and reasonable, suing them is much larger.
Also what you're suggesting is a Breach of Contract, which is a whole, whole other category of law.

TheCyborgNinja posted...

They could easily find enough people to testify that BF2 has negatively affected their opinion of the IP. How much support could EA muster to counter that?

How many people will do so under oath? Also willing to have people go through all of their purchasing history to verify that they would have bought it if it weren't for the bad publicity?

More importantly, a list of people doesn't work for any legal argument:

No extensive recovery can be founded upon guesswork alone. Recovery must be backed with evidence that justifies an inference that the damage award is a fair and reasonable form of compensation for the injury incurred. In addition, when compensatory damages can be proved with approximate accuracy and determined with some degree of certainty, it is essential that they be so proved.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Speculative+Damages

You need to have accountants go through actual sales figures through all of their sales to check if it would mess with the sales of Star Wars.

papercup posted...

It actually really sucks it came to this. The ESRB failed to address this issue properly, and now government has to regulate video games. Isn't that why we have the ESRB, so gamer designers can police themselves?

The ESRB was founded and is funded by gaming publishers so they can more freely make money without regulation, but they couldn't keep it in their pants with loot boxes since they were making so much easy money with them (lots of people love gambling and casinos make a lot of money because of that reason, surprise), which is why the ESRB had defended loot boxes and refused to call them gambling, so now the only way for loot boxes to be regulated is government intervention.

I'm not a fan of government regulation but at this point it's clear the AAA gaming industry thinks loot boxes are their new gold mine and they're not going to give it up. They're going to keep trying to assault people with loot boxes and micro transactions until people get tired of complaining about it and it becomes the norm.
---

Zeus posted...

It's certainly gambling in some senses of the term (which generally and should be illegal), but there's no monetary returns involved.

The monetary returns are necessary for defining it as being gambling, but not actually relevant to the core problem. Gambling is regulated not because of the monetary returns, but because a variable ratio reward schedule (reward is given after an unpredictable number of ) is extremely powerful for conditioning a behavioural response. Responses are learned fast and are very resistant to extinction, which is where addiction comes into play. Casinos and many other forms of formalized gambling exploit this, and are summarily subject to restrictions to limit the possibility of addiction, opposing the fact that casinos would love to have full, unregulated freedom to addict as many people to giving them money as possible. Loot boxes also exploit this, but have no restrictions in place, so currently they are free to be as predatory as they want.

To that end, I'm okay with subjecting paid loot boxes to the same sort of restrictions gambling faces. There's no monetary return, but they use exactly the same principles of psychological manipulation to entice customers into spending money, which is what gambling's restrictions are meant to limit.

Now, that does present a bit of a slippery slope, in that randomized toys or prizes aren't exactly anything new in stuff marketed to kids. Happy Meals, Kinder Surprises, and the cereal box toys of old (don't see too many of them these days, but I'll include it anyway) could all be considered exploitative for the same reasons gambling is. In each case, the toy is secondary to the main purchase (the cheeseburger, mediocre chocolate egg, and cereal, respectively), which would probably function as a legal defense, but conceptually, the same marketing strategy is being used. And then there are CCG's, which honestly probably should be treated as gambling for the same reason. I don't necessarily see it being pushed this far, but there are definitely arguments to be made for doing so.
---

adjl posted...

And then there are CCG's, which honestly probably should be treated as gambling for the same reason

Because as long as the company can say they don't know what everyone else is doing with the cards (at least in a legal sense), they can claim that they "have no idea what people do with those cards after we sell them to people".

Well, you covered all the problematic parts of the slope I was going to bring up.

However, I should add that the glaring flaw with equating some of those other things with conventional gambling is many of the non-monetary rewards are non-exclusive in nature and people can buy/trade for certain items (not the same as in the case of lootboxes). Additionally, in the case of CCGs, it's also *semi* randomized -- the vast majority will give you a certain amount of cards of a certain rarity in each pack. When you're buying a MtG pack, you're buying 15 cards which include 1 rare, 3 uncommons, 1 land, and 10 commons (iirc). Even if the exact cards are unknown, you still know what you're getting. And, if you want something specific, there's a thriving secondary market. This differs in a pretty significant way from lootboxes where the contents are *only* available through lootboxes.

Additionally, I might add, in some senses CCGs are far less a form of gambling than blind-boxed figures as well given that many sets use absurd-rarity ratios where even buying several larger containers doesn't guarantee you a full set. *That* kinda always annoys me, since it's not like the less wanted characters get the rarer slots.

At any rate, sunk cost is a much bigger issue in *monetary* gambling because people can eventually recoup their loss (or, more pragmatically, believe that they can). However, if you're against the notion of sunk cost as a psychological factor, you wouldn't stop at conventional gambling -- money for a chance at something -- but you'd also incorporate all games of chance in there. I know I've occasionally spent far too much failing to win something from some of them.
---

shadowsword87 posted...

adjl posted...

And then there are CCG's, which honestly probably should be treated as gambling for the same reason

Because as long as the company can say they don't know what everyone else is doing with the cards (at least in a legal sense), they can claim that they "have no idea what people do with those cards after we sell them to people".

Which I guess is a matter of not intentionally providing any reward in exchange for the booster pack cost, since it's up to the consumer to decide whether or not they've been rewarded by assigning their own value to the cards inside. It's flagrantly exploiting a logical loophole to dance around the issue, but I suppose it works.

Zeus posted...

However, I should add that the glaring flaw with equating some of those other things with conventional gambling is many of the non-monetary rewards are non-exclusive in nature and people can buy/trade for certain items (not the same as in the case of lootboxes).

Secondary markets do throw a wrench into things, but they don't really change the fundamental nature of it. If anything, being able to sell the random contents brings the concept of sunk cost into the whole matter, since it creates at least the perceived possibility of being able to recoup losses. It's still offering a randomized reward for making a purchase, which is going to incentivize the purchase if the consumers (often small children) decide one of those possible rewards is something they want.

Again, I don't see it ever actually going that far, but it is surprisingly easy to logically equivocate them.

Zeus posted...

Additionally, in the case of CCGs, it's also *semi* randomized -- the vast majority will give you a certain amount of cards of a certain rarity in each pack.

That's still randomized. That randomization just happens within several subsets of cards, rather than being a full pack randomly selected from the full possible range of cards. Improving the odds makes things more likely, not less random.

Zeus posted...

Additionally, I might add, in some senses CCGs are far less a form of gambling than blind-boxed figures as well given that many sets use absurd-rarity ratios where even buying several larger containers doesn't guarantee you a full set. *That* kinda always annoys me, since it's not like the less wanted characters get the rarer slots.

Yep, that's another particularly egregious example.

Zeus posted...

At any rate, sunk cost is a much bigger issue in *monetary* gambling because people can eventually recoup their loss (or, more pragmatically, believe that they can). However, if you're against the notion of sunk cost as a psychological factor, you wouldn't stop at conventional gambling -- money for a chance at something -- but you'd also incorporate all games of chance in there. I know I've occasionally spent far too much failing to win something from some of them.

The concept of sunk cost is relevant, but not necessary for gambling addiction to develop (or at least for addictive tendencies to be exploited). In the classic Skinner Box example of a rat receiving a food pellet after a random number of lever presses, the rat isn't usually trying to recover the energy spent pressing the lever, it just wants the pellet and doesn't care that it could be doing something more interesting than pressing the lever. Sunk cost is used to rationalize and reinforce gambling addiction, but the addictive behaviour itself is based on the thrill of getting any sort of reward, and the desire to experience it again.
---

adjl posted...

Which I guess is a matter of not intentionally providing any reward in exchange for the booster pack cost, since it's up to the consumer to decide whether or not they've been rewarded by assigning their own value to the cards inside. It's flagrantly exploiting a logical loophole to dance around the issue, but I suppose it works.

Yup!
It's dumb, but it technically works.

shadowsword87 posted...

adjl posted...

Which I guess is a matter of not intentionally providing any reward in exchange for the booster pack cost, since it's up to the consumer to decide whether or not they've been rewarded by assigning their own value to the cards inside. It's flagrantly exploiting a logical loophole to dance around the issue, but I suppose it works.

Yup!
It's dumb, but it technically works.

That said, they do design a game that uses the cards, so claiming total ignorance seems silly, but I guess there's nothing stopping people from printing their own cards with the same text on them and using those in lieu of gambling for or buying the real thing. With that in mind, I suppose the only value the cards have really is the collecting aspect.
---

quigonzel posted...

Loot boxes aren't gambling.

When you gamble, you stand to lose something. However, when you purchase a loot box, you always get rewarded with something. It may not be what you wanted but it's something. If the loot box was empty, then there's a problem.

https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/76017136/890857933

The salient point is that you stand to gain something, not lose something. You are paying money for a chance at a reward, which is a system that psychologically manipulates the consumer in exactly the same manner as formal gambling. Ergo, similar regulations are needed to restrict that psychological manipulation.
---

quigonzel posted...

Loot boxes aren't gambling.

When you gamble, you stand to lose something. However, when you purchase a loot box, you always get rewarded with something. It may not be what you wanted but it's something. If the loot box was empty, then there's a problem.

If you're going to classify the loot box system as gambling, the you might as well consider those retail "mystery mini figures" boxes as gambling, too. Which would be stupid to do so.

By that logic I could open a casino, and every time somebody "loses" I hand them a Mars bar, and say that my customers aren't gambling because they got something. No government or court in the world would buy that argument.
---

papercup posted...

quigonzel posted...

Loot boxes aren't gambling.

When you gamble, you stand to lose something. However, when you purchase a loot box, you always get rewarded with something. It may not be what you wanted but it's something. If the loot box was empty, then there's a problem.

If you're going to classify the loot box system as gambling, the you might as well consider those retail "mystery mini figures" boxes as gambling, too. Which would be stupid to do so.

By that logic I could open a casino, and every time somebody "loses" I hand them a Mars bar, and say that my customers aren't gambling because they got something. No government or court in the world would buy that argument.

Or, for that matter, open a casino where all the slot machines use chips that are sold by some clearly unrelated guy out front who may or may not be buying said chips from the casino under the table. Because the casino has not assigned those chips any value, the slot machines are not actually gambling.
---

adjl posted...

Secondary markets do throw a wrench into things, but they don't really change the fundamental nature of it. If anything, being able to sell the random contents brings the concept of sunk cost into the whole matter, since it creates at least the perceived possibility of being able to recoup losses. It's still offering a randomized reward for making a purchase, which is going to incentivize the purchase if the consumers (often small children) decide one of those possible rewards is something they want.

The kinds of people who buy packs for specific cards generally aren't going to sell those cards themselves. =p And, for the most part, small children aren't the primary buyers for most CCGs except, perhaps, *maybe* for Pokemon but even during its heyday at sponsored gathering it was more a mix of teens and tweens than it was small children.

adjl posted...

The concept of sunk cost is relevant, but not necessary for gambling addiction to develop (or at least for addictive tendencies to be exploited). In the classic Skinner Box example of a rat receiving a food pellet after a random number of lever presses, the rat isn't usually trying to recover the energy spent pressing the lever, it just wants the pellet and doesn't care that it could be doing something more interesting than pressing the lever. Sunk cost is used to rationalize and reinforce gambling addiction, but the addictive behaviour itself is based on the thrill of getting any sort of reward, and the desire to experience it again.

So basically you're advocating against all games of chance as well, then? Because they use the same principle. Technically, even arcade games -- the actual video games -- play upon those same tendencies, especially when it comes to the countdown for putting in more coins to continue.

Also, technically speaking, wouldn't *any* mtx with the potential for a randomized payout count as gambling under that model? Therefore if you buy Pokeballs in Pokemon Go, that's technically gambling because the balls are used to randomly get "loot" in the form of Pokemon.
---

Zeus posted...

And, for the most part, small children aren't the primary buyers for most CCGs

They are, however, for Happy Meals. CCG's generally aren't targeted at small children, but plenty of other randomized toys or trinkets are.

Zeus posted...

*maybe* for Pokemon but even during its heyday at sponsored gathering it was more a mix of teens and tweens than it was small children.

Having been 10 when the Pokemon craze first struck, Pokemon cards were definitely big among pretty young children. Less so at actual gatherings, since that demands a degree of competitiveness that younger children couldn't muster, but Pokemon cards were huge in my elementary school.

That, and teens and especially tweens are still minors.

Zeus posted...

So basically you're advocating against all games of chance as well, then? Because they use the same principle.

Yeah, kind of. Typically, those rewards aren't enough to incentivize excessive spending, but the games are still preying on the same reward circuits.

Zeus posted...

Technically, even arcade games -- the actual video games -- play upon those same tendencies, especially when it comes to the countdown for putting in more coins to continue.

They do indeed, though there the reward (continued gameplay) isn't randomized. Even if the arcade game in question consists purely of randomness (a die-rolling simulator as the most absurdly simplified example), playing the game is itself what you're paying for, and that's guaranteed (quarter-eating aside).

Zeus posted...

Also, technically speaking, wouldn't *any* mtx with the potential for a randomized payout count as gambling under that model?

Potentially. That's what makes this all so interesting as a thought experiment: The slope is not at all slippery enough for these to be realistic considerations, but it is much, much larger than it appears at first glance. In terms of regulations, though, it's the flip side that is more relevant: provided there's an element of skill involved, however minute, random payouts alone aren't sufficient to make something qualify as gambling. This is why mail-in sweepstakes have skill-testing questions. They're unambiguously just chance-based draws, but because you have to answer a simple math question, they're not regulated as gambling.

Zeus posted...

Therefore if you buy Pokeballs in Pokemon Go, that's technically gambling because the balls are used to randomly get "loot" in the form of Pokemon.

I wouldn't say that one applies because the random part is separate from the purchase of the pokeballs. When you use a pokeball and successfully catch a pokemon, the identity of that pokemon is guaranteed. It's not guaranteed that you'll ever encounter your desired pokemon, but it's walking to a given spawn location that rolls those dice, not buying the pokeball.
---

Why can't game companies just sell a game any more? I want to buy a game and not have to worry about DLC or micro transactions, just a disc and the system
---

Ogurisama posted...

Smarkil posted...

I hate lootboxes, but making it illegal is dumb af.

Just stop buying that shit. Jesus.

The average gamer is smart enough not to. But you get kids buying this shit on their parents dime.

Kids aside, the main issue is the "whales" ruining it for all of us. A few people buy thousands of dollars of crap and make the loot boxes obscenely profitable to the companies. Even if most of us buy none of it. Even if they lose a few sales from people boycotting. So it does affect us, even if we never personally buy any of it, because it allows them to design games that require inhuman amounts of grinding if you don't pay up, or to lock away what used to be free content or at least fixed DLC that you knew what you were buying...with fucking random loot boxes.

It takes a massive boycott and outrage and/or government action to shut this shit down. Because it doesn't matter how smart the "average gamer" is. They're not the target.

Muscles posted...

Why can't game companies just sell a game any more? I want to buy a game and not have to worry about DLC or micro transactions, just a disc and the system

Because they can make a lot, lot more money this way.

I can't get over how goddamn hot the MILF in the video is.
Does Hawaii have lots of that? DAMN. >_<
---

adjl posted...

They are, however, for Happy Meals. CCG's generally aren't targeted at small children, but plenty of other randomized toys or trinkets are.

But Happy Meals aren't really randomized in the slightest. For starters, they roll the items out on a weekly basis or thereabouts. Second, and more importantly, you can ASK which toy it is that week and even make a request... which is why some bitch has the Mewtwos I wanted =x

Sure, nowadays I could just go on ebay and buy that Mewtwo -- or hell, a nicer one -- but it's still annoying. Especially because that c-word was just buying them for resale. She'd also scalp Pokemon cards at larger stores and then sell them at hers for $2-5 more at times. Fucking scalpers.

adjl posted...

That, and teens and especially tweens are still minors.

Teens and tweens =/= small children

adjl posted...

I wouldn't say that one applies because the random part is separate from the purchase of the pokeballs. When you use a pokeball and successfully catch a pokemon, the identity of that pokemon is guaranteed. It's not guaranteed that you'll ever encounter your desired pokemon, but it's walking to a given spawn location that rolls those dice, not buying the pokeball.

The identity is guaranteed, but the catch is not. It's like knowing what prize you're trying for.
---

thats nice. loot boxes still aren't gambling
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

thats nice. loot boxes still aren't gambling

Gambling is defined as playing a game of chance to win money or anything of value, or to take a risky action to attempt to achieve a desired outcome.

Lootboxes fit the criteria.
---

Zeus posted...

But Happy Meals aren't really randomized in the slightest. For starters, they roll the items out on a weekly basis or thereabouts.

Some are, some aren't. I've seen the toys be changed on a weekly basis, and I've seen them selected randomly (not truly random, but close enough) from a pool. Requesting a specific toy does alleviate the issue, though, which is why Happy Meals aren't a strong contender. Kinder Surprises fit the model much more strongly, though given the huge pool of toys they pull from, the odds of getting any specific one you want are too slim for even kids to be inclined to try for a specific one.

As I've said, it's not particularly likely to see this backlash extend as far as it possibly could. It's just interesting to consider just how widespread these marketing principles are. This is purely an academic exercise, not me actually suggesting that Happy Meal toys be banned as gambling.

Zeus posted...

Teens and tweens =/= small children

But still minors, and therefore legally defined as not being okay to target with gambling.

Zeus posted...

The identity is guaranteed, but the catch is not. It's like knowing what prize you're trying for.

That is true. In that case, the random element in each attempted catch is absolutely a means of inflating the price of catching them, as well as inflating the apparent value of the purchase (spending, say, $5 for 10 pokeballs with a 20% chance to catch seems like a much better deal than spending $5 for 2 pokeballs with a 100% chance to catch). This sort of thing really is bloody everywhere.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

loot boxes still aren't gambling

Irrelevant. The formal definition doesn't change the fact that loot boxes exploit exactly the same psychological principles that gambling exploits, and which gambling is restricted in their exploitation of to prevent casinos from abusing addictive behaviours. Ergo, it's only logical to restrict them similarly.

Incidentally, this has been covered already. You should perhaps read arguments before attempting to weigh in on them.
---

Battlefront II is at the forefront of this controversy, but it makes me wonder what effect legislation like this might have on, say, gacha-style mobile games (e.g. Fire Emblem Heroes).
---

I_Abibde posted...

Battlefront II is at the forefront of this controversy, but it makes me wonder what effect legislation like this might have on, say, gacha-style mobile games (e.g. Fire Emblem Heroes).

It stands to reason that they'll also see regulation, since the problems inherent in having such systems in AAA games are no less relevant on smaller scales, but they may fly under the radar for having fewer users. We'll see.
---

adjl posted...

... but they may fly under the radar for having fewer users. We'll see.

Is it bad of me that I hope for this? My poor phone would become barren of games without FE Heroes and its kin. Then again, I know how to spend responsibly; many users do not.
---

Yes and no. The thing with using such models in f2p games is that, as obviously predatory as they are, they're the game's only way of making money and staying afloat. The mobile market is a particularly cutthroat one, with a huge amount of crap to wade through if you're going to try and be successful, and that means you're going to get fun games that have to engage in some questionable monetization practices if they want to continue existing. Wanting those games to continue existing isn't a bad thing. Wanting to normalize predatory monetization practices is, but there are certainly ways to keep those practices around as needed without full-on saying "they're okay carry on unrestricted." I wouldn't be at all surprised if FE Heroes would be just fine if they slapped an age restriction on there and listed the odds of getting characters.
---

adjl posted...

I wouldn't be at all surprised if FE Heroes would be just fine if they slapped an age restriction on there and listed the odds of getting characters.

This, they actually do. You can check the percentages before you pull.
---

Then maybe they're already above board. I guess we'll see when the dust settles.
---

I believe they legally have to list the odds in Japan, where restrictions on this stuff are stricter (due to it being more mainstream), so that carries over to the US release.

TheWorstPoster posted...

Democrats just love trying to destroy the gaming industry, for some reason.

shut the fuck up.
---

Blightzkrieg posted...

where restrictions on this stuff are stricter (due to it being more mainstream)

That's also because most forms of gambling are outright illegal in Japan. Those restrictions are probably necessary to keep them from qualifying.
---

papercup posted...

Honestly, I don't know how Disney hasn't already sued EA for damaging their property.

it was LucasArts who wanted the loot boxes
---

The term gambling is used loosely in the gaming world you can consider anything that's chance gambling it's horse shit
---

I disagree that it's gambling. That's all I'm gonna say.

And I still can't believe that people think it's actual kids that make lootboxes a profitable venture.
---

green dragon posted...

All I want is the casino back in pokemon games

If Pokemon cant have a casino then Gaming cant have loot boxes.

Ive never actually played a pokemon game with a casino in it but man was it fun bettin off coins with Luigi in the mini game section of super mario bros. ds
---

Veedrock- posted...

I disagree that it's gambling. That's all I'm gonna say.

As has been covered, it doesn't actually matter whether or not it's technically gambling. Gambling is regulated not simply because it's gambling, but because of the psychological manipulation involved in it that has a very high chance of resulting in addiction. The regulations exist to protect vulnerable people that are predisposed toward addiction from companies that would love to addict them to giving up their money. Those same principles are at play with loot boxes, meaning the same potential for addiction is there, meaning the same protections should exist for consumers.
---

helIy posted...

it was LucasArts who wanted the loot boxes

Do you ever know what you're talking about? LucasArts had nothing to do with Battlefront II.
---

GanonsSpirit posted...

helIy posted...

it was LucasArts who wanted the loot boxes

Do you ever know what you're talking about? LucasArts had nothing to do with Battlefront II.

I heard that too... LucasArts is basically just administrative at this point, but apparently they pushed for this.
---

Do you mean Lucasfilm? Lucasarts doesn't exist anymore.

Blightzkrieg posted...

Do you mean Lucasfilm? Lucasarts doesn't exist anymore.

Possibly... I cant remember where I heard this. But it seemed like the person knew what they were talking about. It could be total BS though, as I cant remember the source.
---