I keep figuring we'd hit rock bottom on the amount of stupid stuff these developers could do, and then they keep surprising me by topping themselves in stupidity.

I was watching Peter Pan with my kids a couple weeks back, and the depictions of the Indians definitely caught me off guard. I didn't really remember any of that from watching it when I was growing up. It is pretty terrible. The depiction of Tinkerbell (and treatment of women in general) is also pretty downright bad.

Well...at the very least, it would take some effort to top that game in terms of the level of terribleness.

Interesting, I wonder if this is some fallout from the Battlefront 2 fiasco. I do remember someone saying Disney had approached Ubisoft about Star Wars when everything went down. Maybe they threatened EA with complete license removal and managed to get out of the exclusive part of the deal as a result.

@kumatenshi: Depends on your situation, I suppose. For a family of four in my area, taking everyone to the movies would cost me $40. By comparison, this saves me money, I can watch it whenever at my house, and don't have to worry about my kids running amuck and yelling and screaming during the movie. Well worth it.

Ugh...that was not good...if this is typical of the type of thing we can expect, it's amazing they even made 38 more of these.

@Cryptics: It's not, in this case it may be a thing of just because this is the way things are, doesn't mean this is the way things should actually be. Governments have, in general, been terrible at keeping up with technology and tech companies by and large got to set the rules to whatever they wanted to as a result.

In terms of digital movies, they have clauses for losing licenses to the right to sell certain movies. Since when did losing the right to sell movies means this meant that got these companies out of having to continue to provide said movies to people who had already purchased these movies? As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't, but having to maintain and perpetually host content they can no longer sell costs the company money that they don't want to spend so of course they won't want to do that.

@Jinzo_111887: I was under the impression that ByteDance had to sell their operations to prevent a ban, not get a "trusted tech partner". This also has me wondering if this is enough to sidestep a ban.

Frankly, considering how much intellectual property US companies have been forced to turn over to China, they should absolutely require ByteDance to turn over the algorithm.

@livedreamplay:

Unfortunately, it seems like these days this is about the only way to make people like EA pay attention. EA has been notorious with stuff like this for far longer then they should've been allowed to.

That being said, the game is frankly an embarrassment. It never should have been allowed to release in its current state.

From my understanding, to even start the game you needed to have a Square Enix account and a one time internet activation to sync up that account. It wouldn't surprise me if people getting the game early can't even play any part of the game because of this stuff not being active yet until September 1st.