I'm still irate about "Star Wars: Attack Squadrons" being shut down. Game had a lot of potential.

So I ask you, fellow Star Wars fans and starfighter enthusiasts, would a petition to get it back up be at -all- feasible? At all? I want this game back- and I know I'm not the only one. It's the first dedicated Star Wars flying game we were to get since 2001. That alone says to me, it deserves and chance, and it offered a fair bit. Hell, I wanted to paint the designs I'd seen from it. Those were cool.

So, how many of you would support a petition, and would you spread the word? I want this game to have another chance. It had something honestly enjoyable to offer.

I really enjoyed the parts of the beta I was able to play. Very disappointed that it was shut down. I'd love to have it get up and running again, but doubt it will get there- once the Mouse shuts something down it stays down.

I never even got to play...

I am dying for something better than GSF in SWTOR though.

I dunno, I heard it was more like the starfighter elements of 'Battlefront II' - focused primarily on console (and mobile device) accessibility - so a pretty far cry from the standards of the 'X-Wing' and 'TIE Fighter' PC games.

I really enjoyed the parts of the beta I was able to play. Very disappointed that it was shut down. I'd love to have it get up and running again, but doubt it will get there- once the Mouse shuts something down it stays down.

Maybe if there's enough outcry. The first game announced by Disney WAS Battlefront, after all.

I never even got to play...

I am dying for something better than GSF in SWTOR though.

played GSF, this was infinitely better and felt fairly more star wars.

I dunno, I heard it was more like the starfighter elements of 'Battlefront II' - focused primarily on console (and mobile device) accessibility - so a pretty far cry from the standards of the 'X-Wing' and 'TIE Fighter' PC games.

It was similar to Battlefront II and Rogue Squadron, but the power management from X-Wing was definitely there, if not fairly simple. You could manually charge shields at the cost of energy, your boost costs energy, and so does your blaster fire. It was a fair bit more modernized but the power management DID add a fairly strategic aspect to the game. I don't think it was ever intended for console release, even though I'd support it wholly.

It did have Joystick support too, and while entirely 3rd person, the joystick was way, way better than the mouse. While TIEs DID have shields and munitions, they -were- stupid-low/weak, but in an 8v8, well, 8 X-Wings with Shields and 8 TIEs with shields wouldn't be very fair.

That said, it wasn't ever Imp V. Reb, not in the closed beta (Which was fine, it was barely done at all.). So that makes the point just a little moot.

But the gameplay was well balanced and you never beat your opponent by having the better stuff. You beat them by -being- better than them. Which can't be said for SWTOR's Galactic Starfighter.

It was similar to Battlefront II and Rogue Squadron, but the power management from X-Wing was definitely there, if not fairly simple. You could manually charge shields at the cost of energy, your boost costs energy, and so does your blaster fire. It was a fair bit more modernized but the power management DID add a fairly strategic aspect to the game. I don't think it was ever intended for console release, even though I'd support it wholly.

I believe the key take-away, though, would be...

"For the love of the GODS, Disney, just flippin' re-release a composite 'X-Wing vs TIE Fighter: Balance of Power' and 'X-Wing: Alliance' game for modern systems, with updated poly-count models. It will cost you something like $250k in total development and marketing costs, and you'll make, like, a BILLION DOLLARS. JUST DO IT!"

Heck, put it on Kickstarter. That "Star Citizen" game managed to pull in $2 MILLION in funding - with no brand behind it, no license, no existing universe, no promise of a cross-channel story or setting, just 'hey, I'm the guy that did some of that Wing Commander thing, that was pretty cool wasn't it? How about some money?'. *bam* - $2 million.

This is, frankly, just 'leaving money on the table' from Disney. I don't think they understand the (purchasing) power of this fully armed and operational fandom...

Well that's why I wanted SW:AS. They wanted to see if there was a market for a flying game. That's why it needed to succeed. Hell that's why there was limited development for a certain Star Wars: First Assault.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnVmUbLPZSk

Now I'm not sure we'll get any TIE/X games in the foreseeable future because of SW:AS's apparent failure.

That seems like a classic corporate misunderstanding of the market, though.

Exec 1: "People seem to be clamoring for a 'flight sim', whatever that is, in the Star Wars universe"

Exec 2: "I've also read about these 'free to play' games that make TONS of money"

Exec 3: "But we want it to be someone anyone can play - I saw a study that said Facebook was making billions on browser-based-games, and cross-platform stuff. I've no idea what any of those words mean, but make sure the developer we hire uses them."

So you end up with something that nobody really wants (seriously, the 'hardcore flight sim' crowd and the 'browser based casual gamer' crowd very nearly hate each other, to the extend that distinct gaming communities interact at all)...but that checks off all the boxes that the corporate marketroids have grouped together with no understanding behind their meaning.

Now I'm not sure we'll get any TIE/X games in the foreseeable future because of SW:AS's apparent failure.

That seems like a classic corporate misunderstanding of the market, though.

Exec 1: "People seem to be clamoring for a 'flight sim', whatever that is, in the Star Wars universe"

Exec 2: "I've also read about these 'free to play' games that make TONS of money"

Exec 3: "But we want it to be someone anyone can play - I saw a study that said Facebook was making billions on browser-based-games, and cross-platform stuff. I've no idea what any of those words mean, but make sure the developer we hire uses them."

So you end up with something that nobody really wants (seriously, the 'hardcore flight sim' crowd and the 'browser based casual gamer' crowd very nearly hate each other, to the extend that distinct gaming communities interact at all)...but that checks off all the boxes that the corporate marketroids have grouped together with no understanding behind their meaning.

Basically. Corporate bigwigs hire middleman. Middleman hires middleman. Goes on and on.

I just want a friggin' star wars flying game.

Not surprising since the first thing Disney did was close Lucas Arts which was the sole Star Wars game studio.

Lets face it Disney is not very good when it comes to video games, they are a movie first and the licensed game titles are contracted out to follow the launch.

It is not the first time a highly anticipated got closed down after the public beta. Anyone remember a little game known as Starcraft: Ghost? It is the company's right to pull the plug on any project before they put it up for sale. I am sure they had their reasons for closing those games even when they were so close to completion, just not very good ones.

Now I'm not sure we'll get any TIE/X games in the foreseeable future because of SW:AS's apparent failure.

That seems like a classic corporate misunderstanding of the market, though.

Exec 1: "People seem to be clamoring for a 'flight sim', whatever that is, in the Star Wars universe"

Exec 2: "I've also read about these 'free to play' games that make TONS of money"

Exec 3: "But we want it to be someone anyone can play - I saw a study that said Facebook was making billions on browser-based-games, and cross-platform stuff. I've no idea what any of those words mean, but make sure the developer we hire uses them."

....

Just reminded me of a video I just watched on F2P.

OH MY GOODNESS YES! I WANT THIS GAME SO BADLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was part of the Beta testing of Attack Squadron... and let's just say I'm happy that they did not take the game forward. Yes, there were things that needed to be tweaked as any game in beta status does. But it was going to end up being pay to win with having to pay to buy ships and upgrades.

But beyond that, the system wasn't setup well. You were not flying as one would in space... aka, there was a specific down that your ship kept orientating towards. Furthermore, you couldn't really turn sharply unless you did a "break left/right" turn, but there was such a lag between executing that and doing anything else that if you wanted to turn 135 degrees, it was still faster to slowly turn than to break 90 degrees and turn 45. And going along with the down orientation, there was no bank feature so you could bank and pull up to have a tighter turn. It really wasn't a flight sim game at all.

Imagine Rogue Squadron for the N64, delete the C buttons, change the joystick to analog buttons, and then create pre-scripted moves for you to execute by pressing a button.

I'm still irate about "Star Wars: Attack Squadrons" being shut down. Game had a lot of potential.

So I ask you, fellow Star Wars fans and starfighter enthusiasts, would a petition to get it back up be at -all- feasible? At all? I want this game back- and I know I'm not the only one. It's the first dedicated Star Wars flying game we were to get since 2001. That alone says to me, it deserves and chance, and it offered a fair bit. Hell, I wanted to paint the designs I'd seen from it. Those were cool.

So, how many of you would support a petition, and would you spread the word? I want this game to have another chance. It had something honestly enjoyable to offer.

You're asking two distinct questions there, and I think it's important to outline the differences between the two.

How many people here would get behind a new flight-sim game based on the Star Wars IP? Probably a lot of us--personally I have great memories of playing the X-wing and TIE Fighter games.

Would a petition to get this particular game back up be feasible? Probably not, at least if "feasible" means "likely to produce the desired result". If Disney thought the game would have made money, they wouldn't have pulled the plug, and unfortunately I doubt a petition is going to change their collective mind.