EA Shuts down Visceral Games

[Vode]

Visceral was alread dead when Dead Space 3 came out.

 

The talent was clearly there but EA forced it in the wrong direction back then. 

 

So as always, EA kills good things. At least now Visceral was put out of it‘s misery.

[Ithanul]

8 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

EA, won't be getting another dime from me.

 

I am done with Battlefield because of this, and because of where they are obviously going with the microtransactions. Which disappoints me because Battlefield 1 has given me some amazing memories.

 

F**K EA.

EA been on the top of my list to never buy games published by them.  Why?

 

....They mess up Maxis and Sim City.  I will never buy games published by them again.  I don't give a crap even if a game is good later on.

[cj09beira]

3 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

According to slightly Mad Studios EA tried to kill them too, they asked for a third NFS game then after the design phase pulled the plug and withdrew all funds leaving the studio with a game in early development and no cash at all. A few days later EA offered to buy the studio out and assimilate them into the existing NFS team however SMS said no and the guy behind it all went and remortgaged his house.

 

The game EA left them with turned into Project Cars and the rest they say, is history.

i loved the theme park series

@Ithanul #metoo

[IAmAndre]

13 hours ago, wcreek said:

I'm sure Activision is one of them, fortunately it seems like Blizzard isn't going anywhere at least and OW is actually a decent game, and they've kept World of Warcraft in a decent state.

Definitely not. Selling 5-year old games at almost full price isn't exactly the Netflix approach.

[handymanshandle]

Just now, IAmAndre said:

Definitely not. Selling 5-year old games at almost full price isn't exactly the Netflix approach.

 I think you misunderstood what I said. I was comparing Activision to EA. 

[IAmAndre]

1 minute ago, wcreek said:

 I think you misunderstood what I said. I was comparing Activision to EA. 

And to Netflix too, I guess. Actually EA is closer to Netflix than Activision is, if you consider their Origin Access and similar offers.

[Trixanity]

1 hour ago, IAmAndre said:

And to Netflix too, I guess. Actually EA is closer to Netflix than Activision is, if you consider their Origin Access and similar offers.

Well, my mention of Netflix was not particular referencing their business model of streaming content or all-access

I was referencing their willingness to give creative control to the creators. It has proven highly successful. Most games that looked appealing when it was showcased at E3 last year and end up being trash have often been put through the corporate machine which we all know spits out garbage on an assembly line. 

 

If I didn't know any better I'd say the studio might have had some control at the beginning but when corporate notices the hype, it then thinks to itself "we must ensure success so we're taking control of this thing now". It ends up accomplishing the opposite because what people were attracted to was killed off in favor of cookie cutter formulaic trash.

[Doobeedoo]

Really shame and sad. Love the Dead Space series and want continuation of it. 

But yeah lame, killing off good stuff. 

[Nicnac]

They were developing a Star Wars game as well.

The statement they made was kinda weird. Something along the lines of "How people play games has changed... We want people to come back and enjoy the game as much as possible."

 

Do they seriously think everything has to be online nowadays? Is a game outdated because it is singleplayer and has a story?? Is it outdated because it doen's follow a pay-to-win / loot or have-players-grind-away-their-time Model?

 

This makes me kinda sad. Would have liked to see the finished game in its original form. 

 

I am not expecting them to change it for the better, unfortunately with everything coming out of EA these days...

[Humbug]

9 minutes ago, Nicnac said:

They were developing a Star Wars game as well.

The statement they made was kinda weird. Something along the lines of "How people play games has changed... We want people to come back and enjoy the game as much as possible."

 

Do they seriously think everything has to be online nowadays? Is a game outdated because it is singleplayer and has a story?? Is it outdated because it doen's follow a pay-to-win / loot or have-players-grind-away-their-time Model?

 

This makes me kinda sad. Would have liked to see the finished game in its original form.

Very sad indeed.

Personally I love a focused single player adventure where they take you through a linear story. Not everything needs to be a multiplayer open world playground. Also the star wars IP is the perfect setting for telling a single player story, you have loads of lore to draw from.

 

But alas this is the direction that EA wants. That's why they are getting Bioware to shift focus onto stuff like Anthem rather than their previous singleplayer RPGs.

[Nicnac]

2 hours ago, Humbug said:

Very sad indeed.

Personally I love a focused single player adventure where they take you through a linear story. Not everything needs to be a multiplayer open world playground. Also the star wars IP is the perfect setting for telling a single player story, you have loads of lore to draw from.

 

But alas this is the direction that EA wants. That's why they are getting Bioware to shift focus onto stuff like Anthem rather than their previous singleplayer RPGs.

Me too, I love all those games Linus would call "sight-seeing games"  

Too bad people love in game purchases and all that stupid shit.

 

I believe the Star Wars game was set around the Rouge One events which I personally really liked.

[jakinov]

22 hours ago, MyName13 said:

Why?

They were expensive and not that consistent of a studio. Star Wars game didn't turn out how they wanted so they axed the studio. Visceral as a brand didn't mean much. They are widely praised for making Dead Space series but apart from that all their other games were crap. EA wouldn't have never let them make another Dead Space game anyways, the series wasn't making the kind of money they wanted for the amount of money (risk) they put into the studio.

[Trixanity]

28 minutes ago, jakinov said:

They were expensive and not that consistent of a studio. Star Wars game didn't turn out how they wanted so they axed the studio. Visceral as a brand didn't mean much. They are widely praised for making Dead Space series but apart from that all their other games were crap. EA wouldn't have never let them make another Dead Space game anyways, the series wasn't making the kind of money they wanted for the amount of money (risk) they put into the studio.

Yeah that's not true. Looking through their portfolio there are a lot of above average to great titles. Of course you could argue the sales weren't there but the quality was certainly better than many of EA's other studios. They probably just weren't 'team players' or in other words: they didn't follow the company tune of online and micro-transaction-riddled games. 

[suicidalfranco]

i'm in the mood for some bets!

Ready? here goes:

Bioware

1. 1 year left
2. 2 year left
3. 4 year left
4. not dying

[jakinov]

48 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

Yeah that's not true. Looking through their portfolio there are a lot of above average to great titles. Of course you could argue the sales weren't there but the quality was certainly better than many of EA's other studios. They probably just weren't 'team players' or in other words: they didn't follow the company tune of online and micro-transaction-riddled games. 

Better than which studios? The ones that also got shutdown? Or the ones that get better reviews, more sales and have more popular IPs? I'm not going to argue about which game is actually good and what isn't because at the end of the day it's all subjective. But closing down Visceral is a business decision. Publishers aren't going to keep that studios they own going just because some people enjoyed some of their games in the past, if it's not making the money they want right now. Other publishers do it too. 

There's no being "team-players", Visceral is EA. If higher up people told them they need to do that stuff they should have done it otherwise it's just insubordination. It's way more likely that they are expensive, widely inconsistent with the profits EA expect for the amount of money they put in and their game wasn't coming along very well.  You must consider why they didn't just get them to redo the game which is probably because they lost faith on the studio and the financials weren't there.

[mr.squishy]

 

RIP Visceral, I will miss you.

[Sauron]

On 17/10/2017 at 9:41 PM, Vernw3 said:

i highly doubt that means there will never be another dead space game it will most likely be made by whoever decides to pick it up 

if theres money to be made another one will come out one day 

visceral is being shut down because there is no money to be made.

[jakinov]

On 17/10/2017 at 3:41 PM, Vernw3 said:

i highly doubt that means there will never be another dead space game it will most likely be made by whoever decides to pick it up 

if theres money to be made another one will come out one day 

The Dead Space series is already dead. Dead Space 1 and 2 sold well but not good enough for EA. Dead Space 2 sold 4 million copies in its lifetime and they either didn't profit or didn't profit enough. It's important to note that even if a game series is profitable, it doesn't necessarily mean it'll be a great investment to make another one because of the risk involved. You have to pay the salaries of hundred(s) of people for 2-4 years to work on a game that can end up selling like shit or even just slightly worse than the last installment. It's risky and there aren't high prospects for more profits. Dead Space 3 probably wouldn't have gotten made if they didn't tell Visceral to make the action and micro-transaction changes. If game development gets cheaper in the future, or there are changes to the market then maybe they'll be another Dead Space. The Gears of War series also sorta faced this problem which is why Epic didn't want to make any more of them. 

[Trik'Stari]

19 hours ago, Ithanul said:

EA been on the top of my list to never buy games published by them.  Why?

 

....They mess up Maxis and Sim City.  I will never buy games published by them again.  I don't give a crap even if a game is good later on.

What they've done to DICE is deplorable.

 

Bad Company 2 was a masterpiece, and they could do it again. But it wouldn't be profitable enough for EA. Gotta worry bout them focus test groups.

[Misanthrope]

Small aside: I think the AAA gaming industry may be starting to approach critical mass: this holiday season will be plagued with problems on several fronts: from scarce GPUs (some might be coming back but prices won't recover fully once the holiday rush begins at around cyber monday) to an alarming rate of anti-consumer releases from most mayor publishers in preparation for this holiday season: Everybody is pushing microtransactions too damn hard with microtransactions in multiplayer games, in single player games where they're heavily encouraged to even selling user created content as a microtransaction.

 

Is like all major publishers are quickly losing confidence in the AAA market: none of them think a good, solid AAA title can stand on it's own. It's not even a matter of "gotta have multiplayer" now they seemingly won't release a game at all if they don't have an intrusive system to nickle and dime the consumer.

 

I know several people have been saying for years that the AAA gaming industry isn't sustainable and that another crash is inevitable and most of you will think this is another "the sky is falling" rant but I feel like this isn't just me talking, but the publishers themselves that no longer can recoup dev costs and some margin out of just a fucking game.

[shadowbyte]

I just hope Dontnod isn't acquired; it would seriously fuck up LiS 2

[Drak3]

Honestly, not sad to see them go. Their games weren't anything special, outside of Dead Space, but even then, I'd call that franchise a lucky break that wouldn't last.

1 minute ago, Nicholatian said:

Whatever happened to making a business with a lasting reputation?

Too many people in charge want instant gratification. Idiots that do one, maybe two things well but are so short sighted, they can't decide what to have for lunch that day.

[Ithanul]

37 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

What they've done to DICE is deplorable.

 

Bad Company 2 was a masterpiece, and they could do it again. But it wouldn't be profitable enough for EA. Gotta worry bout them focus test groups.

Pretty much what EA done to any game developer is deplorable.

Sim City was the last straw for me because I really enjoyed that game series while growing up.

 

22 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I know several people have been saying for years that the AAA gaming industry isn't sustainable and that another crash is inevitable and most of you will think this is another "the sky is falling" rant but I feel like this isn't just me talking, but the publishers themselves that no longer can recoup dev costs and some margin out of just a fucking game.

I am starting to think the game industry is going that way.  Sooner or later something is going to give.

Only a few publishers/developers I know still put out some solid big games without the crap micro transaction bull.

[Misanthrope]

3 minutes ago, Ithanul said:

Pretty much what EA done to any game developer is deplorable.

Sim City was the last straw for me because I really enjoyed that game series while growing up.

 

I am starting to think the game industry is going that way.  Sooner or later something is going to give.

Only a few publishers/developers I know still put out some solid big games without the crap micro transaction bull.

Indies and free-to-play models can probably remain but yeah AAA games at this rate might become a worst value than just spending 10 bucks on an indie game in terms of value for what you get for your cash.

[Lewellyn]

credits go to twitter