Kotaku reporter Jason Schreier spoke about the canceled Visceral Games Star Wars game today, saying the cancellation was not due to it being single-player.
I'm sorry but I call bullshit, the EA official statement made multiple loose comments on the fact that it was due to it being single player, among other things like the "changed market" which obviously reflects on multiplayer and the MTs/Lootboxes they could add. Not to mention you have to look at EA's history with single player focused games...oh yeah, that's right....there's hardly any. Sounds like damage control. I can see his other tweets saying well "investors don't like hearing the project was a mess" but I'm pretty sure if it was a mess development wise investors would know then and there. I highly doubt investors sinking so much money into something wouldn't keep a close eye on development
Investors actually hardly look at the projects/companies they invest in if they are making money and are once in a while invited to a meeting where they are presented some numbers and some coffee. EA really made some unique single player games in the last years. Dante's Inferno, Dead Space, Mirrors Edge, Dragon Age, Mass Effect. This isn't 2000 anymore, what big publisher is creating mostly single player games right now. NONE (ok Bethesda is). but here we are on N4G people just whining on EA for no reason anymore. I'm not saying EA is the best publisher ever or anything, but they did bring some unique experiences where other publishers didn't dare to. I doubt any other publisher would have even dared to give Mirror's edge a greenlight let alone release it. If you are crying that 'xxxxx' developer/publisher doesnt release single player games only anymore then you are in for a lot of crying. Don't get me wrong my fav games are still (j)rpg's and I would want a lot more single player games but times have changed.
Sounds like you enjoy bending over for EA
"This isn't 2000 anymore, what big publisher is creating mostly single player games right now" Nintendo, Sony.
Nintendo and Sony? Have you not heard of Horizon zero dawn? What about the new zelda game? Or better yet what about witcher 3?
"what big publisher is creating mostly single player games right now" Sony and Nintendo
Nintendo creates a lot of single player games still
I'm guessing you only play phone games.. Have you ever heard of a developer named Ubisoft? You should check them out.
Are you seriously defending EA ? "Sigh"
I miss the EA of the 4th, 5th and 6th gen. Before they got all $$ crazy in online multiplayer (7th gen). They made lots of good SP linear games back then.
"but times have changed." If EA started to lock their games through an authenticator that you could only use by "bending over to them," wouldn't you be the first one to defend it because, "times have changed." Just weird that you would want a lot more single player games, but then go on to say something along the lines of, "eh, whatever, I'm too afraid to take a stand, anyway." Open world and multiplayer focused games don't have to go away, just be better to have a mixture of both. Linear and wide linear single player games tend to be more story rich and/or have more detail due to less time being put in other aspects outside that campaign.
Times have changed ? Meaning we have to accept the so cold death of single player? Basically if i dont like multiplayer games then i will have to quit gaming right? You guys need to stop this. They only bringing these changes because of your money and use all kind of crap excuses to justify their greed. Unless you're blind, you should notice this western publishers trend. Once a company manages to make money out of a feature or type of game, they all wanna implement those in their own games and then they tell us its the way forward etc... Its greed and its also harming gaming because they really isnt alot of creativity. No gamer should support this in my opinion because even companies like sony, Nintendo and Bethesda will also look to capitalise on it. I have seen great single player games bringing non gamers to gaming. Really important part of gaming.
Sony, Nintendo, Bethesda, SquarEnix, Insomniac, Sega, Even Ubisoft makes games that are mostly single player or at least the single player aspect is the focal point. You look at the flops, most of them are online games, games like lawbreakers, like battleborn, games that are built around online play and are shallow experiences that are a dime a dozen. Then you look at Sony, the games may often fall into 3rd person Action/Adventure but look at how each still is a very distinct game, TLOU and UNCHARTED play almost identical (minus crafting/climbing) yet those 2 games couldn't FEEL more different. Then you got online games, all with damn near asthetics, modes and control mechanics that all feel derivative
@Micheil1989 "...what big publisher is creating mostly single player games right now..." By your own admission, Bethesda, but also Sony (many, many games) and Nintendo, (er...their two biggest releases this year focus on single-player - Zelda and Mario Odyssey). What you say has no basis in fact. It isn't times have changed - it is that companies like EA have slowly tried to create a stranglehold on the gaming market by buying out great studios which have games and IPs that celebrate single-player gaming (while also giving us decent multi-player experiences) and then ensuring that these studios make use of those IPs to make games that fit EA's corporate strategy which is to make games that continue to make the gamer pay long after he or she has paid for the actual game itself. DLCs. maps for multiplayer games, costumes and gestures, new tech, etc., etc and now lootboxes. Milk the gamer using IPs that are popular and in demand, Never mind that we are ruining gaming or even the actual IPs in the long-run as gamers slowly wise up, there is always more fish in the sea and new IPs coming up! (Command & Conquer, once one of the biggest IP in the world died a death under EA) No wonder EA paid huge sums for the rights to make Star Wars games. Single-player games are just as popular now as they have ever been - just ask Sony and Nintendo and many second and third party studios (just look at how popular Persona is!). EA and companies like EA try hard to have us believe otherwise. As long as Sony and Nintendo release single-player games and games that cater to BOTH single-player and multiplayer games without diminishing the SP portion (like Activision did to Call of Duty), I and many gamers will ignore the likes os EA and Activision. When Sony and Nintendo stop, I will find another hobby!
@darthv72 Lol, no. That loud whisper Logo that said "EA GAMES, CHALLENGE EVERYTHING" from every EA game in the early noughties still gives me awful bad memories of EA's practices from even 15 years ago.
Publishers that still do single player (successfully): Ubisoft, Square Enix, Sony and all its first party studios, Nintendo and their inhouse studios, Bethesda, shit even Microsoft. Titles that have done well financially and critically in the last couple of years that are SP: Witcher 3, Uncharted 4, Doom, Dark Souls III, Horizon Zero Dawn, Forza 6+Horizon, Resident Evil 7, Zelda, Final Fantasy XV (you could argue that this is a GaaS but I played it for its SP content and I bet most people did seeing as how the MP portion isn't even out yet) + tonnes of indie SP titles that sold extremely well like Cuphead. SP Games still to come out in the next 6 months (or titles that have come out yet that we don't have the numbers for yet) and are likely to make a lot of money: Assassin's Creed, Wolfenstein 2, South Park, Need for Speed Payback, Forza 7, God of War, Far Cry 5, etc. If Visceral's game was cut due to it being SP game, then that was a dumb move. What then of the third person Star Wars game from God of War 3 director at Respawn? Isn't the whole reason why we have a SP campaign in Battlefront 2 because EA got so much backlash for not having it in Battlefront 1? How many people are going to buy Battlefront 2 because of the SP campaign (I am). I bought Shadow of War and have just ignored the loot crates successfully (ugly, but pretty fun game). Why did Capcom feel the pressure to put in a SP campaign into SFV (because Netherrealms showed how many more people would be interested if you put a SP campaign into the game)? I sincerely hope they didn't cut Visceral's game due to them thinking that SP games can't sell. If I see leaked footage in the near future and it looks awesome, it's going to be very annoying.
Considering some of the best games this year include Horizon: Zero Dawn, Persona 5, Nier, Resident Evil 7, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, South Park: The Fractured But Whole, Shadow of War, Super Mario Odyssey, I'd say quite a few developers still make single player games. I challenge you to name as many multiplayer games that are as good. I'll wait.
No, EA let talents studios that made some great single player and story driven games and then fill them with rot before dissolving them. Dead Space, Dragon Age and Mass Effect were all outstanding titles but like always when IPs become popular and sell well EA meddle more and more with those titles to the point it becomes a blatant fan cash grab and nothing like what developers envisioned with poor sales. No, I am not in for a lot of crying. Nintendo has consistedly out of quality single play titles years and year. This year we had Nioh, Zelda, Horizon, Prey, Nier, Uncharted Lost Legacy, Cuphead, Hellblade, Divinity Original Sin 2 and you can probably add Mario Odyssey to the long list of titles that offered great single player experiences.
"This isn't 2000 anymore, what big publisher is creating mostly single player games right now" Do you think GTA VI will sell as well as GTA V if they remove the single player portion?
"I can see his other tweets saying well "investors don't like hearing the project was a mess" but I'm pretty sure if it was a mess development wise investors would know then and there. I highly doubt investors sinking so much money into something wouldn't keep a close eye on development" Investors don't magically know how things are going just because they are investors and want to know what's happening. The game could have been a mess on some level and investors might not know about it. This is 100% possible. You can't assume that's not the case because investors would surely know if something was wrong. They know only as much as they can find out, and that's it, which is why what Jason said is plausible.
Investors tend to work through the producer, and the producer manages the money for the project. Investors would be made aware of the progress based on milestones spelled out during pre-production where investors are sought out. At every milestone, or pre-determined report, the investors would be made aware of how the game was coming along, what roadblocks had come up, what may have changed, what was needed to fix problems, and so on and so forth. Investors don't just hand out money and left in the dark until release. This is under the assumption that there were investors who invested specifically in a games development. Which does happen. But the primary investors in this case would be EA proper, and they would provide resources through the money they have through selling stocks. Individual stock holders wouldn't be made aware of any specific project in the same manner, because such things can be protected information that would have to be made public for them to be informed. Generally, the share holder just wants to know that their money is being well spent, what returns they'll get, and how the company will proceed from one quarter report to the next. I doubt in this case that any single investor shut this project down. Investors wouldn't have that authority outside of some improper handling of funds by the producer. There are protections for the producer to prevent investors from pulling out on a whim, so it'd have to be a pretty egregious action to cause that to happen. At the same time, pulling out during development because it's a SP game would be silly, since they knew this going in. In this case, I feel that EA was probably the primary source of resources for this project through their company assets. Some outside investors are possible, and likely, but that's a different level of investment, and tends to come from a few high money rollers. Since they were both the publisher, and owner of the dev, they would have the authority to cut any perceived losses, and stop funneling money into the project they felt wasn't going anywhere. I doubt any of that was done because it was a SP game. Seems like a lot of money to lose based on this notion that SP isn't that big anymore. EA knows that isn't the case, and there is money to be made in SP games. They produce enough Sp games which make money, and it's Star Wars so unless it completely sucked, they were guaranteed to make money
"closely tracking fundamental shifts in the marketplace. It has become clear that to deliver an experience that players will want to come back to and enjoy for a long time to come, we needed to pivot the design." What really pisses me off is that EA couldn't be more wrong about longevity in games. A quality, rich single player game can be returned to forever. A multiplayer driven game is only good as long as the servers are up. Anyone still own MAG? It's literally just a menu screen now. Might as well be a paperweight along with all of the other and soon to be shut down MP games. EA needs to be honest and say the real reason is that they want more money from kids with an addiction to "time savers". Makes me sad too. We all say "vote with your wallets" yet somehow this crap keeps happening and I can't help but feel we're partly to blame.
I think what they meant to say was, "closely tracking fundamental publishing shifts to manipulate the market, it has become clear that to make more money by doing less work, we have to deliver an experience which caters to a smaller portion of the market, which still spends more money, so we can pull in more revenue than we could off a segment of the market which typically only spends money one time, then we see nothing else from them unless we use business practices which we constantly get criticized for, and we don't want to do that any more for those that spend less money" Sadly, a great SP game has the potential to make more money than a MP game, and a MP focused game has a much bigger chance to fail than a SP game, because if people don't become engaged, it fails miserably.
The vast majority of games made are single player focused (some with multiplayer also), first and third party games on console. Only EA have been working towards multiplayer with microtransaction, service based only type games and it seems Microsoft wants to head in that direction also. I think its a mistake to focus on multiplayer online service based only type games, if they continue this way they will be abandoning a huge part of the gaming community and potentially break the console gaming market specifically for the Xbox console gaming community. I myself prefer consoles that focus on all types of games and have a strong identity with there first party games, like say Nintendo and Sony.
There's nothing wrong with focusing on the MP service type games, but they shouldn't put all their eggs into one basket. A MP game that fails to be successful out of the gate, tends to fail miserably and lose a lot of money because it is extremely hard to get a return on investment. Just look at Final Fantasy XIV. It failed miserably out of the gate. Mostly due to all the problems it had. It took an entire rework of the game to make it successful. It required pulling the big guns to direct the new project. It essentially required a huge marketing campaign bigger than the initial release to actually get people to even look at it. In the end, it has become successful, and good on SE for doing it right. But imagine if they tried to just keep putting band aids on it? It'd slowly die into obscurity, instead of becoming a major player in the big, well known MMO genre. On the other hand, decent to great SP games can fail out of the gate, but go on to return on investment. Word of month can eventually spread, and while they wouldn't make as much money, it's typically only the overblown bugeted games which don't make a return, or the crap ones, or sometimes games which have a less than favorable release date....like ROTTR releasing the same day as FO4 and it's primary marketing partner deciding to focus on that one instead. but over time it still probably returned on what was put in it.
"closely tracking fundamental shifts in the marketplace. It has become clear that to deliver an experience that players will want to come back to and enjoy for a long time to come, we needed to pivot the design." Sounds like they want to shift it to multiplayer to me.
They've been talking like that since last gen. They have been big on pushing this idea of GaaS models, MT, DLC, or restricting used game sales. They always claim market trends, and tend to ignore the criticism that comes along with it. EA isn't stupid, they know there is money in SP games. But the potential to make a significant amount of money in MP games is higher than in SP games. There tends to be less expenditure in making a MP game, so it becomes a balancing act of what will make more money overall. MP can do that, but if that's the biggest focus, then they'd end up relying on a few stand out titles to make more money, instead of diversifying their portfolio so they'd always be on top, instead of living on some fragile ice where a sudden market shift could leave them in a very bad position and greatly reduce the worth of their company.
@ion666 I know you were just being sarcastic, but there are jobs you can find working from the PC, but their payrates are more in-line with what you'd expect. For instance, I work part time assessing ads for a company called Appen Global. It's only 10 bucks an hour, but it's an additional $190 a week on top of my full-time job. Google it if you think it sounds interesting.
It sounds like open world game to me, especially how they talk about player agency which open world games are about
Jade Raymond teamed up with the wrong developer
When you sleep with the Devil (EA) sooner or later you are going to get f*&ked.
Certainly starting to seem that way
They should close instantly dice after releasing a game without sp ( Battlefront 1). Seems like they did not learn anything. Not everyone wants a mp game
DICE did release Mirrors Edge Catalyst less then a year after Battlefront...
Absolutely gutted, this was my most anticipated game behind cyberpunk 2077. I don't like the way the game industry is heading. Games are becoming so expensive to make ( dead space 2 £60million ) that it is becoming to risky unless there is a guaranteed way of recouping the money ( multiplayer, microtransactions, dlc, loot boxes ). I genuinely think big AAA single player games will be very rare from now on which sucks. Obviously there are games which will always do well like Mario and Zelda because they are established and games like the last of us 2 but beyond that i don't think there's going to be a lot.
Well shit, make the game $79 then. But give us a full-length game. And make any DLC absolutely worthwhile. Also, Sony's first party studios can obviously handle it, so I don't see where you're coming from. And I don't see how a cinematic Star Wars game on the best engine we have, by one of the writers of Uncharted isn't going to recoup on losses. It sounds like a once-in-a-gen type game tons of people would scoop up. Lastly, is we all know how much money EA has. This is hardly a risk for them.
Last of us 2 by ur definition is a sure success because ND and Sony took a risk.. before that there was no value behind the name 'the last of us'. Here EA has a gold mine if a license and they still just want to make some more money thru loot boxes and micro transactions. God forbids whatll happen to the square enix Avengers game!
As hard as it is to accept, raising prices for the big games may be a better answer. People were paying these prices back in the NES/SNES days for some of the games. I don't think every game should be $80, but price it accordingly for the development costs. I'm sure plenty of people would be fine with $100 for GTA VI if it can fend off this other crap going on.
Really? There wasn't any real solid gameplay yet, just that same 5 seconds of fake ingame representation since E3 2016. No details on what it was going to be about whatsoever and just another Frostbite game engine title by EA. There are so many current games closer to launch worth getting excited over. Even Kingdom Hearts III falls into the category of being released sooner and having more gameplay available so far than this Star Wars game had and that is saying something.
Yeah, even deep down had more gameplay and a sooner release window.
cyberpunk 2077 hasn't got any gameplay either but i'm confident it will be amazing.
Didn't EA hire a new CEO or some mess a few years ago and there were talks it was going to turn EA around and now it seems we're stuck in the same rut as before?
Well Visceral haven't made a decent games for years and haven't been making profit so it was a matter of time that the plug on life support was plug out. Just like how PlayStation shut down studio that wasn't making money. For example Evolution, Guerilla Cambridge, Zipper Interactive, more. But then again, many of the EA Studio don't have complete creative control over making new game just like Xbox shut down Fable studio for not making profit but even though is fault for forcing them to switch from creating a single player to multiplayer game.
Weirdly, Visceral made battlefield hardline, an amazing, fast paced online multi-player fps. So it hasn't been too long since they produced a quality game.
It was probably better than battlefront so they canned it lol. Was looking forward to this one, typical EA can the best stuff Dead space, Dantes inferno spring to mind.
DAMAGE CONTROL. The first announcement was VERY clear and was the honest truth. Frankly I am surprised they published it. They want to MONETIZE it. They want Multiplayer. That is all. They could care less about story, and even less about single player. Look to what they did to Mass Effect as further evidence. Changed engines 3/4 of the way through development, and transitioned staff to a...wait for it...MULTIPLAYER online game (Anthem) which 100% guarantee will have DLC, MT, AND lootboxes in some form or fashion. Say what you will, but the industry as a whole is due for a reboot/reset. AAA is not what it used to be, and translates now to insert more coin. Sad but the days of playing for fun are being interrupted by the constant shake down from publishers for more money.
This whole situation bums me out. Excited to see what Amy does next, but it must be so frustrating going so many years without finishing a game.
Has it been confirmed yet if Amy or Jade have left the project??? I don't think they actually work at Visceral, they were the overlooking heads of the project,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, before the suits interfered anyway.
They were likely placed into other groups to look after projects like Anthem.
I hope EA realizes that no one who isn’t 12 wants a pay to win “mmo” Star Wars game. We want an epic single player Star Wars game. The fact of the matter is that EA realizes that publishers no longer need to only make 60 bucks a game. They know that they can tack on microtransactions, loot boxes, and multiplayer and keep milking the game for more money. Take a lesson from CD Projekt Red and make great content and people will buy it and then you’ll make money based on quality games instead of milking crappy games with crappy systems.
They wanted to make a plain good old thing we used to call game. And EA wanted just a cash grab
Star Wars 1313 and now this......
EA want Destiny, not Uncharted.
Ain't that the truth. But trust me, pretty soon the market will be saturated with "Destiny" type game with lootbox and MT. Soon people will get tired of those kind of games. Then and only then will there be a shakeup in the gaming industry. As of now, I know which devs to go to for my single player offline experience gaming fix.
Jason Schreier remains an idiot. I don't trust him, and I'll never trust him.
For shame, it might've been a good game
The developers certainly had the pedigree to deliver a great linear game. Dead Space was/is an awesome game and Amy doesn't need introductions.
Is this the game amy hennig was working on? must be horrible having her version of uncharted scrapped and now this.
Fuc# EA its obvious they now want to turn that single player game in another microtran$action scam! I no longer care for it!
Could be true but I will never trust a source that says “kotaku reporter”.
"In its current form, it was shaping up to be a story-based, linear adventure game. Throughout the development process, we have been testing the game concept with players, listening to the feedback about what and how they want to play..." There's the problem right there... listening to players... especially if you get a group of people who mainly play MP, and complain about games not having some kind of online MP. It's this kind of crap that ruined Dead Space, and it's the same crap that resulted in the studio getting shut down. If devs care enough about or are confident enough in their craft, they shouldn't have to rely on public opinion to develop their games.
That is not how player testing is done. They know what each player says they prefer. If you like Star Wars and do not like this game... If you prefer single player but do not like this game... Then they know it won't sell. But testers might like certain aspects - enhance those = new game...
This is why I rarely buy a game with the logo of EA on it. EA will be their own downfall they way they're going.
EA's philosophy will always be bigger profit margins, damn the rest, they're expendable
There is a lack of single player games out here. Especially triple a titles. I was looking forward to this one for the reason that Amy Henning was writing the story. Fudge man. They could have made quite a huge sum of duckets.
She should have known better to join up with them in the first place. I was disappointed when I heard where she went after ND. She could literally go anywhere she wanted. I guess she’s just a Star Wars fan lol. I’m not, that’s why I was disappointed.
You guys need to get a grip on the reality of business, none of these companies would push forward with any of this stuff if the majority of gamers weren't buying it. I know you see a few single player titles out there sell a couple million copies but that pales in comparison to GTA, Fifa, COD etc. Don't blame businesses for trying to capitalize on what the current environment is blame your fellow gamer.
Haha "I feel like I should clarify that despite today's Hot Takes, Visceral's game was not canned b/c it was single-player (from what I've heard)" Well then tell us what it is you heard. Put up, or shut up. It was closed down because it was a single player focused game. Until you give us ACTUAL details, that is what it looks like to us all and CLEARLY the way EA worded the press statement too.
This has genuinely annoyed me, first 1313, now this. Fuck EA.
Face it, it is a Star Wars game, so it was going to sell awesome to begin with, but it is obvious they probably looked at the design and figured they could maximize their profits by adding useless crap that stupid people will purchase but isn't really valuable or worthwhile. I don't blame them for that, I would take money from stupid people too if I could, and EA is obviously willing to do that with this license. It is just sad, that what might have been a great single player game, will probably just be a mass market mess, kind of like the last Star Wars Battlefront game they released. The last truly good Star Wars game was probably Jedi Knight or Jedi Academy. Everything since then has been mediocre at best. EA has a 10 year deal, they will nickle and dime this for all they can. Obviously, they are a business and have stock holders to make happy and thousands of employees to pay, so I get it, but it is sad from a gamers perspective.