Details on Canceled Visceral Games Star Wars Game Emerge

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.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
-Foxtrot424d ago (Edited 424d ago )

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

Michiel1989423d ago

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.

Darkwatchman423d ago

Sounds like you enjoy bending over for EA

guyman423d ago

"This isn't 2000 anymore, what big publisher is creating mostly single player games right now"

Nintendo, Sony.

thatguyhayat423d ago

Nintendo and Sony? Have you not heard of Horizon zero dawn? What about the new zelda game? Or better yet what about witcher 3?

morganfell423d ago (Edited 423d ago )

"what big publisher is creating mostly single player games right now"

Sony and Nintendo

coolastheycome423d ago

Nintendo creates a lot of single player games still

Rare423d ago

I'm guessing you only play phone games..

Have you ever heard of a developer named Ubisoft? You should check them out.

UCForce423d ago (Edited 423d ago )

Are you seriously defending EA ? "Sigh"

darthv72423d ago

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.

Kryptix423d ago (Edited 423d ago )

"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.

Trez1234423d ago

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.

yellowgerbil423d ago

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

Jayszen423d ago


"...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!

andrewsquall423d ago

@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.

abstractel423d 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.

Cartman55125423d ago

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.

rocketpanda422d ago

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.

Perjoss422d ago

"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?

+ Show (14) more repliesLast reply 422d ago
Lamboomington423d ago

"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.

rainslacker422d ago (Edited 422d ago )

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

AfroGear423d ago (Edited 423d ago )

"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.

rainslacker422d ago

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.

GamingIVfun423d ago

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.

rainslacker422d ago

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 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.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 422d ago
The_Sage423d ago

"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.

423d ago Replies(1)
rainslacker422d ago

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.

Bahamut422d ago

@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.

AnotherProGamer419d ago

It sounds like open world game to me, especially how they talk about player agency which open world games are about

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 419d ago
DillyDilly423d ago

Jade Raymond teamed up with the wrong developer

Nodoze423d ago

When you sleep with the Devil (EA) sooner or later you are going to get f*&ked.

mindtwang423d ago

Certainly starting to seem that way

greywolf39423d ago

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

RegorL423d ago

DICE did release Mirrors Edge Catalyst less then a year after Battlefront...

mark_parch423d ago

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.

OmnislashVer36423d ago

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.

oasdada423d ago

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!

dumahim423d ago

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.

andrewsquall423d ago

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.

thejigisup422d ago

Yeah, even deep down had more gameplay and a sooner release window.

mark_parch422d ago

cyberpunk 2077 hasn't got any gameplay either but i'm confident it will be amazing.