Electronic Arts Chief Financial Officer Blake Jorgensen explained in more detail the reasons behind the closure of Visceral Games.
Who I'm I gonna believe EA or you? You are just some random dude on the internet, EA has professional people that study the market, they know players love $2000 pay to win micro-transactions. (sarcasm)
Just shows how out of touch EA is. Close already
These ea guys are delusional
You're all getting old, they indeed see the numbers and have already groomed the next generation. It's too late! Well still enjoy our open world RPG games at least.
EA are correct, they just left out one word, gamers don't like MEDIOCRE linear games. The bar has been raised, either step up or move out.
People spending more money on MP games isn't the same as players not liking SP games as much nowadays. Nor does it mean that their metrics take into account if they dislike bad SP games, or Sp games in general. For the most part, everyone likes SP games, while some also like MP games. Some like MP more, but I don't know a single MP only gamer.....whereas I know quite a few who never touch MP. I seriously couldn't think that EA could screw up their reputation more since that first reddit post a week ago. But it's like every day they just make it worse by saying stupid things like they are here. Whats funny, is that EA's stock value just went down....so apparently, the notion that people don't like all the way these companies can make more money doesn't seem to stop them from actually doing it....yet SP games...which can be profitable, and even keep this stupid MT stuff, goes to the chopping block.
"...as Players Don’t Like Linear Games As Much Today" as Uncharted 4 went out to sell over 10 mil copies, Horizon ZD well over 3 mil by now, Zelda and Mario like 5 mil each... seriously...WTH is this EA guy talking about?
EA is about making money, how much does Candy Crush and League of Legends make per year? Forums are mainly made up of the hardcore so of course they don't agree. Games as a service is where the money is, not linear titles people finish in 10-20 hours and trade them in. How does a publisher maximize profits as much? They don't even see revenue when they game is resold. So it's become about keeping gamers engaged as long as possible.
EA is full of shameless shit. They have the man power, the technical knowhow, the resources and all the money in the world to cater to both communities (SP and MP) at the same time and still make a shit load of cash for their efforts. Long story short, they could easily make a great SP campaign and a great MP mode for all their games and cover both bases. But yeah they think we are stupid basement dwellers and will swallow all their bullshit, while they lean on MP games and their build in MT exploitative nature so they can minimize dev cost while maximising profit. Well F*** YOU EA.
EA or Gamer? Hmmmm... I'll choose the gamer in this occasion thanks. EA are bullshit.
Yes EA, because your so good at telling what us gamers want. /s
@ULTp0ltergeist Yeah, those disappointing Star Wars Battlefront II numbers. Sony are the ones grooming the next generation and will show us the way. Its starts when they say so. But EA is right about one thing, I never buy crappy linear EA games. @freshslicepizza All you did was name 2 games that have made money in that area. Meanwhile we have flops like Lawbreakers, Battleborn and Evolve that fight against your case, even Marvel Heroes is a great example of the latest online focused failure. The difference here is EA want to make MORE money and as much money as fast as possible. You think that no profit is made on a great single player focused game that sells 7 million units???
Lol. The sad thing is this is probably exactly why they did this.
i would believe any guy on the internet before i ever believe EA. how many times have they been voted the worst consumer company in the world... hint way too many times!
@ULTp0ltergeist your too young to understand how the numbers can be played with to make what ever seem the way you want it to!
I have a couple questions for you guys that are so convinced you know better than EA. Where do you think they came up with this conclusion? Do you think they are doing surveys asking gamers what they want? Reading forums and comments sections? Or do you think it is based on sales? What do you think might make sales of linear single player games be lower than other kinds of games? Maybe Rentals? Maybe people trading in used games? What if everyone bought their games new and rentals weren't an option? Do you think EA would have still come to this same conclusion? Just food for thought.
Damn right it is They closed them because they wanted to make another "Battlefront II" with Lootboxes and MTs but realized that game couldn't work with those features. So they closed them down so they could buy Respawn who would make another online, money grabbing shallow game. However with the uproar and it hurting them sale/money wise their little plan has gone to shit...they basically closed Visceral for no reason at all...they know now if they try anything with Respawns game it's going to be called worse then shit, hell Anthem is the next one coming up so anything they try and do...we'll know about it.
There was some inside leaks a while back stating that anthem will take mt to another level
And the funniest thing is they have nobody to blame but themselves ^_^
EA literally shat in their own money bed.
Respawn was really good about free content and only offering cosmetics for real money, no p2w or loot boxes. I hope to god that doesnt change lol
my exact words lol. BS indeed.
Thats an official statement, reality is its all business, sure they make money with single player games- but they deem it that they would make more money if they reallocate resources to multiplayer games with microtransactions would ultimately make them more money. Its that simple and its true unfortunately
So in other words, its not illegal to be a greedy c*** so they are going to a greedy c***. Thank goodness no other dev makes this a top priority like EA does. And now they are ultimately making less money on their newest game than they ever though possible due to bombing sales and forced removal of micro transactions by Disney. Hope it worked out well for them.
I take a new dead space over battle field or starwars any day
Exactly. I don't disagree with their decision to close the studio down if the studio was not making them money, but it has nothing to do with linear games not being successful it's simply has to do with the visceral having a streak of releasing some bad games. I would argue a development team is going to behave this way when they spend a lot of time developing content they may not like. I personally think Electronic Arts should have lowered the budget for Dead Space and lowered the threshold of how much money they really thought they were going to make off of it and just allow the team to create the content they wanted to. Dead Space 1 and 2 work-rate games Dead Space 3 failed because of EA's bizarre assumption that it was going to move Call of Duty numbers despite no history of horror games really moving that. There's nothing wrong with the sales of the Dead Space series I would argue there's only something wrong about a publisher that was assuming they were supposed to move 20 million units or something. I would say the last great game they made was Dead Space 2.
@snookies couldn't agree more. It's complete bs
But i like linear games., EA
These companies see how much they make from people buying the SAME fucking game every year. Madden NBA2K Assassins Creed Battlefield C.o.D They see the non structured gamer and get the gullible sales, which easily keeps their business afloat. Map packs, Micro Transactions, Loot Crates, have infested gaming like an STD. These companies think it's cute to put out games severely unfinished on top of each other, adding content like it's fresh. P.S Drop all First Person Shooters, without a strict narrative to digest, and tacked on Multiplayer. Drop all sports games accept Forza & Gran Turusmo.
Those games make publishers millions. It's easier to put out the same crap and market the hell out of it than make something new. We see the same thing every year. Drop hundreds of millions in advertising, promising that it's going to be a different and better experience, and then deliver another steaming pile of dogshit. TV commercials work every time. They know exactly what they're selling and plan this shit out years in advance
Damage control ... apparently they lost 3 billion because of that Battlefront disaster.
good, i wish it was 6
EA games only deserve EA access
In fairness, EA may have statistical information guiding their choice to move away from linear games.... HOWEVER, what they and many other big developers totally FAIL to realize is that we don't have a sour taste for linear games, we have a dislike for uninspiring, samezy, zero risk, cash-ins in genres that are more than capable of delivering incredible gaming experiences. Genre has nothing to do with it.
Plus, gaming has become such a mainstream phenomenon that the majority of those numbers are being primed by the everyday consumer, more so than the dedicated gamers.
Yeah this is complete BS. Am I the only one that is tired of open world games? There's so many of them. I don't want to keep fast traveling and running around. Sometimes I want a linear experience to not worry about 100 side quests to grind. I'm not hating on open world games but come on man change it up!.
I feel the same way. Plus linear games tend to have a more cohesive story backing it.
snookies.. they think we like the model that put forth with battlefront 2
Exactly. Didn't someone working for one of the big 3 say something close to this(just insert single player instead of linear)? Both those terms kind of go hand in hand. Yes, there are exceptions but let's not get picky here. I can't remember his name though...
Pretty Much. EA had a fiasco with Battlefront 2. So other innocents have to pay. Simple.
Horse shit. Look at the GOTY contenders and tell me that gamers don't like linear, single-player games.
What linear goty contenders are there besides maybe cuphead?
Lol what? Horizon, Zelda, Mario to name a few
@jaydiggler... While I don't agree with EA and love single player games, all the games you've pointed out aren't 'linear'. They are open world single player games. There is a distinction between 'linear' and 'single player'
Don't know much about Mario but Horizon and Zelda are both open world games, completely different
@Jay Those aren't anywhere close to being linear....
Horizon is open world, Mario is sandbox, Zelda is open world... do you know what linear means?
KevinB How about UC4 Next year or so will be TLOU God Of War (Most likely) most likely the Sucker punch game.
I don't think your boys understand what linear games are.
Come on guys, uncharted 4 came out 2016.
A better question would be what MP game goty contenders are there beside PUBG (an unfinished game at that) ?
what we considered linear and what ea considered linear aren't the same
I think Linear here is being substituted for single player, and narrative driven. As in it has a linear narrative. In that case Jay would be right. EA is basically just saying they only want online pay-to-win games with a linear narrative not being the focus. Which is frankly horseshit. Even Open World games have an overall linear narrative these days, even if the progression is different. This is not what EA is saying though- they're talking about pay-to-win vs single player.
i think linear also means that it follows a specific defined path no matter how big the world is. Sandbox games may be big but there's always a "main" story you HAVE to follow.
Quite clearly an Xbox gamer.
some say wolfenstein 2 or Evil within 2 could be
You can't be serious. Lmaaaao How many times has Uncharted been named GOTY
Let's not forget at one point The Last of Us had the most GOTY awards ever in gaming history before Witcher 3 surpassed it... A linear game.... Better do sum research
wolfenstein the new collossus, doom
Persona 5 easily.
Okay then, Hellblade Senua's Sacrifice, its definitely nominated for something at the Game Awards but I'm sure it will win overall game of the year from somebody over any EA or Xbox game. And that is the perfect example of a commercially successful and critically praised game that would have ironically been RUINED had somebody like EA been involved with its development.
linear means it plays the same no matter how many times you play it. Games like zelda and horizon may have a start and a finish but you can pretty much go anywhere and do anything between start and finish. those are less linear and more open world. Uncharted would be linear, halo would be linear, gears of war would be linear, god of war would be linear.... horizon and zelda may be single player but they are not linear. not in the sense of other linear games like I mentioned.
For the record, that would mean Dead Space weren't 'linear' either. The missions allowed you to back track to collect resources and there were distinct side-missions.
@plmkoh, could you finish the game without backtracking or did the game require you to backtrack in order to reach the end? there are linear games that require you to backtrack. Many of which are referred to as metroidvania style because of the nature of having to explore and then return to previous areas in order to progress towards the end.
they purposefully ruined games like dead space and mass effect so they can push their communist propoganda!
The players don't decide GOTY awards. I also think that he is speaking from a financial standpoint and for that he is absolutely correct. Outside of Naughty Dog what other linear type games are selling multi-million copies?
Resident evil 7.