Goodbye to Visceral Games

[pjknibbs]

The developer behind Dead Space has, inevitably, been taken out the back by EA and shot in the head:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017- ... eral-games

You really have to wonder why any development studio willingly signs up to have EA publish their games when they can see the ground littered with the corpses of those who came before them--Pandemic, Westwood, Origin, Maxis, and many more.

[Warenwolf]

You really have to wonder why any development studio willingly signs up to have EA publish their games when they can see the ground littered with the corpses of those who came before them--Pandemic, Westwood, Origin, Maxis, and many more.

Well it boils down to the following reason - the moneys...

[Stars_InTheirEyes]

I still miss Westwood...

[Ezarkal]

Thank you, EA, for once again doing what you do best, which is killing some franchises that would have been way better off without you.

Damn I hate this company...

[Morkonan]

Bullfrog....

/sigh

This isn't the first dev that was pumping out a Star Wars game when E.A. nuked them from orbit.

They want to change direction. They don't want the "linear" storyline, but something more.

...we are shifting the game to be a broader experience that allows for more variety and player agency, leaning into the capabilities of our Frostbite engine and reimagining central elements of the game to give players a Star Wars adventure of greater depth and breadth to explore."

Translation: Instanced-multiplayer-pvp-lootbox-subscription-fee-power-up-rectum-smasher-STAR-FRIGGIN-WARS-UP-YOUR-POOPER-FOR-MONIES!!!!11111111ELEVENTYONE-F@$%-DISNEY!!!1

And, you know what? People will eat it. They'll dump a pound of sugar on it, half a gram of meth, three shots of tequila and gamers will gobble it up and spread their whimpering wallets wide. It doesn't matter if it's a good game. It doesn't matter if it's worth playing for awhile. All that matters is "right now." Content? It doesn't need any friggin' content. Slap mutliplayer on it and let the customer create the content while you figure out how to bend them over the table with DLC because they'll get friggin bored real fast when their "content" consists of ten minutes of hearing some ten-year old yell about their escapades with your mother. It'll be so grand, though... Bright colors, 'splosions, friggin Ewok JEDI DAMNIT! Who needs a friggin story, amiright? Then, after your day's play, you'll have done it all, seen it all, and watched some Stormtroopers T-bag each other to death for an hour... Guess there's nothing left but to buy some DLC, right? Congrats, you just paid fifteen bucks for something that should have been in the damn game, anyway - Cong you on your wtf-deathblasting-noob-pwnr, basement dweller. But, they made you reach, didn't they? More money, more money, buy it all up, grab the weak ones and pin 'em to the floor long enough to eek out a whimper or three while whatever IP they thought they might have a chance at dies a slow death... Then give 'em a quick victory-pump out the door with their pink-slip and coffee-mug. Just one more studio that won't be making anything that might suck a few drops off the bottom of the friggin bowl in between your AAAAAAAAA^5 titles...

E.A. It's in the game!

Edit-Add: OK, shook up the intranetz and this is what fell out onto the floor: https://kotaku.com/top-video-game-compa ... 1795663927

"Games as a Service"

https://kotaku.com/ea-shuts-down-viscer ... 1819623990

Yeah, so, it's like this: You buy a game, right? NO @$@$%$ U! U BUYZ NUTHING BUT THE RIGHT TO GIVE US TEH MONEIES!

But, like, I saw this game and it looks cool, so I was gonna buy it an-

"@$%$@%@ U! PAY FIFTEEN DOLLA FOR INSTALL!"

Huh? But, I bought the game, right? And, like I installed it an-

"SERVICE! U BUY SERVICE PAY DOLLA FOR TO PLAY!"

But, I was going to create a character in the game and then-

"CHARACTER EXTRA! U BUY NOW!"

But, then that means I don't get anything for what I paid..

"U GET FREE HAT! FREE HAT, VERY SPECIAL, PRE-ORDER HAT!"

Uh, how do I wear it without a character?

"CHARACTER EXTRA PAY MONIES FOR TO PLAY TEH GAME SERVICE"

But..

"END TALKS! LOGIN WITH TEH FACEBOOK, TWITTER or EA ACCOUNTS FOR MORE TALK PAY MONIES FOR TEH GAMES SERVICE!"

[pjknibbs]

"SERVICE! U BUY SERVICE PAY DOLLA FOR TO PLAY!"

You know, they did that before--it was called coin-op arcades! And the games were made specifically to suit that--they were generally very hard, not because that's what suited the game, but because it meant more of those coins going into the arcade machines. It's only a matter of time before somebody comes up with the idea of a Dark Souls-type game where you have to pay to fight every boss!

[matthewfarmery]

Well EA did found this company, as the name was EA Redwood Shores before the studio changed it's name to Visceral Games.

Then again, another studio getting killed off by EA comes to no surprise. another one bites the dust!!!

[Morkonan]

.... It's only a matter of time before somebody comes up with the idea of a Dark Souls-type game where you have to pay to fight every boss!

YOU... are a very evil man.

Keep all the "cool bosses" behind a pay-wall.

So, I'm trying to figure out something: Ever since "horse-armor" DLC, gamers have been pretty grumpy. Now, publishers are pushing for "Games as a Service" models. We've seen big blowups with DAY 1 DLC, like playing a game without a really cool faction and, low and behold, there it is, waiting for you to cough up a few extra bucks.

MMOs have funded support and development for years, decades even, on monthly dues. Will "regular games" go that route? Will I have to some day pay a few bucks a month just so I can play my single-player game? Effectively, we already do this with some games - "Season Pass" gets stamped out with every release, it seems, and who knows what it is? Could be chicken, could be meat, could be a crappy laser, we don't know. But, we pay, anyway, because... "it might be something cool and we wants it."

The point is - Will certain game genres just die out or change so much they don't resemble what we used to like to play? Will developers who don't get their IP chained up to this "Games as a Service" model not be able to compete?

I think there will always be games outside of this model, but I wonder how development houses, that employ more than just some guy in his basement, are going to have to evolve their IPs.

[pjknibbs]

You're a bit behind the times there, Mork. Virtually all MMOs (with the exception of WoW and possibly Eve Online) have gone free-to-play and microtransaction supported, simply because they couldn't retain gamers while on a monthly fee model. If even they can't manage it, when they have the excuse of having to pay for bandwidth and servers, I seriously doubt any single-player game that tries the same will work.

[Morkonan]

You're a bit behind the times there, Mork. Virtually all MMOs (with the exception of WoW and possibly Eve Online) have gone free-to-play and microtransaction supported, simply because they couldn't retain gamers while on a monthly fee model. If even they can't manage it, when they have the excuse of having to pay for bandwidth and servers, I seriously doubt any single-player game that tries the same will work.

Sure, there are plenty that have gone free-to-play. And, some are even doing really well with that model.

Console games get away with "subscription" mutliplayer every day. (You have to pay, at the very least, a flat monthly fee in order to be able to connect even with friends.)

Back in the day, when I was deep into the "progression raiding" game, people in our "guild" often paid more than the monthly service fee - They bought gold/items through third-party "illegal" sellers. Why? Because they'd have to spend hours farming the materials necessary to actually participate in the raid.... (Friggin WoW potion-fest raiding...)

Now, we're seeing "git gud" DLC coming down the pike with Shadow of War and Star Wars Battlefront EA II.

If they can manage to actually come up with stuff for players to buy every month, players might actually buy it. Need more charges for your Powerup cards? No problem. Don't have enough charges? Enjoy getting pwnd.

I actually don't care that much about what people want to do with their money. If I want to spend $100 a month playing a game I enjoy, so be it. (I wouldn't be taking food out of anyone's mouth in doing so.) But, while the gaming audience is usually "adult", there's still a lot of kids playing games and I wonder just how far certain producers are willing to push things.

[Morkonan]

Came across this last night, didn't post because it wasn't about EA, but it's relevant:

This just got patent approval: Activision Patents Matchmaking That Encourages Players To Buy Microtransactions

Yeah... dirty.

[matthewfarmery]

Came across this last night, didn't post because it wasn't about EA, but it's relevant:

This just got patent approval: Activision Patents Matchmaking That Encourages Players To Buy Microtransactions

Yeah... dirty.

Can't say I approve of that. Just feels really bad.

[felter]

Jim Sterling did a bit about it. (once again language warning, he likes to swear so he does)

[Golden_Gonads]

You really have to wonder why any development studio willingly signs up to have EA publish their games when they can see the ground littered with the corpses of those who came before them--Pandemic, Westwood, Origin, Maxis, and many more.

Just to point out: Visceral Games never existed as a seperate entity, it was created by EA in the first place.

[Antilogic]

You're a bit behind the times there, Mork. Virtually all MMOs (with the exception of WoW and possibly Eve Online) have gone free-to-play and microtransaction supported, simply because they couldn't retain gamers while on a monthly fee model. If even they can't manage it, when they have the excuse of having to pay for bandwidth and servers, I seriously doubt any single-player game that tries the same will work.

GW2 model is great (Also GW2 is great). B2P for content, base game free, microtransactions for a lot of awesome cosmetic stuff (but still most of it ingame available normally) & convenience stuff

[Morkonan]

You really have to wonder why any development studio willingly signs up to have EA publish their games when they can see the ground littered with the corpses of those who came before them--Pandemic, Westwood, Origin, Maxis, and many more.

Just to point out: Visceral Games never existed as a seperate entity, it was created by EA in the first place.

It must also be said that EA is a publicly traded company that is responsible to its shareholders and its in business in order to make a profit.

There, that makes this all better, now.

It's interesting how a gamer's personal experience with a product extends to their attachment or opinion of the creator's of that product.

Coca-Cola, the "have a Coke and a smile", "get the world to sing" and "it's the real thing" people, like to associate nice-nice-mushy-smiley stuff with their product. I can only remember a few moments, usually when I was younger and sweating my butt off, when having a Coke inspired anything of the sort.

But, a gamer's experience is much more visceral, much more intimate, with their "game." That seems to translate directly to inspire a more intimate connection with a commercial product developer.

That's not, necessarily, unusual. But, a patient's association with relief after using a company's product or people cheering their foreign liberator as their tanks roll by in victory... Those things are a bit more understandable.

Bloggers, youtubers, online magazines, entire industries are built around and focus on "gaming", publicizing business activities, discussing designs, railing against "The Man" and the giant megacorps "preying on innocent gamers." It's an industry which is solely focused on manufacturing "an experience." Computer games are calorie-free, ephemeral, non-matter, empty boxes, except for the experience that they promise and money they make.

It's all so very intimate and personal, this "computer game" thing. Fascinating stuff...

Sorry for the post-filled-with-crap. But, when people react so strongly to what is, in essence, "a business decision" or when a company who's purpose is "to make money" does something in order "to make money"... Well, it's necessary to examine reasons why people react so strongly.

I don't get upset when Proctor & Gamble discontinues a bar of soap. The people who adored that particular bar of soap might, but how many could that possibly be and would people who never used that bar of soap, but love the one's they do use, be so sympathetic to the desires of those customers that they join them in protest?

[korio]

You're a bit behind the times there, Mork. Virtually all MMOs (with the exception of WoW and possibly Eve Online) have gone free-to-play and microtransaction supported, simply because they couldn't retain gamers while on a monthly fee model. If even they can't manage it, when they have the excuse of having to pay for bandwidth and servers, I seriously doubt any single-player game that tries the same will work.

GW2 model is great (Also GW2 is great). B2P for content, base game free, microtransactions for a lot of awesome cosmetic stuff (but still most of it ingame available normally) & convenience stuff

GW2 was great at launch, and for around 2 years, they have lost what they wanted to do with the game and now they are just trying to keep it alive.(and i played it for 5 years and have more than 5000 hours spent on it)

I think the real problem is the "middlemans" aka the publishers, they get the big chunk of revenue and force studios to do what they want.

Yes, i know, they also are the "money backup" for the studios, but anyway, in the past studios crafted wonderfull games with a lot of "soul", right now most of them only to games like cookies, for fast profit and no "soul".

A couple days ago i see a clip from a guy playing a game, and ranting about how bad it was and that he could do the same in around 40 minutes or so, and he then started to make the game, and did it in around half the time.

In the past it was something that people really loved to do, right now i think most of the "people" doing games are just doing it for the money, just do some crappy game, add something that makes people want to buy it and wait for the money.

[Antilogic]

You're a bit behind the times there, Mork. Virtually all MMOs (with the exception of WoW and possibly Eve Online) have gone free-to-play and microtransaction supported, simply because they couldn't retain gamers while on a monthly fee model. If even they can't manage it, when they have the excuse of having to pay for bandwidth and servers, I seriously doubt any single-player game that tries the same will work.

GW2 model is great (Also GW2 is great). B2P for content, base game free, microtransactions for a lot of awesome cosmetic stuff (but still most of it ingame available normally) & convenience stuff

GW2 was great at launch, and for around 2 years, they have lost what they wanted to do with the game and now they are just trying to keep it alive.(and i played it for 5 years and have more than 5000 hours spent on it)

If you say so, I think it was OK at launch and is considerably better now. "Trying to keep it alive" is an interesting way to put a pretty well received expansion...

[korio]

You're a bit behind the times there, Mork. Virtually all MMOs (with the exception of WoW and possibly Eve Online) have gone free-to-play and microtransaction supported, simply because they couldn't retain gamers while on a monthly fee model. If even they can't manage it, when they have the excuse of having to pay for bandwidth and servers, I seriously doubt any single-player game that tries the same will work.

GW2 model is great (Also GW2 is great). B2P for content, base game free, microtransactions for a lot of awesome cosmetic stuff (but still most of it ingame available normally) & convenience stuff

GW2 was great at launch, and for around 2 years, they have lost what they wanted to do with the game and now they are just trying to keep it alive.(and i played it for 5 years and have more than 5000 hours spent on it)

If you say so, I think it was OK at launch and is considerably better now. "Trying to keep it alive" is an interesting way to put a pretty well received expansion...

Well recieved doesnt mean its a good expansion, they put in the game the books for the guardian, thats content they removed like 3 years ago, and they are selling it to you as new again.

And this is not the first time, they have been putting off the game some content and adding it to the game again years later as new.

I had a guild, i was a very well known commander on WvW in the spanish server, and 80% of the people that started playing when the game launched will tell you the same, they lost the north with the game.

And dont pick me wrong, i still think the game is the Best MMO available now, and for someone new it would be an amazin experience.... but.... they just dont know how to move forward and evolve the game, what they did with the condition damage in the game is an aberration, the game still doesnt have a proper Guild VS Guild system, housing is something that has been in the air for years, and there are bugs in the game that has been reported from the first year and they did nothing. (like zonal skills not working properly on not plain ground like stairs)

And i could speak of this for ages, so if you are interested in some text with a little bit of rants open a new thread for it and i will be happy to contribute there



The only way to sustain a game without making the players angry is to only sell cosmetic stuff, or time shortener items like more exp for X time and such. The time you start to sell for money anything that can be used in PVP or Pve to get any kind of advantage, even the smallest one, people will start to rant about it.

[Antilogic]

Eve players have a thing for this, it's called Bitter Vet Syndrome Where the issues the game has outweigh however fun it is . And the players then, while still thinking the game is "the best" start writing massive walls of text about how much better it could be and everything the devs are doing wrong