EA: Closing Visceral Games an “Economic Decision” as Players Don’t Like Linear Games As Much Today


#41

IMG_0963


#42

New rule: No one is allowed to say his name.


#43

#44

Pretty well said or he might be like me and don’t care for new game mechanics matter fact the last game I bought that I actually liked was Evolve since then I bought overwatch,f13,BO3, and played fortnite plus there is probably a few others I just deleted and forgot about but truly maybe I’m getting old or something but PVP games don’t do it for me anymore. Games that I enjoy now include since I got my X1 dying light,gta 5, the metro series, gow4, and evolve that’s basically it.


#45

I liked Dying light, felt the xpac didn’t add too much to it though but it was fun, especially with friends. Love the Metro series as well :slight_smile:


#46

I’ve thought really hard about getting elite dangerous. I’m upgrading my PC again here pretty quick figured it’s about time seems how most every game put out lately falls short of my interest. Pc just has more games rather they are old or new. I guess I should also note every game made now is play anywhere so I can just play on my pc no real reason to keep my :potato: box


#47

If you’re interested in Elite Dangerous, @ArPharazon is a big fan of it and can help answer any questions you might have. There is also a rather large topic related to it as well :slight_smile:


#48

For sure, it’s probably my favorite game of all time. Not trying to be hyperbolic, I think it’s a fair statement.

But please, do your research thoroughly before buying. The game is not for everyone. It requires offline research to understand how to play. It does not follow many typical game conventions. Do not accept anyone’s verbal description of the game. If you think it’s a massively multiplayer game, or a sim, or a sandbox, or any other recognizable term, you may well be disappointed.

My short description is: it’s a direct successor to Elite (1984) and Frontier: Elite II, but with many major bugs and deficiencies fixed, and with a massive upgrade to graphics, flight model, and complexity of ship outfitting and other gameplay systems. (But don’t trust me either, watch some videos of people playing.)

Also there’s a 1:1 scale representation of the Milky Way, playable, with reasonable scientific accuracy, including the amount of empty space, and unknown and unpopulated star systems.

There is a great breadth to the game in terms of what you can do, but the tapestry is made of simple elements. You can’t pick just one facet of the game and drill down into it for too long, you’ll get bored.

Any further discussion of it should probably move to the proper topic though, and that’s probably where I should have typed all this :smile:


#49

I’ll go look in the mega thread :+1: for more info and plus I got a good friend who plays it as well I’m sure theres more than enough info to help me decide if it’s a game I’d like kinda sounds like my type of game.


#50

I think it’s pretty obvious the data EA must be looking at is their own single player linear games which of course have been performing poorly financially as they have also been terribly bashed by the critics with good reason. EA linear single player were ass. So are their multiplayers most of the time but at least they cater to a market way below in standard levels.

You can clearly see on steamcharts that single players are doing actually great. I’d say they are lesser risks as a quite big number of SP games get top positions on release date. The thing about SP games is a set playerbase usually buys most of them everytime they get released while MP games are eternally fighting for a limited playerbase which can’t take every title sequentially as MP games tend to take a lot of your time span.

I feel like sandboxes truly are a safer bet for total ass studios like EA, Ubisoft and some other because for the very young playerbase you simply need to build a core gameplay mechanic and fill it with busy work and as they are relatively newer players they are not burnt out from playing endless side missions yet like most of older gamers tired of these tropes. To succeed with older games you must have some sort of creative reasoning for your product, a new idea, a new appeal, something for us to try out. These games have been very successful on steam as of now.
But let’s be honest, that’s not what these big publishers are looking for. They can’t be looking for. They’re not creative entities. They are on a business venture trying to fill a market demand, and they are capable of it: there’s a high demand from then young generation to simply have highly polished visually appealing busywork single player games and progression-base multiplayers. That’s what they can do.
Everytime a niche franchise got too popular by becoming a niche grand success like Mass Effect they try to incorporate to their catalog thinking they can make it even bigger by incorporating all the winning formulas from their mass market good selling titles and totally butcher said franchises due to completely not getting what made those series a nice success impossible to be a mainstream success.
That’s why Andromeda failed and it started failing since some changes from Mass Effect 2, honestly. The only reason the series lasted exactly through the trilogy was due to incredible foundations on the first instalment.

Andromeda was the product of their lack of understanding with absolutely nothing from the previous foundation to sustain it. Busy work. Tropy dialogue with uninteresting characters by people thinking that by simply generating backstory pumped out by writers on demand without any grander scheme to fulfil makes for a busywork game of collecting resources and liberating zones with absolutely no appeal for that universe.

edit: the fact that that game while being utter shite could still make tons of revenue on the multiplayer which was a disasters of - I kid you not - bigger proportions than the single player (it was basically a version with half the content from Mass Effect’s 3rd multiplayer and a build quality expected on an alpha build) means that EAs CEOs will keep being signalled that’s where you should go. There’s a demand for multiplayers with progression bars to fulfill and among younger generations - specially those who get their games from their parents or even those who still didn’t fully developed their own personal taste - marketing wars and flashy graphics are the main drivers and this is the one thing big publishers are competent with their investment capital.


#51

Felt like this video heavily applies as well to this situation


#52

Funny that they mention that they can’t track/measure loyalty and trust when there are places where people vote on just that kind of thing. Surely EA being nominated many times as the worst company over and over is useful data somewhere :stuck_out_tongue:


#53

Well, you can perceive it but this is not a kind of a trackable thing. You can’t rely on awards that will point at the worst offender, besides they point to the company and not the games in particular. Extra Credits has a heavy focus on actually giving thoughtful ideas to developers and the thing about trying to measure subjectivity through multiple comparisons data-sets is quite ingenious


#54

I understand what Extra Credits does and I watched the video. But I’m saying that the ‘soft’ data they are looking for is out there, companies just ‘ignore’ it.


#55

You know… I actually believe they don’t ignore it. If you look at your average young gamer - which is the overwhelming majority of EA’s market - it’s kind of possible to believe all the criticism is coming from people outside of their target audience and clearly the silent majority is happy with their directions.

The reason I say it is because only when the information is blatantly on their faces they do take actions.

A few years ago when EA won the worst company award twice in a row the CEO was replaced and they actually stopped what was a terrible streak of killing franchises. Crysis 2, Deadspace 3, SimCity 4, Command & Conquer 4, Mass Effect 3 and some other titles I must be forgetting were huge disasters around that time that killed of some studios and shut many of those franchises down or put them in suspension

When the CEO was changed they actually worked on making their image better. They instituted a more forgiving refund policy than Steam’s and ended day one DLCs plus single player microtransactions. For the following 2 years or so EA’s image was getting better and although they didn’t release any masterpiece, their titles were being perceived as fair and honest to whoever likes their established franchises.

It wasn’t until Mass Effect Andromeda, Battlefront I and Battlefront II they started receiving so much hate again and now the critics are directed on other aspects. They did learn not to make day one DLCs and all.

I guess the way business man approach video games can only come through solid data and never through understanding of the industry. Looks like they push monetisation to the max possible as you would with other products until you find the equilibrium of how much are consumers valuing your product. But only when they break the equilibrium they realise it went too far.


#56

Possibly, but also I think that out of all the groups that complain, it’s this group. Just because people complain doesn’t mean that they don’t end up buying things they complain about. I see it all the time.

True, changes happen. But I think most of those are coincidental, and not incidental. If not, the person who put loot boxes in BF2 should step down to show how much the company truly ‘understands and respects’ the vocal outcry.

Mass Effect 3 still got lots of negative press and there are still plenty of titles that have been met with disdain over the past while even under a new CEO. However, CEOs RARELY have any direct involvement with the games. They work with their board to ensure quotas are met, and the stockholders are happy. If anything, now is a time for the CEO to step down because of the loss in their stockholders. That is the bottom line.

But yes, I agree that business men rarely understand gamers mentality, they just see how they can increase their revenue.


#57

And there’s nothing wrong with being a business company doing games. We’re ultimately very happy with many products that merely exist due to their profitability but they do so thanks to achieving our attention to the point we pay the max affordable price while still feeling that the money turned into more reward than buy spending it on other things.

Problem on the game industry is none of the big publishers are controlled buy people with no expertise in games. Ever of the big publishers we have now are product of predatory industry climbing acquiring valuable franchises and letting the original team’s vision fired.
And unfortunately by the nature of how to manage a game from up top and how the mainstream audience tends to favour some aspects that more creative people don’t like catering to, I firmly believe the natural trend for the gaming industry is to be like Hollywood: most of the biggest blockbusters are at the VERY best “alright” with some middle ground studios doing films with a compromise between accessibility and thoughtful ideas while only cult small projects having freedom to do whatever the fuck they want