Poll of the Day > EA CFO says people don't like linear games as much these days (Visceral closure)

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/ea-says-people-dont-really-enjoy-linear-games-as-m/1100-6455252/

When Electronic Arts closed down Visceral Games and announced that the studio's in-development Star Wars game was changing directions significantly, some wondered if this had to do with the game's more linear, single-player nature. Given the huge success of multiplayer games like Destiny and PUBG that use the games-as-a-service model, was EA re-tooling Visceral's Star Wars game to respond to this industry trend? EA CEO Andrew Wilson said it wasn't necessarily, but now EA CFO Blake Jorgensen has acknowledged that linear games are fading in popularity in the current market.
"As we kept reviewing the game, it continued to look like a much more linear game [which] people don't like as much today as they did five years ago or 10 years ago," Jorgensen said during the Credit Suisse Technology, Media & Telecom Conference this week. (via DualShockers).

For his part, Wilson said the decision to close Visceral and pivot the studio's Star Wars game wasn't about the game needing to have a live service element. "It wasn't about, 'This was just a single-player game [and it] needed to be a live service.' It was more about, 'How do we get to a point where the overall gameplay experience was right for players,'" he explained earlier this month.

Going back to Jorgensen, he said Visceral was trying to make a Star Wars game that "really pushed gameplay to the next level." He also acknowledged that Visceral was a "sub-scale" studio, staffed by around 80 people which is on the smaller side for a AAA game made by EA. Because of this, EA brought in teams from Vancouver and Montreal to support Visceral on this project.

EA ultimately decided to close Visceral and significantly shift the nature of the Star Wars game because "it was an economic decision at the end of the day." Jorgensen thought about how many copies the game would have to sell and he determined that EA "probably wouldn't be able to" reach that unspecified mark. "You gotta cut the bridge when you realise you can't make a lot of money on something," Jorgensen said, adding that he is a big believer in sunk costs.

Also during the call, Jorgensen mentioned that this wasn't the first time EA decided to significantly change a game. But while EA likes to do this early in the process if it can, the new Star Wars game from Visceral got further out, making the decision that much more difficult for the developers and fans alike to stomach.

Jorgensen added that EA is trying to re-assign developers from Visceral to other projects, but the wording of his comments ("we're trying to keep as many as possible") suggests that there will be some amount of layoffs in the process.

When EA announced the closure of Visceral, EA's Patrick Soderlund said its team at EA Vancouver will lead the future development on the Star Wars game. But during the call this week, Jorgensen made it sound like the game may never come out. He said EA's conversations currently are more focused on if what Visceral made can be pivoted into something new, potentially in a different style; another option, Jorgensen said, is for some parts of the game to be used in other games. Right now, EA is "trying to go through that," Jorgensen said, so it sounds like nothing has been decided on the future of the game as of yet.

---

One part of the decision to change Visceral's Star Wars game came down to what Soderlund described as "fundamental shifts in the marketplace." He added that EA wants to make a game that "players will want to come back to and enjoy for a long time to come." The wording here suggests that EA wanted the game to have more of a live service element to it, and if and when it does come back, we wouldn't be surprised to see that happen.

In the wake of the Visceral/Star Wars game news, Xbox boss Shannon Loftis said she believes single-player-only games aren't dead but they do have questions to face around their economic viability.

---

Isn't any sports game linear? EA Sports... linear
---

*sigh* How the **** does EA stay in business? Are they, like, just a front for some drug smuggling company or something? Cause seriously, how... the hell... do you MAKE a mistake like that? I mean, come on! We've got a LOT of linear games that sell extremely well (just look at Pokemon) and quite a few people outright prefer the more linear stuff due to it being a better platform for things like story. Where is their money coming from?
---

Unbridled9 posted...

*sigh* How the **** does EA stay in business?

Exclusivity deals.
---

Lokarin posted...

Unbridled9 posted...

*sigh* How the **** does EA stay in business?

Exclusivity deals.

I'm going to put money on 'hiding drug money' instead. I mean, jeez, they seem to be constantly ****ing up for years.
---

I've been actively looking for linear games lately.

im sick of these boring ass open world games where every mission or thing to do is the exact same every time, and story is told in fucking Intel or something

give me cutscenes, give me set pieces, fuck, just let me run down a hallway shooting people in the dick
---

Unbridled9 posted...

Lokarin posted...

Unbridled9 posted...

*sigh* How the **** does EA stay in business?

Exclusivity deals.

I'm going to put money on 'hiding drug money' instead. I mean, jeez, they seem to be constantly ****ing up for years.

Their "fuck-ups" are post sale, they just miss out on some of the gravy from the few people who actually stop playing and not partake in microtransactions.
---

Unbridled9 posted...

*sigh* How the **** does EA stay in business?

Ultimate Team is how

That shit makes them like a billion a year, literally
---

Lokarin posted...

Isn't any sports game linear? EA Sports... linear

Yeah, but they only put in work every 5 years or so. Roster updates every year is easy money.

quigonzel posted...

Zangulus posted...

Id be curious as to find out how much of the huddle angry masses that hate EA spend money on their games...

Sadly, I've purchased a few EA games that I never even realized was an EA game to begin with until after the fact. It was just a game I was interested in and didn't bother to look at the publisher.

Same. Dont usually care who publishes a game.
---

Zangulus posted...

Id be curious as to find out how much of the huddle angry masses that hate EA spend money on their games...

The last EA game that I bought was Kingdoms of Amalur, which I got in early 2014 for $6. I haven't necessarily been actively avoiding them, but I don't really want to install Origin and their stuff doesn't end up on Steam anymore, so I guess that's kept me from buying their stuff even without paying attention to publishers.

Even if I were paying attention, though, and they were still releasing on Steam, I doubt I'd be getting too many of their games. I almost never buy non-Nintendo stuff at release (since it's not like Nintendo stuff's going to get cheaper if I wait), and by the time the games get discounted enough, there's enough unsavory information out there about their games that I don't think I'd buy them anyway. *Shrug*

Unbridled9 posted...

We've got a LOT of linear games that sell extremely well (just look at Pokemon)

I wouldn't really call Pokemon linear. Its story is, yes, but a lot of the game's appeal comes from exploring and collecting Pokemon, which is much more in line with open-world gameplay and the kind of ongoing player engagement EA and other big publishers love. It's not linearity that's bad for them, it's players finishing their games and putting them down (since that's when they stop buying microtransactions). So long as there's enough postgame content to keep players playing for a while, it doesn't matter how linear the story is.

Quite simply, Visceral's Star Wars game was canned because it wasn't going to make EA any additional money after the initial sale. They tried turning a linear single-player game into a cash cow with Dead Space 3, and they weren't able to do it without people getting uppity and disliking the game for introducing needless grinding and tedium. EA isn't interested in just having games sell well. They want those games to keep giving them money for years to come. Publishers have been saying that linear single-player experiences have been dead for years now, but that's less commenting on any actual observed trend, and more trying to convince consumers that they don't want something that's less profitable for them.
---