EA Shuts Down Visceral Games (Deadspace, Amy Hennig's Star Wars game)



  • https://kotaku.com/ea-shuts-down-visceral-games-1819623990

    Some highlights from the article;

    “Our Visceral studio has been developing an action-adventure title set in the Star Wars universe,” EA’s Patrick Söderlund said in a blog post. “In its current form, it was shaping up to be a story-based, linear adventure game. Throughout the development process, we have been testing the game concept with players, listening to the feedback about what and how they want to play, and 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.”

    It's not even clear whether Hennig is still with EA.

    EA was not clear about the status of longtime Uncharted director Amy Hennig, who joined Visceral to direct this Star Wars game after she left Naughty Dog in early 2014. In an e-mail, an EA spokesperson said: “We are in discussions with Amy about her next move.”

    Jason Schreier who has a very good track record reporting on game development. Says it wasn’t canned because it was single player.



  • That doesn't really sound like it was shut down because it was single-player. But "an experience that players will want to come back to and enjoy for a long time" certainly smells like a subscription or multiplayer service of some kind. It sounds to me like they're going to use the assets for some sort of multiplayer Star Wars game. Which really sucks, because we could really use more Star Wars adventure games; when's the last time we had one? Unleashed?



  • Well at least they are making it easy for me to continue my EA boycott.



  • Patrick Soderlund is approaching Randy Pitchford levels of deceitful douchebagginess.
    I think this is some Slightly Mad level shit where they made some shady backroom deals and then fucked them over while stealing lead devs.



  • While I have no attachment to visceral games despite how much I loved the original Dead Space this was just BS from the ground up.

    It's almost like EA had already been planning to get rid of visceral for awhile now but had them try to work on this Star Wars game to dig themselves out of the hole.

    What pisses ME off about this is similar to what Jones has said today, we as consumers knew NOTHING about this game, no title, no mention of what type of game this would be, no gameplay was ever shown, no concept of anything mechanical, nothing.

    But they're claiming their internal testing reflects what WE think!? WHAT!? That's like telling "The fans" that we're being heard when the only person they're consulting is Angry Joe or something, like....these people we don't know DON'T SPEAK FOR US!

    The overall language used in that announcement just sounds like they want a multiplayer game, I know the allies are optimistic that this isn't the case, but let's be real here...it's EA, it's almost always the worst thing you can imagine.

    It's not the first studio or franchise to have a huge stain on their reputation due to their corporate shenanigans, and it won't be the last.

    Sucks for all of those working for Visceral as well, while I had no love for Dead Space 2&3 I would've loved to see them redeem that series and make it as good as the original.

    Plus they made the few LOTR Licensed Movie games back in the PS2,GC,XBOX days that didn't suck!



  • I hate that Disney gave exclusive rights to Star Wars games to EA of all companies. There could be so many cool Star Wars games in development if it wasn't for that stupid deal.



  • I've been tempted to post in this thread a few times but I felt that I would be WAY too negative and I feel everyone here, plus what Mr. Jones said on this week's podcast (#82) more than suffices.

    HOWEVER: The one thing I do want to posit is that I hope that Disney, in five or six years time, "pivots" to another publisher for a ten-year deal.

    Looking at the landscape, I actually hope it would be Bethesda, because in the cases of Wolfenstein (Machine Games), Dishonored & Prey (Arkane), and DOOM (for the single player at least...) (id), These franchises are great returns to single player games with excellent level design, compelling narrative for most, and intriguing gameplay concepts. I would also include Fallout and Elder Scrolls, but the one common thing between those two that concern me are so vast open-world games they're filled with glitches.

    But to be honest, I would rather have a buggy game that's fun at the end of the day as opposed to something that requires a special account, always online, and multiplayer only having the options for lootboxes/microtransactions plastered all over the place.

    Ubisoft tries some unique stuff, but I'm not sure what they would do with Star Wars. Still would be better than EA though.



  • @Brannox said in EA Shuts Down Visceral Games (Deadspace, Amy Hennig's Star Wars game):

    I've been tempted to post in this thread a few times but I felt that I would be WAY too negative and I feel everyone here, plus what Mr. Jones said on this week's podcast (#82) more than suffices.

    HOWEVER: The one thing I do want to posit is that I hope that Disney, in five or six years time, "pivots" to another publisher for a ten-year deal.

    Looking at the landscape, I actually hope it would be Bethesda, because in the cases of Wolfenstein (Machine Games), Dishonored & Prey (Arkane), and DOOM (for the single player at least...) (id), These franchises are great returns to single player games with excellent level design, compelling narrative for most, and intriguing gameplay concepts. I would also include Fallout and Elder Scrolls, but the one common thing between those two that concern me are so vast open-world games they're filled with glitches.

    But to be honest, I would rather have a buggy game that's fun at the end of the day as opposed to something that requires a special account, always online, and multiplayer only having the options for lootboxes/microtransactions plastered all over the place.

    Ubisoft tries some unique stuff, but I'm not sure what they would do with Star Wars. Still would be better than EA though.

    Well...They've lent the Star Wars license very briefly to Namco for Soul Calibur, why not make it permanent? Imagine a Cyber Connect 2 Star Wars game



  • I don't want to spoil this week podcast but There's a great Jones rant on this subject.



  • What I don’t get is, why not wait at least until the beginning of next year. With Star Wars Battlefront 2 coming out next month it is simply bad publicity. For a company that spends a lot of money on often ridiculous stupid marketing this move is PR wise quite suicidal. And for the explanation given in Söderlunds blog post, with the controversy on loot boxes there was simply no worse time for this.



  • @Brannox
    Personally I think after the EA deal is done they should keep the Star Wars license "fluid" if Bethesda, CC2, Namco, SE Ect have a solid pitch then let them use the brand.



  • I had zero interest in this game specially when seeing the history of the director, that said this does suck as it seems to be a clear that EA wont make anything else I'll be interested in if they follow this apparent line of thought, and even if they do I'll make sure to think twice becore giving them any money


  • Global Moderator

    I haven't heard the Jones rant but I think people are ignoring the important tweet from Schreier.

    I completely understand people really wanting this game but from everything we saw of it, by that I mean the lack of what we saw between dev diary type E3 video and a really short scene, the project clearly had significant issues. The EA statement is pure PR talk.



  • Disney giving EA an exclusivity deal was the worst possible thing they could have done for Star Wars video games.



  • My community comment from over 12 months ago in response to Ian asking a question that may be more relevant now in light of the studio closing. My statement still stands, I was very excited for this. I'll even add that I'm quite unenthusiastic about anything else about Star Wars.

    Youtube Video – [07:42..]

    Youtube Video

    7:42



  • @DMCMaster I'm equally fine with that as well. I'm really irritated at EA handling franchises so many people love with such disdain if not meeting GTA: V sales expectations. Hyperbole of course, but still valid.



  • @DMCMaster Yes, definitely, that would be much better and we could get many different Star Wars games like we did in the past when Lucas Arts worked with many different developers, EA being in charge of everything is just awful.



  • @Torigasa-Reta
    That we would, maybe EA would have snagged up Battlefront, but along side we could have gotten say a new Jedi Outcast from Arkane, some kind of Rebels action JRPG from CC2, a proper Star Wars fighting game from Namco, ect. I mean I get why Disney signed a exclusive deal so as not to have multiple games canablizing each others sales, but the Mouse could always put thier foot down saying like each game must release 6 months apart from one another or something.



  • My take from this message was that there was little leeway to help mitigate the cost of the development. AAA games are insanely expensive to make and that $60 price tag is just not covering it any more.

    I didn't read the post as the game needed to be multiplayer, but may have wanted to go the sandbox route. There is a ton of reasons that could be a possibility, but we just don't know what the truth really is. With the way that EA runs its business, you can be sure that it relies heavily on metrics and market trends and there could have been things like it not being a real stream friendly game, or like they said, too linear. Who knows. It is a shame that we as consumers get left in the dark about it to contemplate.



  • @Brannox Now that Sony is publishing on other consoles, maybe they should just go Maximum Spider and let them do it all.