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

  • @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

  • 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


  • @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.

  • Banned

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

  • starwarsamy

  • That fact she saw this years ago speaks volumes.

  • Banned

    Disney fucks up MvC
    Disney fucks up SW

    You guys ready for Spider-man?

  • @ib0show
    As of this time she's still attached to it, although I can't help but feel like she's about to drop out of the project, which then leads me to wonder what she'll do next, start her own studio, join a smaller on like Ninja Theory, or return to Naughty Dog.

  • @ib0show

    Do you have a link for this? I'm really into this story.

    Fyi, I'm done with EA. Indifinite time out. It'll take a VERY VERY GOOD Fight Night game or something I can't even think of for me to support their hollow shells of software anymore.

  • Banned

    @Art But Sony completely owns the game and movie rights to Spidey.