EA Pivots Away from Single Player

I kinda feel they're gonna pivot towards GTA/Online and BOTW/Metroid instead of Destiny/Anthem in design.

It'll be an easier design/cash-grab for them to further expand with less reason to go into the fine details as to why it's there, like Star Wars Heros and just drop in assets that are "cool".

We're it like Destiny they'd have to develop canonical reasons, under Disney, as to why it's in said game and never been seen before.

So why go through all that extra effort if they're gonna lose the exclusive license in a few years?

Hell in a few years gamers may grow bored and move onto games that play like PUBG/Fortnite, which I wouldn't be surprised if they included a battle royal mode upon its release.
 
To be fair, we really don't know anything about the project. Certainly, not enough to get worked up, I would think. Maybe it will turn out fine.... It's within the realm of possibility, anyway.
 
From the co-writer:

zz053nv.png


Damn.

And Amy Hennig, a year ago:

DMdIgCZV4AAdQ7k.jpg
Hate to say this, but industry people should know better than to trust big gaming companies. Most of them are publicly listed, and the main focus is making whatever game makes the most money. And this generation has expanded on digital revenue.

If it means it's another shooter, a microtrans filled sports game etc.... there are very few big companies willing to spend a lot of money to make "something from their heart".

Game companies don't make a lot of products. The big ones make their maybe 5 big games a year and pray they all do well. So every game needs to hit a home run.

I work at a company with like 500+ products. One place had over 1,000. Each product has its place and everyone knows some items are heavy hitters, and some sell poorly, but are still needed in the marketplace.

Gaming companies don't really work that way. The big game companies focus on the small number of heavy hitters and ride the wave of DLC and microtrans.
 
To be fair, we really don't know anything about the project. Certainly, not enough to get worked up, I would think. Maybe it will turn out fine.... It's within the realm of possibility, anyway.

I know, but besides be, who else when they first read the press release and the first thing that came to mind was "they wanna make it like Destiny now and loot crates"
 
I know, but besides be, who else when they first read the press release and the first thing that came to mind was "they wanna make it like Destiny now and loot crates"
I think that too, but also acknowledge I am just letting the current trend and Gas negativity drive my perception. Of course, EA didn't say the game wasn't working (like scalebound)- they said they wanted to change direction. That could mean GaS, but it could also mean going from linear to more open....
 
I think that too, but also acknowledge I am just letting the current trend and Gas negativity drive my perception. Of course, EA didn't say the game wasn't working (like scalebound)- they said they wanted to change direction. That could mean GaS, but it could also mean going from linear to more open....

While you’re right on the point we don’t really know why, when you see EAs catalogue of games and how they work, it’s easy to take the comment about it being cancelled for being a linear single player game as fact.
 
Yeah, it's hard not to come to that conclusion. It was cancelled for financial reasons. It needed more GaaS.
 
It's a game that was canceled cos ea needs to make money off it, and they care less about single player games now.

Games like BOTW and Horizon/Uncharted are games that are more as a showcase of what their system can do. Look at the recent last-gen reboot of thomb raider, a great highly rated game but it didn't make squareenix projected sales expectations/profits. It's sequel, more than likely, wouldn't exsit if MS didn't step in to help fund it.
 
Yeah, it's hard not to come to that conclusion. It was cancelled for financial reasons. It needed more GaaS.

They wouldn't need to make such a drastic move just to add micro-transactions. They could have done that with the game where it was.
 
They wouldn't need to make such a drastic move just to add micro-transactions. They could have done that with the game where it was.

I didn't mean they wanted to just insert a few MTs and call it a day. I meant they wanted a different type of game, built with different priorities. They want a game that will keep them coming back. So maybe that means co-op and multiplayer, maybe it means built-in systems to keep people plugged in (MTs, loot crates, DLC, whatnot). Maybe they wanted less linearity.

Anyhow, you can't just slap those things on to a game that's been designed for 3-4 years as a linear SP game. It's not like just adding a spoiler to your Honda. You have to redesign the car.

Too bad. 10 years ago, a linear, Star Wars SP game written by Amy Hennig would've been a hot property; now it's high risk.
 
Good read here about the EA situation.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-10-23-manveer-heir-bioware-mass-effect-ea-monetisation

In the Visceral Games statement, EA executive vice president Patrick Soderlund said: "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. We are shifting the game to be a broader experience that allows for more variety and player agency..."

"It read like a declaration EA will move away from single-player experiences in favour of open-world or shared open-world games. It's what Manveer Heir said he saw happening firsthand there.

"It's definitely a thing inside of EA," he said, "they are generally pushing for more open-world games. And the reason is you can monetise them better. The words in there that were used are 'have them come back again and again' [not quite but that's the gist - see above]. Why do you care about that at EA? The reason you care about that is because microtransactions: buying card packs in the Mass Effect games, the multiplayer.

"The problem is that we've scaled up our budgets to $100m+ and we haven't actually made a space for good linear single-player games that are under that. But why can't we have both? Why does it have to be one or the other? And the reason is that EA and those big publishers in general only care about the highest return on investment. They don't actually care about what the players want, they care about what the players will pay for.

"I've seen people literally spend $15,000 on Mass Effect multiplayer cards."

What we're seeing is a "cynical" chasing of the games making big money. "You've seen - what is BioWare's new franchise coming out?" he asked.

"Anthem," the host duly answered.

"Right," Heir said. "It's not a traditional-looking BioWare game, right? If that's what you're seeing from a place like BioWare, owned by EA, a place where I worked for seven years; if that's what you're seeing from Visceral now closing and going to this other Vancouver studio; what it means is that the linear single-player triple-A game at EA is dead for the time being."
 
I can't say that seeing a game grow in scope and longevity bothers me all that much, lol. Still, it all depends how they implement the changes. If I get a game that is ten times longer then I'm ok with the addition of GaaS elements. Hopefully the narrative stays compelling.
 
I can't say that seeing a game grow in scope and longevity bothers me all that much, lol. Still, it all depends how they implement the changes. If I get a game that is ten times longer then I'm ok with the addition of GaaS elements. Hopefully the narrative stays compelling.
Same here.

Aside from some old CoD map packs 5 years ago, I've never bought any DLC or microtrans ever. I either skip it, or get lucky it's a free add-on down the road.

As long as it's a good game, and loot crates/mircotrans don't turn the experience into a do-or-die situation, that's fine with me. EA and Activision can keep their season passes, loot crates, and virtual currency head starts.

I get burned out playing Bethesda RPGs, and I move on. I don't see how someone can keep paying money for MMO subscriptions, or endless loot crates, but people are doing it. That's their choice.

I don't see the core material in games really changing. It's the peripheral stuff that is the money making add-ons and modes.
 
Last edited:
Gaas is just value for money.in '97 all i got for grinding was a gold chocobo and some materia i didnt even need.

Big ups to Square Enix for adding multiplayer to Final Fantasy XV for free no less. Moved up on my list to buy.

God bless GaaS for encouraging publishers to release finished games.
 
Last edited:
A few years ago Cliffy B talked about the need to lower game prices to reach more buyers like movies.

MS tried to make things digital to lessen the resale market and get more money to the game makers.

No one listened.

Now gaming is going the way of cell phone games. What was once a vibrant and unique game area(cell phones) is now just pay to win or pay to make the game less of a grind hell hole of purposely annoying game design.

I think the one think that can save single player gamers or niche games like strategy games are things like xbox game pass and PS now. A game like Tomb Raider releases on those services exclusively (like net flicks) and then a year later gets a retail release with the GITY addition if it was successful.
 
A few years ago Cliffy B talked about the need to lower game prices to reach more buyers like movies.

MS tried to make things digital to lessen the resale market and get more money to the game makers.

No one listened.

Now gaming is going the way of cell phone games. What was once a vibrant and unique game area(cell phones) is now just pay to win or pay to make the game less of a grind hell hole of purposely annoying game design.

I think the one think that can save single player gamers or niche games like strategy games are things like xbox game pass and PS now. A game like Tomb Raider releases on those services exclusively (like net flicks) and then a year later gets a retail release with the GITY addition if it was successful.

MS trying to go digital has nothing to do with it, the costs of development keep going up and game prices haven't gone up in over 10 years. Digital isn't free, they still have to pay for bandwidth and servers etc, most people who buy used aren't the type that would buy a brand new game anyway because they can't afford it. Used games are only about $5.00 less for the first few months, as time goes on that changes but the used market really has no impact on new releases when games tend to sell the vast majority of their copies.

Charging less isn't the answer either at least not anytime near launch. What needs to happen is pricing needs to match costs, there is no reason Street Fighter 5 and GTA5 should have been the same price at launch, this blanket pricing is an outdated concept and it needs to change.
 
What needs to happen is pricing needs to match costs, there is no reason Street Fighter 5 and GTA5 should have been the same price at launch, this blanket pricing is an outdated concept and it needs to change.

I don't see why you can't have games with lower budgets. I don't mean games like CoD or Destiny, which obviously trade heavily on their graphics. I mean predominantly SP games. There's no reason those need to all shoot for the stars graphically and have huge open worlds filled with content. That's just not necessary.

But as the author above says, that's not going to happen, at least at EA, because they're interested almost entirely in generating the most profit, and you can't do that unless you force all games into a particular mold.
 
I don't see why you can't have games with lower budgets. I don't mean games like CoD or Destiny, which obviously trade heavily on their graphics. I mean predominantly SP games. There's no reason those need to all shoot for the stars graphically and have huge open worlds filled with content. That's just not necessary.

But as the author above says, that's not going to happen, at least at EA, because they're interested almost entirely in generating the most profit, and you can't do that unless you force all games into a particular mold.

Hard to make that argument when you see the s*** that Re Core got. It's a quality game that got crap because it didn't look amazing. SP, lower budget, less open-world. Consumers are telling developers what they want. It has to start with the consumer.
 
Hard to make that argument when you see the s*** that Re Core got. It's a quality game that got crap because it didn't look amazing. SP, lower budget, less open-world. Consumers are telling developers what they want. It has to start with the consumer.

You're going to write off the idea of a successful lower-budget game based on one game's failure? Come on. And from what I recall, Recore was criticized for being released before it was finished; just because your game has a modest budget doesn't mean you have to issue it in an unfinished state -- this is part of good planning.

It makes simple, common sense -- keep your budget in line, create a good, finished, polished game within those parameters. That way, you don't have to sell a billion copies to turn a profit.

This is not rocket science. It has been done. The problem is that this approach, while it can be profitable, is not as profitable as the other one (open-world, GaaSy). EA, like most megacorps, is only interested in what generates the most profit. They are chasing the money. They aren't going to bother with modestly profitable stuff, when they see there is huge money to be made elsewhere.
 
You're going to write off the idea of a successful lower-budget game based on one game's failure? Come on. And from what I recall, Recore was criticized for being released before it was finished; just because your game has a modest budget doesn't mean you have to issue it in an unfinished state -- this is part of good planning.

It makes simple, common sense -- keep your budget in line, create a good, finished, polished game within those parameters. That way, you don't have to sell a billion copies to turn a profit.

This is not rocket science. It has been done. The problem is that this approach, while it can be profitable, is not as profitable as the other one (open-world, GaaSy). EA, like most megacorps, is only interested in what generates the most profit. They are chasing the money. They aren't going to bother with modestly profitable stuff, when they see there is huge money to be made elsewhere.

It's an example. The game was panned far more for not looking to have a bigger budget and for the apparent late game grinding issues.

Developers are trying to give people what they say they want, and right now that is GaaS. The wallet voting gives them the most meaningful feedback.

If mid-budget games as you describe are selling, then they will make more. I think it will level out somewhat. It may take a while, but there seems to be a pretty high bar for production values that seems to be a acceptable minimum. Certainly games like Gravity Rush exist, but did it sell very well?

There is hope from games like Ori, who's IS getting a sequel.

I do think there may be a bit of an overreaction, as it's not like there isn't a pretty good range of title available. These big budget titles may need the GaaS model, but there are still plenty of games that aren't GaaS. It's a trend, and it looks like that is something people want based on what's selling.

The good news is that when they inevitably overstep, people will shift focus, and they will chase whatever people get into next.

This isn't the first "SP is dead" hysteria I've seen anyway. As long as demand exists, we'll keep getting them.
 
Developers are trying to give people what they say they want, and right now that is GaaS. The wallet voting gives them the most meaningful feedback.

You say "they're trying to give people what they want." I say "They're chasing the money." You see them as being pro-consumer. I see them as being pro-themselves, behaving as typical megacorporations do, driven by decisions made by people far removed from game design, who are focused almost entirely on corporate earnings.

If mid-budget games as you describe are selling, then they will make more.

Not so much at EA, they won't. EA isn't happy with modest profit. They want the most profit possible. I'm not blaming them, just describing them. And because of that, you'll see less focus on modest-budget SP projects. It's just not as enticing to them as the big bucks they can make off open world, mp-loaded Gaasified games.

games like Gravity Rush exist, but did it sell very well?

Gravity Rush would not be a good example. Hellblade and Nier come to mind two examples from this year. Many Japanese developers haven't succumbed to our western need for massive budgets (FFXV aside), so there are other examples there as well.

This isn't the first "SP is dead" hysteria I've seen anyway. As long as demand exists, we'll keep getting them.

Of course. As I've said repeatedly, they will never go away. That's a given.

What we're talking about here is:
1) EA's decision-making;
2) the risks posed to SP gaming by GaaS;
3) some potential solutions.
 
I don't see why you can't have games with lower budgets. I don't mean games like CoD or Destiny, which obviously trade heavily on their graphics. I mean predominantly SP games. There's no reason those need to all shoot for the stars graphically and have huge open worlds filled with content. That's just not necessary.

But as the author above says, that's not going to happen, at least at EA, because they're interested almost entirely in generating the most profit, and you can't do that unless you force all games into a particular mold.

That's kind of what the indie scene is for IMO, I know not all games/studios/budgets are equal but when I buy a console I want the dev to try to push it as hard as they can every time. I'm more than willing to pay the price that comes along with that line of thinking, I agree not all games need to be open world but imagine UC without the beautiful graphics, yeah the story would be fun but it still wouldn't be the same thing.
 
It's an example. The game was panned far more for not looking to have a bigger budget and for the apparent late game grinding issues.

Developers are trying to give people what they say they want, and right now that is GaaS. The wallet voting gives them the most meaningful feedback.

If mid-budget games as you describe are selling, then they will make more. I think it will level out somewhat. It may take a while, but there seems to be a pretty high bar for production values that seems to be a acceptable minimum. Certainly games like Gravity Rush exist, but did it sell very well?

There is hope from games like Ori, who's IS getting a sequel.

I do think there may be a bit of an overreaction, as it's not like there isn't a pretty good range of title available. These big budget titles may need the GaaS model, but there are still plenty of games that aren't GaaS. It's a trend, and it looks like that is something people want based on what's selling.

The good news is that when they inevitably overstep, people will shift focus, and they will chase whatever people get into next.

This isn't the first "SP is dead" hysteria I've seen anyway. As long as demand exists, we'll keep getting them.

Yeah remember everything was going to be focused on online etc when this gen started but that's turned around a bit. Of course the chatter is starting up again but there are still plenty of SP games coming that look awesome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frozpot
That's kind of what the indie scene is for IMO, I know not all games/studios/budgets are equal but when I buy a console I want the dev to try to push it as hard as they can every time. I'm more than willing to pay the price that comes along with that line of thinking, I agree not all games need to be open world but imagine UC without the beautiful graphics, yeah the story would be fun but it still wouldn't be the same thing.

Uncharted is fine, and there is also room for other types of games besides Uncharted. Not everything needs to be cut from the same cloth. Not everyone needs to follow the same pattern. Not every game has to have a bazillion dollar budget and require sales in the multi-millions to break even.

Indie is a place for growth, that is good. Lots of good stuff happening there, definitely.

The second area would be AA. 10-15 years ago, you'd find many AA games. You still can find them today, especially on the Japanese side, but not as many.

Third alternative would be a game like Hellblade -- AAA visuals and production values, but centered in a linear, narrower-scope game. It only required 300K in sales to make a profit. And because of that, they could tell a very unique story.

One problem, creatively, with the "big budgets are great" mentality is that big budgets mean you have to please everyone. So games that have a particular audience (not everyone) just don't get made, only the big crowd-pleaser type games. This is the direction EA and other corps are heading. Yawn. Boring.

p.s. A fourth alternative (speaking of Uncharted) would be Lost Legacy, a modest-budget SP game produced as a spinoff to the main game.
 
Uncharted is fine, and there is also room for other types of games besides Uncharted. Not everything needs to be cut from the same cloth. Not everyone needs to follow the same pattern. Not every game has to have a bazillion dollar budget and require sales in the multi-millions to break even.

Indie is a place for growth, that is good. Lots of good stuff happening there, definitely.

The second area would be AA. 10-15 years ago, you'd find many AA games. You still can find them today, especially on the Japanese side, but not as many.

Third alternative would be a game like Hellblade -- AAA visuals and production values, but centered in a linear, narrower-scope game. It only required 300K in sales to make a profit. And because of that, they could tell a very unique story.

One problem, creatively, with the "big budgets are great" mentality is that big budgets mean you have to please everyone. So games that have a particular audience (not everyone) just don't get made, only the big crowd-pleaser type games. This is the direction EA and other corps are heading. Yawn. Boring.

p.s. A fourth alternative (speaking of Uncharted) would be Lost Legacy, a modest-budget SP game produced as a spinoff to the main game.
I think one issue is that "Indie" seems to occupy that AA budget space. AAA is so far above those budgets. I don't know how Hellblade got away with such a low budget considering the production values. Part of that is probably that they didn't spend the kind of marketing money big games get.

I guess I keep pulling it out of the context of EA, and going more Macro in my perspective. They are one company. I'm not trying to apply any kind of moral angle for the Mega Corp. "money chasing".

You have to keep in mind that the "money" is the market/ demand. People are spending money on what they want (or should be). By "chasing the money", you are chasing the market, and thus trying to provide the thing they think people want. That is how you make money. You don't do it by providing s*** people won't buy. Buy buying products with these features, you teach the corporations that that is what you want them to provide. It HAS to come back to the consumer.
 
Uncharted is fine, and there is also room for other types of games besides Uncharted. Not everything needs to be cut from the same cloth. Not everyone needs to follow the same pattern. Not every game has to have a bazillion dollar budget and require sales in the multi-millions to break even.

Indie is a place for growth, that is good. Lots of good stuff happening there, definitely.

The second area would be AA. 10-15 years ago, you'd find many AA games. You still can find them today, especially on the Japanese side, but not as many.

Third alternative would be a game like Hellblade -- AAA visuals and production values, but centered in a linear, narrower-scope game. It only required 300K in sales to make a profit. And because of that, they could tell a very unique story.

One problem, creatively, with the "big budgets are great" mentality is that big budgets mean you have to please everyone. So games that have a particular audience (not everyone) just don't get made, only the big crowd-pleaser type games. This is the direction EA and other corps are heading. Yawn. Boring.

p.s. A fourth alternative (speaking of Uncharted) would be Lost Legacy, a modest-budget SP game produced as a spinoff to the main game.

Yeah LL was a great way to make more money without the big spending that the main game took, a lot of the tech was already built and I'm sure some of the assets were used from the main game which is totally fine and a smart way to do things. I'm all for expansions, I wish that more games would do it, it still drives me crazy that GTAV didn't get any single player DLC.

Your example of hellblade is a good one, I do think that it still requires a decent amount of funding though because that game took quite a while to make. I have yet to finish it but it's a very interesting game and it looks like a AAA title.

One of my favorite publishers makes mostly open world games, Ubisoft has done a great job of making large games that remain at a pretty nice level of quality. Of course they are usually one of the publishers that keep talking about doing games as a service or making everything online, hopefully they don't push that stuff too hard. Sadly Watch Dogs 2 didn't seem to do all that well and it's a shame because it's one of the best games I've played this gen and it deserved to do better.
 
You say "they're trying to give people what they want."

They are. The only thing gamers hate more than another microtransaction-burdened shooter is anything but another microtransaction-burdened shooter. Well, and vegetables.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andy