Because that just means 80% of the top 10 are multiplayer.
Those 2 games sold less than a 4 year old game.
In the last 12 months only Breath of the Wild represents in 10th place and that will vanish with new CoD and Battlefront.
The biggest single player shot this year is Assassins Creed...and that normally has multiplayer.
I hope Sony doesn't change their stance on SP content
I'm sure like any other corporation, they're going to move toward implementing more GaaS elements. It's inevitable. But otoh, Sony have made a name/reputation for themselves based specifically on great SP games. To give that up would be to give up the main differentiator they have in the market. So I can't see them moving away from that in any definitive way.
I'm glad Nintendo is having a resurgence. They, too, are a source of great SP games.
I sure hope so, but with all that I'm reading, and seeing... I'm not as confident about high end SP games lasting as you are.
That last quote doesn't sound real.EA being EA:
"At EA, however, things were different. “She was giving these massive presentations on the story, themes,” said one person who worked on Ragtag. “EA executives are like, ‘FIFA Ultimate Team makes a billion dollars a year.’ Where’s your version of that?”
Frostbite has always been buggy. Remember the crazy (and funny) long neck bugs in BF3?Frostbite engine problems again. Same as Andromeda.
Plus, San Francisco's rent, CoL.
Frostbite has always been buggy. Remember the crazy (and funny) long neck bugs in BF3?
Yep, and there are already glitch vids on YouTube, Lol.Didn't they use it in the current FIFA?
The quote may be hyperbolic, but in every meeting room it comes down to business.EA being EA:
"At EA, however, things were different. “She was giving these massive presentations on the story, themes,” said one person who worked on Ragtag. “EA executives are like, ‘FIFA Ultimate Team makes a billion dollars a year.’ Where’s your version of that?”
EA being EA:
"At EA, however, things were different. “She was giving these massive presentations on the story, themes,” said one person who worked on Ragtag. “EA executives are like, ‘FIFA Ultimate Team makes a billion dollars a year.’ Where’s your version of that?”
Confirmation that the cancellation was primarily because it was a linear action-adventure SP game:
The studio was trying to build a game that “really pushed gameplay to the next level,” but Electronic Arts kept reviewing it, it continued to look a “much more linear game, that people don’t like as much today as they did five years ago or ten years ago.”
https://www.dualshockers.com/visceral-games-closed-linear-games/
What he meant to say was
but Electronic Arts kept reviewing it, it continued to look a “much more linear gameand we can't make much money off that as compared to an always online GaaS title.”
But begs the question- if it makes more money, does that not demonstrate more interest? Super linear games are often panned. Even Uncharted opened itself up more and got positive reactions for it.
It would be more interesting if we didn't just resort to "evil greedy corporation" and not ignore that markets still follow demand. If straight up linear games sold more, you can bet we'd see more of them. It's amazing to me that people moan about it online, but don't show up on release.
On another note, it's one thing to say they were pushing the envelope on gameplay. Harder to deliver. People giving them the benefit of the doubt because they are the "victim". Game could have blown goats, or been super generic for all we know.
What he meant to say was
but Electronic Arts kept reviewing it, it continued to look a “much more linear gameand we can't make much money off that as compared to an always online GaaS title.”
Looking forward to what, though? My point is we don't know enough to get too judgemental. Yeah, it's likely they wanted something that would fit a GaaS model, but they also said they wanted something with greater scope. If the game was looking good and coming along with no troubles, I just have a hard time thinking they'd ditch the invested effort. I really don't like the crazy mob mentality that goes on without full details.Doubt it. Might have had problems, but I doubt "super generic" would describe it.
There's profit-oriented, and then there's greedy. EA is greedy. EA knew that there were better ways to make lots more money. That was why they cancelled it. They could make s***loads more money by using the resources to build an open-world/GaaS game.
Don't get me wrong. I don't expect corporations not to be greedy. I'm just annoyed at their greed for killing this game. I was looking forward to it.
Looking forward to what, though? My point is we don't know enough to get too judgemental. Yeah, it's likely they wanted something that would fit a GaaS model, but they also said they wanted something with greater scope. If the game was looking good and coming along with no troubles, I just have a hard time thinking they'd ditch the invested effort. I really don't like the crazy mob mentality that goes on without full details.
It's not about being an apologist. It's about not participating in the knee-jerk moral outrage.Eh, waiting for full details on most stories would result in no discussion. I don't feel premature in judging EA for ditching what could've been a great SP game because they wanted more money via GaaS. Boo, bad EA.
It was probably a combination of the two factors, though. I'm just focusing on one, and you're focused on the other (while being a corporate apologist for EA, but hey, that's ok).
It's not about being an apologist. It's about not participating in the knee-jerk moral outrage.