Goodbye to Visceral Games

[Mightysword]

Too add to the points about Guild War 2 although it may be a bit off topic. I'm too a veteran, or I should say an early adopter. Played since Beta, and played the game up to right before the heart of thorn (when the blew up LA). I think it's a good example of 'innovative idea' doesn't work as expected, and while people might complain why features kept being rehash ... well because they work. From the top of my head, here are the things that revolutionize GW2 at launch:

1 - Abolishment of the trinity.
2 - Bosses are not bounded and reset to one area.
3 - No time gate content.
4 - Horizontal instead of vertical progression.

Out of those 4, only the first point stand, Anet reverts to the traditional wisdom ... and not only, their method make those points even more draconian then other MMO. For example: on the time gate content. It's common sense why most if not all MMO have this, and yes it annoys most people, but the necessity for it is undeniable. Without it, you create a big gap between the player base. But:

- In other MMO, you can create an alt to get around this limit in someway.
- When GW2 revert on this, they put the lock on the entire account.

Another point is grinding material for stuff like Legendary weapon. The process requires lots of material, and Anet was pretty annal about how much you can get. Anytime the players base discover a good spot or an efficient method to grind out the mats, you can expect it will be hit with a neft bat in weeks, at most after a month. The "excuses" were always 'we do this to combat bots' or 'you shouldn't grind it's something meant for long term, like a year long project' ... kinda hard to take those as genuinely because:

- They could ban the bots instead of neft it for the entire player base.
- The game has an official RMT system, so nothing prevent someone spending real money and buy the Legendary outright with zero afford in game.

Like don't get me wrong, I think it was one of the best Pay once and F2P game I had played, but it started out as a revolutionary and end up being different from nobody. The game already lost its sense of direction and purpose in those early days.

[Morkonan]

Eve players have a thjing for this, it's called Bitter Vet Syndrome Where the issues the game has outweigh however fun it is . And the players then, while still thinking the game is "the best" start writing massive walls of text about how much better it could be and everything the devs are doing wrong

^--- This. It happens in all MMOs/Multiplayer games of any length. Then, those formerly "Bitter Vets" get lonely for their favorite games, log back in and enjoy themselves, anyway. For a time, at least... Sometimes, you just can't capture the same "moment" time after time. Some things are meant to be experienced, remembered, and then one moves on to new experiences.

(Bitter Vet syndrome works with single-player games, too. I have "Bitter Vet" syndrome, somewhat, with the X game series. I'm stodgy and don't want a bunch of strange newfangled stuffs I don't understand in my desired X experience. GET OFF MY X-LAWN! )

PS: The GW franchise looked interesting, but I never tried it. On "guild vs guild" stuff, only a very few games have done that successfully and they didn't last long enough to truly polish such features.

[pjknibbs]

It must also be said that EA is a publicly traded company that is responsible to its shareholders and its in business in order to make a profit.

EA didn't go bust 20-odd years ago when they were a decent games company who would actually take a punt on risky prospects--heck, the original Dead Space was a completely new IP that they financed largely on faith. If they could make a profit back then I'm sure they could do it now, *without* having to participate in the race to the lowest common denominator the entire AAA games industry appears to be involved in.

[Morkonan]

It must also be said that EA is a publicly traded company that is responsible to its shareholders and its in business in order to make a profit.

EA didn't go bust 20-odd years ago when they were a decent games company who would actually take a punt on risky prospects--heck, the original Dead Space was a completely new IP that they financed largely on faith. If they could make a profit back then I'm sure they could do it now, *without* having to participate in the race to the lowest common denominator the entire AAA games industry appears to be involved in.

I agree, entirely.

They have "evolved" into a monster. That's something that's fairly common and one can see it reflected in all sorts of social commentary. The small, hometown, business, with its small-town values and intimate appeal begins to grow, to enter "the big pond" and gain in strength, losing its "values" in a new environment of sharks vs. prey.

At the end of the day, despite the comforting policies, mission statements, outreach programs and charitable works, a "business" must make "business decisions" in order to stay "in business."

But, that doesn't mean that they have to ruthlessly pursue profits with a detached concern for the impact on their customers.

EA's mission statement, to sum: "We are an association of electronic artists who share a common goal. We want to fulfill the potential of personal computing"

But: http://answers.ea.com/t5/EA-Access/What ... -p/4956927

All that looks relatively positive, from a business point of view. How does that translate, practically, though?

"What have you done for me, lately?"

[pjknibbs]

I guess the main issue with the likes of EA is that the big business types took over when they saw the dollar signs. Satoru Iwata, the CEO of Nintendo who sadly passed away in 2015, once said: "On my business card I am a corporate president. In my mind I am a game developer. But in my heart I am a gamer." Can you imagine the likes of Bobby Kotick or Andrew Wilson saying something like that? At least, without being up on a felony charge due to causing people to laugh themselves to death?

[Morkonan]

I guess the main issue with the likes of EA is that the big business types took over when they saw the dollar signs. Satoru Iwata, the CEO of Nintendo who sadly passed away in 2015, once said: "On my business card I am a corporate president. In my mind I am a game developer. But in my heart I am a gamer." Can you imagine the likes of Bobby Kotick or Andrew Wilson saying something like that? At least, without being up on a felony charge due to causing people to laugh themselves to death?

LOL

Yes, it's clear that things change when game devs/publishers leave their "small pond" and move into the "big pond."

Some of that is entirely necessary, to be honest. (At least, in my experience in another market.) The returns can be greater in the "Big Pond" and there's a much higher ceiling to climb towards, but the risks are much greater. A "Big Pond" company, whether they're a small fish or a big fish, can't fix screwups by taking some money out of their petty-cash box...

Across the board, it's not an easy thing to make the shift from a small, eclectic, market to a much larger one. Every facet of the business literally has to be "re-tooled" to meet the increased demands placed upon them, from "production" to accounting and personnel management. Outside factors like finance, investors, even shareholders and "going public" place a huge amount of overhead on what would, in the small pond, be a fairly lightweight, comfortable, more cozy and intimate operation.

It's not hard to imagine management that survived the transition "breaking" or falling apart under such new strain. It's also pretty easy to see how their attitudes and their focus could shift.

It's difficult for some to keep a firm grasp on their own "soul."

BUT, that's no darn excuse for doing distasteful things or for disregarding any semblance of propriety or decency in their relentless pursuit of money... Computer games are a much more personal and intimate thing than designing a new toilet brush or paint coating.

How many authors get reamed by their fans when they "sell out" the rights to their stories to a bad producer? How many fans, who've had such an intimate experience reading their favorite books, get disgusted when the next book in the series doesn't please them? How many fans don't consider the pressure the author may have been under, the deadlines and contractual demands, their personal life or the fact that they might just be burnt out and need a vacation?

In other words, we have responsibilities as either producers or consumers that go a bit further than just the act of production or consuming.

No matter what my responsibility is to be a "fair" judge as a consumer or to refrain from making unjust demands or accusations, I have to say that any company that seeks to exploit an unwitting or ignorant consumer is a company that doesn't deserve to be in business.

Just a note: If you have a gamer, you have someone who can, if one is very unethical, be easily exploited. They are, in effect, willingly placing themselves into an environment that you can completely control. There is no other situation in human existence quite like it. The only thing that could possibly come close is comparing it to a captive in a prison camp where every facet of their experience is tightly controlled.

The degree to which you could exploit this situation is... friggin' astounding. Given enough time with such a consumer, you could destroy them or you could rebuild them and it's your choice of which you wished to do. The power to manipulate them, especially those who are very devoted to their gaming life and use it for socialization, is almost without limits. IF you can keep them playing long enough, which isn't particularly difficult.

I think that one day we will see a company with a moral sense lower than Zynga's end up doing something really, really, really... bad. Then, all of this is going to come to a head and, perhaps, someone, somewhere, is going to finally put down some statutes regarding oversight that go beyond whether or not their is "Blood, Violence, or Sexual Content."

[Jericho]

You really have to wonder why any development studio willingly signs up to have EA publish their games when they can see the ground littered with the corpses of those who came before them--Pandemic, Westwood, Origin, Maxis, and many more.

Bioware... Let's face it, the writing is on the wall.


This is the second 'big' Star Wars title that has been canned in 'recent' years (Although this game might emerge as a multiplayer). It's as if the suits are saying:

"Bob, have you heard of this Star Wars thing? We're spending $millions on a related game."
"Nope. Sounds nerdy. Stop the game and close the studio. Doesn't sound like it will be very popular. How is the DLC for this year's iterations football/basketball/hockey/wrestling/driving games coming?"

[Alee Enn]

This is the second 'big' Star Wars title that has been canned in 'recent' years (Although this game might emerge as a multiplayer). It's as if the suits are saying:

"Bob, have you heard of this Star Wars thing? We're spending $millions on a related game."
"Nope. Sounds nerdy. Stop the game and close the studio. Doesn't sound like it will be very popular. How is the DLC for this year's iterations football/basketball/hockey/wrestling/driving games coming?"

" "Star" ... "Wars"? Too generic, no-one'll buy something that generic, we want Innovation ... How are this months sales for football/basketball/hockey/wrestling/driving games coming?"
"There's an apostrophe in "month's" "
"I know what I'm doing, DAMMIT!"

[Morkonan]

.."There's an apostrophe in "month's" "...

I lol'd. Nice one!

[pjknibbs]

OK, despite all this it seems there are still developers willing to set themselves up as a future EA victim:

http://www.game-debate.com/news/24023/e ... llion-deal

What's even more ironic is that Respawn was originally founded by two guys from Infinity Ward (owned by Activision). Talk about frying pans and fires!

[CBJ]

I'm struggling to see how banking $400m constitutes being a victim. Even if a significant proportion of that is performance-based, I'd imagine the fixed base amount would be more than enough for the company's owners not to be too worried about what the new owners decide to do with it a few years down the line.

[pjknibbs]

I'm struggling to see how banking $400m constitutes being a victim. Even if a significant proportion of that is performance-based, I'd imagine the fixed base amount would be more than enough for the company's owners not to be too worried about what the new owners decide to do with it a few years down the line.

I guess that's true if all you care about is the bottom line and don't care if the company you founded goes down in flames? I was kind of hoping that some of these developers had some integrity and wouldn't sell their souls for a quick buck, but if that's not the case, so be it.

[CBJ]

I'm not casting aspersions, but they say everyone has a price and this would appear to confirm that. I'd also suggest that as long as you do the right thing by your employees as part of the sale, you're effectively selling the IP rather than actually sending your company off to the incinerator.

[mrbadger]

I remember long ago when Netscape supposedly 'lost' the browser wars and collapsed as a company. Everyone talked about that being them failing.

But every developer working for them, and all senior members of staff became millionaires in this so called 'collapse', and the CEO became a Billionaire. It never really matched up with my idea of 'fail'.

Plus of course the company is still around in a different form, and outlived every competitor except Microsoft, although it has outlived Internet Explorer.

Not an exact parallel, and money isn't the only measure of success, but if we're to be honest, in business it's right up there at the top.

[FaustoH]

I remember long ago when Netscape supposedly 'lost' the browser wars and collapsed as a company. Everyone talked about that being them failing.

But every developer working for them, and all senior members of staff became online bingo millionaires in this so called 'collapse', and the CEO became a Billionaire. It never really matched up with my idea of 'fail'.

Plus of course the company is still around in a different form, and outlived every competitor except Microsoft, although it has outlived Internet Explorer.

Not an exact parallel, and money isn't the only measure of success, but if we're to be honest, in business it's right up there at the top.

I like your thinking. It makes a lot of sense. Not everything is black and white, there are many shades of grey. I was bummed out to see this company go though, I loved Dead Space 1 & 2.

[Mightysword]

https://i.imgur.com/ORXigiI.jpg


{Images posted directly to the forums should not be greater than 640x480 or 100kb, oversize image now linked - Terre}

[Morkonan]

E.A. is really pooping the bed on SWBFII EA. They've got the most downvoted posts in Reddit history, their monetization scheme has been revealed to be... Well, the word "draconian" comes to mind. They've been voted the "Worst Company in the United States." And, to top it all off, they've been getting a bit of flack from the most important audience - Their investors, who don't like the reputation they're developing. Lest we forget, Disney has yet to weigh in on this and Star Wars is their IP, now. Disney may not appreciate the overwhelming amount of negative attention the new title is receiving, since it could effect public opinion and sentiment, overall, regarding "Star Wars" as a whole..

All this, however, is probably best discussed in another thread. My failing eyesight and ever-looming senility has prevented me from finding the "old" EA "complaint thread." Start a new one?

I'm struggling to see how banking $400m constitutes being a victim. Even if a significant proportion of that is performance-based, I'd imagine the fixed base amount would be more than enough for the company's owners not to be too worried about what the new owners decide to do with it a few years down the line...

I remember long ago when Netscape supposedly 'lost' the browser wars and collapsed as a company. Everyone talked about that being them failing.

But every developer working for them, and all senior members of staff became millionaires in this so called 'collapse', and the CEO became a Billionaire. It never really matched up with my idea of 'fail'

When we read articles or opinions from a "consumer's point of view", they're going to be different than the point of view of an investor or employee.

I don't have what looks to be an amazing gaming experience in the Star Wars IP, developed by Visceral Games, on my computer. Further, I will never have that experience, certainly not one with the comfortable, much-beloved, since it's associated with fondly-remembered previous titles, Star Wars game with a Visceral Games logo on it.

I don't have "Netscape" on my computer. The years of gleeful support I dedicated to it, the rage against "The Man", embodied in Micro$oft, the youthful "rebellion" I engaged in every time I used Netscape instead of "Internet Destroyer"... I will never have that again.

So, from a consumer's point of view, these are, indeed, "failures." At the least they're "Bad Things", no matter how much money someone made from cashing out or working hard to build up their company to be desirable enough for a magacorp to purchase.

Gamers don't get "Golden Parachutes" and gaming news writers don't gain attention by writing about how much money a developer made when their doors closed if, at the end of the day, their gamer audience will be denied a title they've longed for or one they've come to love.

So, in the end, it's all dependent upon a point of view, isn't it?

[ezra-r]

I still miss Westwood...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfHprWN0SYg