EA Shuts Down Visceral Games

[Reverend]

It's easy to say "it'll be OK, the industry will recover and they'll go back to how things were" but in reality, it's not that simple. The last time video games had a crash it was close to a decade before it even *begun* to get back on it's feet and another decade or two to become the powerhouse it is now.
I don't want to wait another 30 years to get back to where we ought to be right now. This is not an optimistic outlook. It's like saying "oh don't worry, the fallout only has a half-life of 3000 years, the planet will be fine!" I mean yeah, great for the planet, but I'm not going to be around to see it.

 

[Timby]

The reason you're seeing the ever-increasing focus on things like microtransactions, DLC, "season passes," subscription models and the like, is because games are more expensive to produce than ever, particularly with the transition to 4K gaming. Honestly, it's stunning that the $60 price point, which as I recall has been around since 2005, hasn't risen.

And, really, EA is far less despicable now than it was in, say, the late '90s, when it gobbled up and shuttered Bullfrog, Westwood, ORIGIN, Mythic, Maxis and others, and I think either John Carmack or Gabe Newell said a while ago that the company re-discovered its soul like a decade ago.

Also, let's be honest, Visceral hadn't done anything worth a shit since Dead Space 2 (Battlefield Hardline lollllllllllllllllll), and that was, what, 2010? 2011?

 

[Jax]

it's stunning that the $60 price point, which as I recall has been around since 2005, hasn't risen

That price is from the 90's isn't it?

but here's a nice video on that topic.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Timby]

That price is from the 90's isn't it?

In the United States, $30 - 45 was the standard price point going back to the days of the NES, though that occasionally varied if the games needed specific ROM chips that were difficult to source (off the top of my head, Castlevania III and Super Mario Bros. 3 both used the MMC3 chip, which tacked on like $15 to the MSRP). Super Nintendo games and Genesis games had $50 as their standard price, but they would occasionally skyrocket if, again, the cartridges needed extra capacity or whatever: Final Fantasy III was $80 at launch, and I believe Strider was $70 when it was released on the Genesis. Phantasy Star IV released at $100 and didn't vary from that number for like a year and a half.

When the first PlayStation hit, it re-established $50 as the base price point for new games, primarily because it standardized the CD-ROM as the medium of choice for that generation. The Nintendo 64 generally hewed to that, though occasionally there would be outliers, like Banjo-Kazooie, which dropped at $70.

When the Xbox 360 was released in 2005, the standard MSRP ticked up to $59.99, and it's been there ever since. If you adjust for inflation, we're paying significantly less for games now than we have at any other time in the modern video game era outside of the PS1 generation.

 

[Owain Taggart]

In the 90's, in Canada, games would go for around $60. I once bought something for $70, which at the time I thought was pretty ridiculous. Now, the prices reach an easy $80, sometimes $90.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

It's easy to say "it'll be OK, the industry will recover and they'll go back to how things were" but in reality, it's not that simple. The last time video games had a crash it was close to a decade before it even *begun* to get back on it's feet and another decade or two to become the powerhouse it is now.
I don't want to wait another 30 years to get back to where we ought to be right now. This is not an optimistic outlook. It's like saying "oh don't worry, the fallout only has a half-life of 3000 years, the planet will be fine!" I mean yeah, great for the planet, but I'm not going to be around to see it.

The video game industry is nothing like it was in the early '80s. A crash today would look very little like that one. Probably worth keeping in mind that video games, today, are a bigger industry money-wise than Hollywood. So we wouldn't be looking at some kind of catastrophe in which there are almost no new games on any platform for a decade. Rather, it would look more like consumers being a lot more careful with their limited funds. This would have two major effects. One is downward price pressure--cheaper games start looking a lot more attractive, and more expensive games stop selling as well. Another is the weakening of the various ancillary revenue streams discussed here--microtransactions, lootboxes, DLC, etc. Companies that need those to survive will struggle and/or go out of business.

Another huge difference between now and the early '80s is that the barriers to entry are lower than ever. It's also possible to get positive buzz without paying one cent for marketing.

All of this means that the companies which depend the most on high initial prices and secondary revenue streams are going to be the most vulnerable in a crash. (I do think a company like EA would weather it, though.)

In the United States, $30 - 45 was the standard price point going back to the days of the NES, though that occasionally varied if the games needed specific ROM chips that were difficult to source (off the top of my head, Castlevania III and Super Mario Bros. 3 both used the MMC3 chip, which tacked on like $15 to the MSRP). Super Nintendo games and Genesis games had $50 as their standard price, but they would occasionally skyrocket if, again, the cartridges needed extra capacity or whatever: Final Fantasy III was $80 at launch, and I believe Strider was $70 when it was released on the Genesis. Phantasy Star IV released at $100 and didn't vary from that number for like a year and a half.

When the first PlayStation hit, it re-established $50 as the base price point for new games, primarily because it standardized the CD-ROM as the medium of choice for that generation. The Nintendo 64 generally hewed to that, though occasionally there would be outliers, like Banjo-Kazooie, which dropped at $70.

When the Xbox 360 was released in 2005, the standard MSRP ticked up to $59.99, and it's been there ever since. If you adjust for inflation, we're paying significantly less for games now than we have at any other time in the modern video game era outside of the PS1 generation.

Yeah, I don't think video game prices are out of control, especially if you take the vast middle tier of indie games into account. I find the various add-on costs annoying but they are what they are, and I can simply choose not to pay. I always check into what ancillary revenue models a game is using before I buy it.

 

[Timby]

All of this means that the companies which depend the most on high initial prices and secondary revenue streams are going to be the most vulnerable in a crash. (I do think a company like EA would weather it, though.)

Yeah, EA's diversified more than enough to be able to weather even a significant market correction. A company that absolutely can't get its budgets under control, though, like a Square Enix or Ubisoft, would potentially be in trouble.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Yeah, EA's diversified more than enough to be able to weather even a significant market correction. A company that absolutely can't get its budgets under control, though, like a Square Enix or Ubisoft, would potentially be in trouble.

Would be a shame to lose Square Enix, though all I'd really care about is where the Final Fantasy franchise lands. I am sure someone would snap that up in a heartbeat.

 

[Rincewiend]

The reason you're seeing the ever-increasing focus on things like microtransactions, DLC, "season passes," subscription models and the like, is because games are more expensive to produce than ever, particularly with the transition to 4K gaming. Honestly, it's stunning that the $60 price point, which as I recall has been around since 2005, hasn't risen.

And, really, EA is far less despicable now than it was in, say, the late '90s, when it gobbled up and shuttered Bullfrog, Westwood, ORIGIN, Mythic, Maxis and others, and I think either John Carmack or Gabe Newell said a while ago that the company re-discovered its soul like a decade ago.

Also, let's be honest, Visceral hadn't done anything worth a shit since Dead Space 2 (Battlefield Hardline lollllllllllllllllll), and that was, what, 2010? 2011?

The RRP for PS4 and XB1 games is actually $/€70, it's just that most retailers realize most consumers won't pay that price so they sell the physical editions for the "standard" price of $€60...
Most digital versions of those games are $/€70 on the PS and XB1 stores though, so if you want to save money, buy physical!

 

[AlphaMan]

When you look at EA's statement, it seems like they want to make Destiny: Star Wars Edition... I don't have a problem with that, but it's a shame that it came at the expense of Amy Henning's (The creator of Uncharted) Star Wars project.

I believe that it was 2013 when Disney awarded EA the exclusive license for 10 years. They immediately put Dice & Visceral to work of projects and later added a project to Respawn. With the cancellation of the Visceral project that was due in 2019, that gives EA very little time to get this proposed shared world shooter out and prove it's a success before it's time to begin negotiations on continuing their exclusivity with Disney. My understanding is that while Battlefront, the only game EA managed to get out thus far using that license was not as successful as hoped and I attribute that directly to the lack of single player.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Another huge difference between now and the early '80s is that the barriers to entry are lower than ever. It's also possible to get positive buzz without paying one cent for marketing.

You make some excellent points. Given that there are so many choices now, I don't particularly think the market will crash, and even if it did, it would bounce right back. But I think what's more possible is an industry shift. These have happened before, and they will happen again. Right now, they're all chasing the MMO trend and the competitive multiplayer, and when people get tired of those, they'll shift to the next big thing, and they will have to change in order to survive. I feel the industry is a pretty resilient one right now. It can take bad games without so much as a scratch, which wasn't the case in the 80's.

 

[John Clark]

The RRP for PS4 and XB1 games is actually $/€70, it's just that most retailers realize most consumers won't pay that price so they sell the physical editions for the "standard" price of $€60...
Most digital versions of those games are $/€70 on the PS and XB1 stores though, so if you want to save money, buy physical!

That reminds me of a game I bought. It was only available by download (though you could buy empty physical boxes that had the download code in) and it was cheaper to buy the box for the code rather than just directly from EA. Either way, it was a full download job.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

When you look at EA's statement, it seems like they want to make Destiny: Star Wars Edition... I don't have a problem with that, but it's a shame that it came at the expense of Amy Henning's (The creator of Uncharted) Star Wars project.

I believe that it was 2013 when Disney awarded EA the exclusive license for 10 years. They immediately put Dice & Visceral to work of projects and later added a project to Respawn. With the cancellation of the Visceral project that was due in 2019, that gives EA very little time to get this proposed shared world shooter out and prove it's a success before it's time to begin negotiations on continuing their exclusivity with Disney. My understanding is that while Battlefront, the only game EA managed to get out thus far using that license was not as successful as hoped and I attribute that directly to the lack of single player.

Battlefront clocked about 15 million units, which is about as many as Battlefield 1 sold. Those games go after essentially the same audience (MP-focused shooter players) so having roughly equal sales figures sounds about right.

Googling around, it looks like GameStop accused Battlefront of "underperforming" but it apparently sold in line with EA's initial estimates (in fact, it exceeded them).

All that really happened was a lot of people complained about the lack of single-player (myself included), but that didn't stop the game from hitting it sales targets.

 

[Timby]

The RRP for PS4 and XB1 games is actually $/€70

Not in the United States, it isn't.

 

[Rincewiend]

Yeah, it was mentioned in the EZA podcast...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies