-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
EA CEO implies Dragon Age Veilguard failed due to not being a live service
- Thread starter Dr. Samuel Hayden
- Start date
Felessan
Member
Yea, sure, it's exactly the reason why Bioware Austin hand over their live-service game to help concentrate efforts on SP DA and ME. To make fail even bigger and prove that gaas is a future.
Doesn't really looks like a reasonable explanation from sane person
SteadyEvo
Member
High educated and qualified but knows nothing about games, only business and making money. My best guess.
These companies don't just need game testers but subject matter experts. Gaming consultants to test games and provide brutally honest feedback.
How EA pumps the same dogshit NFL game each year is beyond me. Or how the DA team thought the story, tone, and lack of meaningful choices along with some forced social issues, would make for a good game. Had the story and tone been more fitting the graphics and combat were there.
NickFire
Member
Anti-consumer exclusive license of a beloved sport is the only reason they get away with it.
spartan30gr
Member
Kronark
Member
Also a reminder to everyone. Andrew Wilson thought the problem with Anthem was player expectations... Not that the game was a barren fucking wasteland and years away from being finished. He also said it would become something special before the team swiftly dropped it into the abyss forever.
www.gamesradar.com
This loser has been coasting off the success of FIFA for 10+ years now.
EA's Andrew Wilson says he still loves his most disappointing child, Anthem
"I feel like that team is really going to get there with something special"
This loser has been coasting off the success of FIFA for 10+ years now.
Last edited:
Lucifers Beard
Member
I'd type here why I think it failed, but I'm not doing his fucking job for him. This guy is a clown and the shareholders should out him asap.
EverydayBeast
ChatGPT 0.1
They always have an excuse why a game fails meanwhile DA Origins remake is a
AyraSutoraifu
Member
I personally thinks this is a great response, keep going!
Keeeeeep digging that grave where we all hope they fall in.
Keeeeeep digging that grave where we all hope they fall in.
TheChumpNation
Member
Is this not the same guy who was saying in October that DAV had a really good opportunity because it was the only single player RPG releasing in that window (or something like that)?
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
Itchy Tickles
Member
I love when idiots still won't accept the painfully obvious truth. Their "fans" blamed "chuds" for the game failing, EA saying the game failed because they couldn't exploit the "fans" that did by it by abusing their bank accounts will typical EA live service horseshit. They are a perfect match and I hope they both burn out real fast.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Cliff Bleszinski is a bottom, confirmed.
MatrixReloaded101
Member
Statements like that is exactly why things are the way they are in gaming at the moment.
Live services games fail more then they succeed so that doesn't make sense.
Live services games fail more then they succeed so that doesn't make sense.
Da1337Vinci
Member
Not exactly wrong I also think there is a gap for such a gaas game in the market. But dragon age IP is not really the right fit for it should have go with a new ip to do it.
Mister Wolf
Member
I wish they had spent more money making it live service so the financial loss could have been even greater.
KungFucius
King Snowflake
I don't know how the shareholders put up with this. Look at all the money lost on high profile GaaS failures this past year. This guy needs to go because he is going to lose them all money.
I mean, I did think that a VC type strategy might work. VCs invest in startups thinking roughly only 1 in 9 will succeed, where success here is offsetting the 8 fails and brining a huge return. Maybe if you invested in 9 GaaS games or whatever number applies here, maybe 1 will be huge and make up for all the failures. But the thing is, with VCs the early investments are smallish so some can be weeded out. How do you weed out failures in GaaS early? Most here thought Concord and Suicide Squad would fail early, but you can't really trust gamers when the target market is something larger. It just seems way too risky. Is there some way to build a shitty GaaS system that can be reskinned and shoveled out in a new form every year or so until something sticks?
My biggest problem with games is that they are too long. I don't want to play a GaaS title trying to keep me playing for a long time. I want a great experience that doesn't wear out its welcome and then I want to move on to something different. I don't even like SaaS for the most part. I use applications when needed and this often doesn't justify a subscription. I use a tool at work that has limited licenses that costs 8k per year. I built all the flows I need and I need the license to be able to update passwords and maybe add one or 2 features a year. 10 or 15 years ago you could buy something like this on a disk and keep using it for years. Games and software don't need to be long term relationships
I mean, I did think that a VC type strategy might work. VCs invest in startups thinking roughly only 1 in 9 will succeed, where success here is offsetting the 8 fails and brining a huge return. Maybe if you invested in 9 GaaS games or whatever number applies here, maybe 1 will be huge and make up for all the failures. But the thing is, with VCs the early investments are smallish so some can be weeded out. How do you weed out failures in GaaS early? Most here thought Concord and Suicide Squad would fail early, but you can't really trust gamers when the target market is something larger. It just seems way too risky. Is there some way to build a shitty GaaS system that can be reskinned and shoveled out in a new form every year or so until something sticks?
My biggest problem with games is that they are too long. I don't want to play a GaaS title trying to keep me playing for a long time. I want a great experience that doesn't wear out its welcome and then I want to move on to something different. I don't even like SaaS for the most part. I use applications when needed and this often doesn't justify a subscription. I use a tool at work that has limited licenses that costs 8k per year. I built all the flows I need and I need the license to be able to update passwords and maybe add one or 2 features a year. 10 or 15 years ago you could buy something like this on a disk and keep using it for years. Games and software don't need to be long term relationships
Ev1L AuRoN
Member
EA apparently didn't learn any valuable lesson from this fiasco. Which is astonishing to me.
Evil Calvin
Afraid of Boobs
Kingdom Come Deliverance 2 seems to be doing well and not a sniff of live-service GAAS crap at all.
Fuck you Andrew Wilson.
Fuck you Andrew Wilson.
StereoVsn
Gold Member
I feel like it’s one time only thing though. There was a lot of demand for NCAA game and knowing EA this year NCAA will be the same if not worse.
And FC is going to keep sliding down alongside the rest of their sports franchise.
Bernardougf
Member
My son dropped the game so fast once the woman soccer nonsense started ... imagine wanting to get Haaland or Mbappe in a pack and getting some chick he never heard about it ... and having to use her because of the stats... wtf are this people thinking
Last edited:
Hudo
Gold Member
Elden Ring also wasn't live service and it sold like 20 million copies, afaik.
Last edited:
Evil Calvin
Afraid of Boobs
Yeah. They are delusional. They just are hoping to strike GAAS gold and print money. Pretty much games like Fortnite, GTA Online and Roblox have given unrealistic expectations to all publishers and shareholders
Last edited:
spookyfish
Member
Honestly, it seems to happen now more than not.
Gambit2483
Member
EA knows exactly why Veilguard failed and is exactly why they fired the entire writing team and several others. This is a BS statement for the investors