-
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.
Rumour: Dead Space 4 Cancelled Following Poor DS3 Sales [EA: "Patently False"]
- Thread starter V_Ben
- Start date
Voice of Reason
Banned
That's assuming something is inherently wrong with the franchise and not the way it was handled though.
As I said upthread: I reckon EA badly want a COD-scale hit franchise, and they're trying to do everything they can to manufacture one - without allowing such a thing to germinate naturally.
Pure conjecture: I think they're worried about the upcoming transition, and aren't sure anything they have - outside the sports titles - is *quite* big enough to stand out on the new systems against the COD behemoth - and in the fight for purchaser's money, they're going to come off worse in that comparison.
DragonSworne
Banned
They played commercial on TV non stop and had a crap ton advertising material all over gamestops, walmarts, and best buys.
This game had a big marketing push.
Then they deserve the failures that they continually get outside of a few titles like battlefield and fifa. That is such a poisonous attitude for a gaming company to have, both for them and for us.
You didn't see the 8,000 commercials with that phil collins song?
Why does something like Dead Space cost so much more to make than something like Sleeping Dogs?
Like I get why something like GTA does because Rockstar loves going insane with every little detail, but I have no idea why EVERYTHING costs so much with EA.
Engine's already there, guncrafting system's already there, co-op systems already there.
Probably easy money to try to make back from Dead Space 3. Kind of like FF13-2 and Lightning Returns. They built all those assets, they're gonna use them.
Like I get why something like GTA does because Rockstar loves going insane with every little detail, but I have no idea why EVERYTHING costs so much with EA.
Engine's already there, guncrafting system's already there, co-op systems already there.
Probably easy money to try to make back from Dead Space 3. Kind of like FF13-2 and Lightning Returns. They built all those assets, they're gonna use them.
That's the question everyone has been asking ever since the game was announced.
It now looking like the most boring shoot bang doesn't help.
velociraptor
Junior Member
Holy hell, this is unbelievable. I blame EA for this.
The budget for DS3 should have been the same as DS1 or DS2.
It's sad that a game has to sell 5 million to justify it's production.
I miss the good ol' days where we had quality games which only needed one or two million sales at the max.
The budget for DS3 should have been the same as DS1 or DS2.
It's sad that a game has to sell 5 million to justify it's production.
I miss the good ol' days where we had quality games which only needed one or two million sales at the max.
Well, to be fair, one of the issues was budgetary, so the employer they need - if not necessarily the one they want - is one who gives them less financial freedom but also isn't as demanding in terms of quantity of sales.
That's not quite 'not holding them back'!
toddhunter
Member
Because they are far too big for what they do. They can either get smaller and leaner to make a great profit on projects like dead space or... well this.
Were the sales of 1 such that they weren't in and of themselves a reason to continue the series, and 2 and 3 were made in spite of poor sales of their then new IP?
If 1 was profitable, why not continue down that path, instead of trying to exponentially increase sales beyond reality and thereby unnecessarily increasing budget and risk? Will a big publisher like EA always try to max out the profitability of these franchises, starting out well and slowly trying to turn them into something they aren't, then axing them because they can't meet their expectations?
I understand adapting your game and fixing problems with the first, but nearly every game seems to get funnelled down the same path.
If 1 was profitable, why not continue down that path, instead of trying to exponentially increase sales beyond reality and thereby unnecessarily increasing budget and risk? Will a big publisher like EA always try to max out the profitability of these franchises, starting out well and slowly trying to turn them into something they aren't, then axing them because they can't meet their expectations?
I understand adapting your game and fixing problems with the first, but nearly every game seems to get funnelled down the same path.
Unfortunately it's the strategy that seems to be getting embraced though.
I mean let's take the main games from the other two companies with EA's 8000-9000 employee staff count.
Activision's 2013: Call of Duty 10, StarCraft 2: Heart of the Swarm, Skylanders 3
Ubisoft's 2013: Assassin's Creed 4, Splinter Cell 6, Watch Dogs, Rayman Legends, and Just Dance 5
I see Ubisoft with one, maybe two titles that aren't expected to sell 4+ million copies, and Activision with one, though both Rayman and StarCraft 2's expansion pack are probably quite low budget compared to everything else, including a game like Dead Space.
If Splinter Cell 6 doesn't sell enough units, it's also probably due for another reboot.
I'm just hoping the philosophy doesn't spread to the medium publishers too quickly.
For me - i'm in the "did not buy" category. After reading about the micros and how DS3 is a typical TPS - not interested. Any pub with an IQ at the least equivalent to a shoelace or tree bark should realize if you shift directions of an IP you run the risk of alienating fans that made the series what it is.
Oldschoolgamer
The physical form of blasphemy
If this is true, fuck EA. This was one of the few series I cared about this gen. 
edit: I'm so glad they didn't get to make System Shock 3...
edit: I'm so glad they didn't get to make System Shock 3...
Samir Sedlar
Member
Actually it is not misconception, it is true, Survival Horror fans are alot, but there is simply no Survival Horror game nowadays.
Dead Space 1 sold around 3.69Million copies, that is a great number for a new IP, it sold so cause the game came as a Survival Horror game in Space, something similar to Resident Evil yet different, fans resonated with it, DS 3 ?!, not so much.
Resident Evil before used to sell 2.5 to 4 Million copies when it was pure survival horror and there wasn't an Xbox around, you can do the math and see how a true survival horror would sell alot more nowadays.
Survival Horror is like Stealth, fans want something hardcore and true to them, not some action mainstream shit.
==========================================================
I use ********, I know it is not the best nor the most accurate site around, but it is the only one around.
I based my opinion on the fact that DS1 sold more than DS2, it sold around 3.5 Million copies or something.
No, I got nothing. I now see I was in the minority though.
This generation has been really strange for EA. At one point they seemed like they were experiencing a second rennaissance (Mirror's Edge + Dead Space), but when they didn't sell they slowly shuffled towards a beast even more abhorrent than the one before.
Dead Space 1 did absolutely no such thing.
Our last numbers were 2 million units shipped: http://www.seekingalpha.com/article/218456-electronic-arts-f1q11-earnings-call-transcript
Edit: Chartz are banned here for a reason.
toddhunter
Member
I think the problem is we don't know if it is true or not. The assumption is if EA makes a great survival horror game that it wont sell. I'm sure they do all the market research in the world, but unless somebody actually makes such a game, we just don't know.
Perhaps the Last of Us will be telling.
Yup. If they had built up a solid fanbase by concentrating on a few, distinct core features instead of mainstreaming it, sales might have increased. Kind of how Dark Souls took off after Demon's Souls by improving the game in the right ways and drawing from an existing fanbase while at the same time winning over new fans. But the way EA franchises usually progress, they repel fans of earlier titles with misguided attempts to achieve mainstream success. Trying to compete with the bigshots with every game/series is just not a sustainable business model and EA had to face this reality rather often recently (DS, TOR, MoH). I wonder how many more ruined IPs and overblown budgets it will take them to learn that lesson.
I knew this shit would happen.
Still liked Dead Space 3, but you can tell it had trouble finding direction.
Still liked Dead Space 3, but you can tell it had trouble finding direction.
They got sick of killing other peoples franchises. Wanted to try something new.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
subversus said:
They tried to broaden the franchise's appeal by adding more mainstream elements; which is a bad thing only if you're a fanboy clinging to a "purist" vision of what that franchise is supposed to be. Not everyone shares such narrow tastes so it makes sense to try and appeal to those people.
The Co-Op aspect is pretty much immaterial, you can simply ignore it if you want and as I wrote earlier its a lot less jarring than say RE5/6. At least in DS3 you don't have idiot AI partners constantly hogging the screen-space!
Replicant said:
Play length is largely unrelated to production cost, so lets discard that particular straw-man right off the bat.
Seriously, with the changes EA has simply been trying to make the game more popular and accessible. This dog-in-a-manger attitude where its acceptable to argue that just because something changes to follow a vision YOU don't share, then the whole thing deserves to fail really needs stamping on. Its straight-up infantile.
The bottom line is that if the people backing the project decide that in order to justify making a sequel they need to go more populist, its better generally for that to happen rather than for them simply not to bother. Because at least with the former scenario as gamers we have a CHOICE whether to support this revision or not. Because if they don't make the thing, there's simply nothing to choose from. This is not a "win" for anybody.
Content change decisions are made based on prevailing market conditions, so basically the whole argument that by not making this adulterated, corrupted version those resources are free to be redirected to something more to our taste is transparently false. They aren't going to greenlight a "pure" survival horror game for the exact same reasons they are going to add more action to an existing franchise like SH. They don't believe that niche market is enough to justify the opportunity cost.
GL to everyone that worked for Visceral. DS was one of the greatest games released this generation. DS2 was great, too. I haven't played DS3, and even if it's the weakest of the 3 it's still probably a solid game. It's a shame that the realities of the AAA marketplace destroyed the franchise and its developers. How did that space become such a winner take all wasteland? How many franchises will need to be sucked dry and left to rot in the desperate scramble to create the next GTA or COD?
Indies make money. A small number of $100 million games make money. No one in the middle makes money. Is that market impossible, or are publishers not approaching it correctly? It's got to be the latter.
Indies make money. A small number of $100 million games make money. No one in the middle makes money. Is that market impossible, or are publishers not approaching it correctly? It's got to be the latter.
While I'm all on the microtransactions (and therefore EA) hate bandwagon, a Dead Space 4 would have been a bad idea regardless.
You can't serialize a horror experience; not with big budgets at least (so ignoring straight to dvd). You can only keep an intrigue going, and monsters jumping out of closets, for so long. So you saw that they turned it into an action horror in part 2, and an all out action game in part 3. It was stretched out, could not go any further really.
They're also only closing a small subsidiary of Visceral.
You can't serialize a horror experience; not with big budgets at least (so ignoring straight to dvd). You can only keep an intrigue going, and monsters jumping out of closets, for so long. So you saw that they turned it into an action horror in part 2, and an all out action game in part 3. It was stretched out, could not go any further really.
They're also only closing a small subsidiary of Visceral.
Visceral Redwood Shores is actually making what seems to be their own FPS these days, so you're not too far off.
Harlock
Member
Dead Space 3 sales 26% lower than DS2 in UK.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/03/05/dead-space-is-probably-pining-for-the-fjords/
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/03/05/dead-space-is-probably-pining-for-the-fjords/
bigdaddygamebot
Member
Good.
Maybe EA will eventually learn to stop polluting franchises with their greedy and ill conceived shit.
...but I doubt it.
The save system in Dead Space 3...jesus.
Maybe EA will eventually learn to stop polluting franchises with their greedy and ill conceived shit.
...but I doubt it.
The save system in Dead Space 3...jesus.
Well, this is their version of smaller and leaner. EA used to release 25-30 retail titles a year. It's down to 15, and it will go lower.
Apparently it's also a bad thing if you want to sell copies and not have to scuttle the franchise :0
Not buying DS3 due to (p)reviews and impressions now seems like a self-defeating move on my part. My bad, guys. Sorry 'bout that.
...
Silly EA battening down the hatches in the face of the upcoming nextgen storm. Yah. That's how I'll spin this. DS isn't dead, it's just sleeping. Once nextgenhas ruined the gaming industry takes off we'll all be able to enjoy some DS again. Surely that must be it.
...
Silly EA battening down the hatches in the face of the upcoming nextgen storm. Yah. That's how I'll spin this. DS isn't dead, it's just sleeping. Once nextgen
Sniffle. This sucks.
I'd rather they make their own game than be the next Raven.
velociraptor
Junior Member
That isn't the point.
It's about setting realistic expectations about your games, and 'appropriate' game budgets. Far too often we have publishers and developers wasting $50 million on games.
We don't need 'AAA' budgets for every game in production. I believe it is possible to still make a very good experience despite a modest budget (e.g. Dark Souls, Dead Space, Gears Of War).
People bought the second game because they liked the first game which was pure horror. There is a small audience for pure horror games (1-2 million gamers with varying tastes on what horror suits them). The second game was horror too even though they added more action but it retained its feel.
The third game was marketed as a co-op game. People who bought the first two games didn't care about co-op and some of them decided not to buy DS3. People who care about co-op don't care about horror games in the first place and they didn't buy DS3.
Therefore failure. It's not about purists. We're not even talking action horror vs survival horror. Co-op can't be horror, that is it.
MR BLACKMAGIK
Member
This.
Baron
Member
You know, I enjoyed Dead Space a great deal - so much I bought it on both PS3 and 360. I also bought the second game, but haven't played it yet.
That said, why does every game need an endless litany of sequels? Why can't the people who make games just make a game and then move on and make another game with new ideas? I know that's a naively idealistic perspective, but just because you make a great game doesn't mean you need to immediately follow it up with sequel after sequel.
This goes for films to a much lesser extent, too. ET was gangbusters! Make a sequel, Spielberg! No. And again, while I enjoyed Dead Space very much, if there truly are no more, then maybe another new game will be made in its place. Of course, then that game will spawn an infinity of sequels.
The whole video game industry is a shithouse of gigantic proportions.
There's a reason games are starting to be shipped with "subtitles" in their name instead of a number after the title. It's because the marketers realize that having a "9" after your game title sounds ludicrous.
That said, why does every game need an endless litany of sequels? Why can't the people who make games just make a game and then move on and make another game with new ideas? I know that's a naively idealistic perspective, but just because you make a great game doesn't mean you need to immediately follow it up with sequel after sequel.
This goes for films to a much lesser extent, too. ET was gangbusters! Make a sequel, Spielberg! No. And again, while I enjoyed Dead Space very much, if there truly are no more, then maybe another new game will be made in its place. Of course, then that game will spawn an infinity of sequels.
The whole video game industry is a shithouse of gigantic proportions.
There's a reason games are starting to be shipped with "subtitles" in their name instead of a number after the title. It's because the marketers realize that having a "9" after your game title sounds ludicrous.
Jake Tower
Banned
EA delenda est. (EA must die)
GOW had a AAA budget. Don't believe Mark Rein's lies. That game did not cost $10 million. That probably didn't even cover the television ad buy.
I enjoyed the first half of DS3 solo, and the second half in co-op was like watching a cheesy horror movie with your buddy. It was fun but this is not where I wanted the series to go...I mean I could have fired at the wall for 20 minutes and still would have had enough ammo to clear the game twice over. And I played on hard, spamming explosives. So yeah if the series had been cancelled after 1 or 2 I'd be heartbroken but if this is the direction it was going to keep going in, I'm fine with it being done.
There are plenty of indies on PC, but what baffles me is how nobody has tried to emulate the RE1 style of survival horror games. Running for your life is all well and good for some people, and I do enjoy kicking zombies in the face or dismembering necromorphs. But the kind of game that made the genre popular in the first place seems to have dropped off the map.
I know it's harder to balance a game with actual combat and ammo conservation than just making the PC hyperventilate whenever he's looking at a monster, but it's not impossible and I know that a game touting itself as a classic RE successor would do just fine. There's gotta be an indie studio out there who wants to do this. Or we can just wait for Mikami to save us all with Zwei.
There are plenty of indies on PC, but what baffles me is how nobody has tried to emulate the RE1 style of survival horror games. Running for your life is all well and good for some people, and I do enjoy kicking zombies in the face or dismembering necromorphs. But the kind of game that made the genre popular in the first place seems to have dropped off the map.
I know it's harder to balance a game with actual combat and ammo conservation than just making the PC hyperventilate whenever he's looking at a monster, but it's not impossible and I know that a game touting itself as a classic RE successor would do just fine. There's gotta be an indie studio out there who wants to do this. Or we can just wait for Mikami to save us all with Zwei.
I truly think that when all the co-op info and generic ammo info came out the internet lost its shit. The game got tagged as a dude bro shooter when it really really isn't. Sure the combat is faster and ammo is more plentiful and there are more "setpieces" but the game isn't dude bro.
Well, for console focused games it does appear that stuff that doesn't have AAA production values doesn't sell period if you are in the crowded genres like tps and fps. I think the real issue is the delusion publishers have that there is room in the market for multiple COD sellers, which leads them to push more in more games into overcrowded market segments.
Baffling to me that no one has made an attempt at Assassin's Creed, which is what the 3rd or 2nd biggest franchise in consoles and it is pretty much by itself.
Writer_Head
Member
I loved the first one but did not see the need for another one.
This is a very good point. Effective horror relies on novelty for a great deal of its effectivess. By the time you get to the third iteration, it is just predictable.
Alcotholic
Banned
Welp. I guess it'll make room for Next Gen horror experiences.
bigdaddygamebot
Member
The save system and universal ammo was put into the game due to the mandatory multiplayer component and the mandatory microtransaction system.
Those two things made Dead Space 3 significantly worse than the two previous games which were exceptional.
It's scary that publishers and developers are listening to individuals such as yourself. Clearly wrong...because if you and others like you were right...there would be more sales and Dead Space 4 - The Brotacular, "Now with 112% more gun partz" would be in the pipe and not be getting cancelled.
They're going to get more and more greedy and eventually even the dimbulb FIFA players will realize that they're getting fucked by the pay-model EA has conceived. EA went from being an interesting publisher with titles like Mirror's Edge and Dead Space to an absolutely despicable one that I really look forward to seeing them crash and burn.