What Visceral's Closing Means For The Future Of EA

Dead and gone.

23 Comments
Please use a html5 video capable browser to watch videos.
This video has an invalid file format.
00:00:00
Sorry, but you can't access this content!
Please enter your date of birth to view this video

By clicking 'enter', you agree to GameSpot's
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Now Playing: The End Of Visceral And The Future Of EA - The Lobby

Earlier this week, publisher EA announced it was shuttering Visceral Games, in a "pivot" that would help the studio's Star Wars game change course.

In the words of EA's Patrick Soderlund, "it was shaping up to be a story-based, linear adventure," and to make a game that players will "enjoy for a long time to come," EA needed to make changes.

Soderlund also said as much of Visceral's staff as possible will be moved to other projects, and EA Worldwide will take over development of the Star Wars title from here on out.

Considering the news, we felt it was appropriate to look back over Visceral's history, from its early days as EA Redwood Shores, to the final days of the Dead Space trilogy. In the above video (taken from our live show The Lobby, every Wednesday at 11 a.m. PT), we discuss what Visceral's closing means for the future of EA, single-player story-based games, and Star Wars games in general.

Mike Mahardy on Google+

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Join the conversation
There are 23 comments about this story
23 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for khanwashere
KhanWasHere

R.I.P. games made for real gamers....

Avatar image for Aggie1295
Aggie1295

I want to purchase a game, not a service. I'm not that interested nor do I have enough time to play multiplayer only games. Part of the reason I haven't purchased Star War Battlefront is because it has no real single player game. What is EA thinking?

Avatar image for Thanatos2k
Thanatos2k

More generic crap with microtransactions, obviously.

Avatar image for soliaired50
Soliaired50

I think the last EA game I bought was Skate 3 way back in 2010...so I certainly wouldn't mind if EA were to suffer the same fate as Visceral.

Avatar image for Rambolike
Rambolike

I hope at least we can get Dead Space 1 and 2 remasters? I'd love to play those again. EA sucks elephants' balls.

Avatar image for Fartman7998
Fartman7998

Was there supposed to be a video on this page? I don't see it....

Dead Space 1 and 2 were classics. Dead Space 3 was just a notch or two above garbage, I'm afraid to say. I hate myself for using that word, but that's how I feel about it; the game's micro-transactions, co-op, and action focus bastardized it. I feel bad for Visceral because they did good mostly. Dante's Inferno is way underrated in my opinion.

Avatar image for uncle5555
uncle5555

@Fartman7998: Interesting how everyone seems to be forgetting Army of Two: The Devil's Cartel when they mention the games the studio made, it was a good time, but not amazing game that I played through with my nephew.

Avatar image for alaannn
alaannn

@Fartman7998: the godfather games were good aswell

Avatar image for Fartman7998
Fartman7998

@alaannn: Never played them. I feel like I should now.

Avatar image for alaannn
alaannn

@Fartman7998: the storyline isnt that good but the gameplay is good the dons view in the godfather 2 has lots of replayability

Avatar image for Rambolike
Rambolike

@Fartman7998: Oh yes, Dante's Inferno is a fabulous game, so much fun. EA sucks, I really don't know what else to say about it. I refuse to buy any games under their banner.

Avatar image for Fartman7998
Fartman7998

@Rambolike: Yeah, EA is kinda rubbing me wrong too.

Avatar image for Nexzy
Nexzy

the only thing i'm concerned about is Dead Space 4.

Avatar image for Xristophoros
Xristophoros

@Nexzy: why? it's never happening.

Avatar image for Rambolike
Rambolike

@Xristophoros: It's possible that it could be resurrected later; look at Darksiders? Everyone thought it was dead until they announced the 3rd installment. Never say never.

Avatar image for MigGui
MigGui

@Rambolike: Darksiders was dead because its developer and publisher went bankrupt. Then someone else bought the franchise and resurrected it. It is certainly not the same thing as Mass Effect and Dead Space, two franchises owned by EA and put in "hiatus" after the closing of their respective studios.

Obviously, EA can and probably will make them come back at some point, I'd bet as a reboot instead of a sequel. But it is not the same thing.

Avatar image for samurai1313
Samurai1313

@Rambolike: yea mon we go back to the dark side lol

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
R4gn4r0k

I fear for any EA studio, really.

And if Battlefronts lootboxes are anything to go by, I won't be buying many EA games in future.

Avatar image for Barighm
Barighm

It means EA wants to make more F2P-like games that are not, in fact, F2P, but for some reason people think these games are better just because they aren't F2P despite having a $70 price tag and all of the same shady practises driving them.

Avatar image for straightcur
straightcur

It means that it will be business as usual and nothing will really be noticed. Also this article offers no insight or any value to the readers at all. Complete waste of time.

Avatar image for Pyrosa
Pyrosa

Looks like SWBF2 will be the last EA title for me. Nothing else worth playing on the horizon.

Avatar image for Thanatos2k
Thanatos2k

@Pyrosa: Why waste your money on that scam?

Avatar image for everson_rm
everson_rm

@Pyrosa: To tell you the truth, i was super hyped to play SWBF2, but, i'll give them my middle finger and wont buy this product.