• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Deleted member 17184

User-requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,240
It really feels like EA is changing their strategy for what games they'll release in a good way. It sucks for Motive's devs, but I hope they start working on something else soon.
 

Haint

Banned
Oct 14, 2018
1,361
They must have had literally nothing working or of any worth to cancel 6 years of development. Otherwise there should have been enough content to cobble together some kind of best of compilation vertical slice (a la MGS5), even if it's a $39 title. This must have been $75-100 million down the drain.
 

flyinj

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,961
It looks like that only Respawn knows what to do at EA. Vince is one hell of a leader.

By letting this kind of thing get released after 5 years of development?

capsule_616x353.jpg


I guess you are right though, Vince did keep it from getting cancelled...
 
Last edited:

Schlorgan

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,932
Salt Lake City, Utah
Hopefully this leads to more smaller-scale, focused games like Squadrons. Ones that have clear visions of what they want to be from the start.

They can't let their studios spend years in pre-production hell on games anymore.
 

The Silver

Member
Oct 28, 2017
10,722
5 years with little to show for it? Yeah cancel that shit, don't fall into a sunk cost fallacy. EA making the right moves here.
 

SickNasty

Member
Mar 18, 2020
1,256
I don't think any devs will have been blindsided by this news. No one knows something is not worth carrying on with better than the people working on it. It happens.
 
Apr 23, 2019
411
They would need a reason to even try in the first place. Unregulated microtransactions have them at their most profitable point in history doing what they're doing now.

While true, my hope is that Fallen Order has made them realize there's benefits to diversifying. Dragon Age is never going to bring in more money than FIFA ultimate team, microtransactions or not. But by having some single player output, they are hitting an entirely different and more predictable market, where with proper management there's money to made with less risk of complete bombs or cancellations like Anthem.

At some point the industry needs to realize that AAA GAAS mindshare is limited, and that it only gets riskier the more crowded it gets. It seems like EA might be starting to realize that and adjusting accordingly.
 
OP
OP
dex3108

dex3108

Member
Oct 26, 2017
22,608
By letting this kind of thing get released after 5 years of development?

capsule_616x353.jpg


I guess you are right though, Vince did keep it from getting cancelled...

You made a thread about it you know that Respawn took it to stay afloat before EA bought them and then they got chance to work on things they really want but they were stuck with it. And compared to other EA studios they did a lot in 5 years.
 

Fabtacular

Member
Jul 11, 2019
4,244
It's unfortunate that their work won't see the light of day, but so long as the employees get to keep their jobs, cancelling the game is pretty fair game for EA. I wonder if they're hoping to get all the bad news out of the way in one go to get it over with. I think they can still reposition themselves to improve their reputation, if they're smart about it.
When I look at the Anthem/Gaia cancellations, and view them in such close proximity to the statement that they're going to "let the studios drive the direction of their franchises" (or whatever the exact quote is), here's what I see:
  1. Someone at EA sat up and said "hey, huge swaths of our non-sports games division has been underperforming for about half a decade now, and at some point that's more than just a string of bad luck. We need to figure out what we're doing wrong."
  2. EA management decided they needed to do a deep-dive review of all of their current projects and revist the post-mortems on their past projects to figure out what's going on. Lengthy interviews were conducted with both upper management and developers to collect facts and get everyone's input on what they think is and isn't working.
  3. At the end of all the interviews, I'm guessing one of the key takeaways was that EA corporate was tying their studios' hands creatively by imposing certain design elements in response to budget requests. Like, if you want more than $50m budget for your game you need to include monetizeable GAAS elements, and if you want more than $100m you need an extra layer of these elements plus a 24-month defined release plan to support them.
  4. So they decided they needed to stop the bleeding with the old ways, and instead of throwing good money after bad just shut down what's not working and give their studios a fresh start and more creative freedom. (That's not to say they won't still try to control the purse strings in some way. But just that they're going to give the studios have more self-determination creatively.)
Not saying the above is 100% on-point, but that's the "feel" I get from the situation.
 
Oct 31, 2017
8,621
Five years is a pretty long time... Must have been not good at all if they cancelled it like that. I feel bad for the dev team.
 

Schlorgan

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,932
Salt Lake City, Utah
When I look at the Anthem/Gaia cancellations, and view them in such close proximity to the statement that they're going to "let the studios drive the direction of their franchises" (or whatever the exact quote is), here's what I see:
  1. Someone at EA sat up and said "hey, huge swaths of our non-sports games division has been underperforming for about half a decade now, and at some point that's more than just a string of bad luck. We need to figure out what we're doing wrong."
  2. EA management decided they needed to do a deep-dive review of all of their current projects and revist the post-mortems on their past projects to figure out what's going on. Lengthy interviews were conducted with both upper management and developers to collect facts and get everyone's input on what they think is and isn't working.
  3. At the end of all the interviews, I'm guessing one of the key takeaways was that EA corporate was tying their studios' hands creatively by imposing certain design elements in response to budget requests. Like, if you want more than $50m budget for your game you need to include monetizeable GAAS elements, and if you want more than $100m you need an extra layer of these elements plus a 24-month defined release plan to support them.
  4. So they decided they needed to stop the bleeding with the old ways, and instead of throwing good money after bad just shut down what's not working and give their studios a fresh start and more creative freedom. (That's not to say they won't still try to control the purse strings in some way. But just that they're going to give the studios have more self-determination creatively.)
Not saying the above is 100% on-point, but that's the "feel" I get from the situation.
This is a very well thought out analysis. Thank you.
 
OP
OP
dex3108

dex3108

Member
Oct 26, 2017
22,608
When I look at the Anthem/Gaia cancellations, and view them in such close proximity to the statement that they're going to "let the studios drive the direction of their franchises" (or whatever the exact quote is), here's what I see:
  1. Someone at EA sat up and said "hey, huge swaths of our non-sports games division has been underperforming for about half a decade now, and at some point that's more than just a string of bad luck. We need to figure out what we're doing wrong."
  2. EA management decided they needed to do a deep-dive review of all of their current projects and revist the post-mortems on their past projects to figure out what's going on. Lengthy interviews were conducted with both upper management and developers to collect facts and get everyone's input on what they think is and isn't working.
  3. At the end of all the interviews, I'm guessing one of the key takeaways was that EA corporate was tying their studios' hands creatively by imposing certain design elements in response to budget requests. Like, if you want more than $50m budget for your game you need to include monetizeable GAAS elements, and if you want more than $100m you need an extra layer of these elements plus a 24-month defined release plan to support them.
  4. So they decided they needed to stop the bleeding with the old ways, and instead of throwing good money after bad just shut down what's not working and give their studios a fresh start and more creative freedom. (That's not to say they won't still try to control the purse strings in some way. But just that they're going to give the studios have more self-determination creatively.)
Not saying the above is 100% on-point, but that's the "feel" I get from the situation.

Giving too much freedom was issue with Anthem and probably this new IP. Sometimes you really need someone above you to tell you when to stop.
 

AuthenticM

Son Altesse Sérénissime
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
30,085
When I look at the Anthem/Gaia cancellations, and view them in such close proximity to the statement that they're going to "let the studios drive the direction of their franchises" (or whatever the exact quote is), here's what I see:
  1. Someone at EA sat up and said "hey, huge swaths of our non-sports games division has been underperforming for about half a decade now, and at some point that's more than just a string of bad luck. We need to figure out what we're doing wrong."
  2. EA management decided they needed to do a deep-dive review of all of their current projects and revist the post-mortems on their past projects to figure out what's going on. Lengthy interviews were conducted with both upper management and developers to collect facts and get everyone's input on what they think is and isn't working.
  3. At the end of all the interviews, I'm guessing one of the key takeaways was that EA corporate was tying their studios' hands creatively by imposing certain design elements in response to budget requests. Like, if you want more than $50m budget for your game you need to include monetizeable GAAS elements, and if you want more than $100m you need an extra layer of these elements plus a 24-month defined release plan to support them.
  4. So they decided they needed to stop the bleeding with the old ways, and instead of throwing good money after bad just shut down what's not working and give their studios a fresh start and more creative freedom. (That's not to say they won't still try to control the purse strings in some way. But just that they're going to give the studios have more self-determination creatively.)
Not saying the above is 100% on-point, but that's the "feel" I get from the situation.
Same. Also, to add to your number 3 on corporate limiting creativity, I wonder if Gaia was started back when EA mandated all of their games to be made with Frostbite, to save on money. The executive who forced that mandate is no longer at EA, but lots of projects suffered for it. Maybe one of the reaons Gaia had so much issues was because it started on Frostbite.
 

ILikeFeet

DF Deet Master
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
61,987
Giving too much freedom was issue with Anthem and probably this new IP. Sometimes you really need someone above you to tell you when to stop.
if anything, the creative freedom also comes with the "you have 6 months to work out he core gameplay loop and design document or it's canned"

because it sounds like this and Anthem didn't have those things
 

Schlorgan

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,932
Salt Lake City, Utah
Same. Also, to add to your number 3 on corporate limiting creativity, I wonder if Gaia was started back when EA mandated all of their games to be made with Frostbite, to save on money. The executive who forced that mandate is no longer at EA, but lots of projects suffered for it. Maybe one of the reaons Gaia had so much issues was because it started on Frostbite.
The Riccetiello mandate to move everything to Frostbite hindered that company last gen more than anything else I think.
 

ZugZug123

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,412
Sometimes you have to let go of sunken cost fallacy and cancel things that are not going well. Hope everyone involved got new assignments like the Anthem folks did.
 

Zim

Senior Animator at Airship Syndicate
Verified
Oct 28, 2017
202
Austin, TX
My heart goes out to the Dev team.
Years of your life goes into something (let alone five) and POOF! Gone.
From my own experience, it is absolutely SOUL CRUSHING.
 

disparate

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,904
Good, if you're still in development after over FIVE YEARS, stop making software. EA needs to get more proactive shutting down projects that are just spinning their wheels like how Andromeda spent YEARS in preprod.
 

hephaestus

Member
Oct 28, 2017
673
I feel like this is what happens when you give people a blank check and unlimited choice in what to make. People just becomes paralyzed with too much freedom. Sometimes deadlines and budget restraints helps focus a team.
 

Azai

Member
Jun 10, 2020
3,966
It looks like that only Respawn knows what to do at EA. Vince is one hell of a leader.

Most likely because they gave him more freedome and less pressure than other devs got.
I mean its no coincidence that so many devs under EA are struggling while the one dev who has the most freedome/influence on his studio is doing good.
 
OP
OP
dex3108

dex3108

Member
Oct 26, 2017
22,608
Most likely because they gave him more freedome and less pressure than other devs got.
I mean its no coincidence that so many devs under EA are struggling while the one dev who has the most freedome/influence on his studio is doing good.

From the Bioware stories that is not true. Bioware had all the freedom for Anthem and they failed.
 

Splader

Member
Feb 12, 2018
5,063
It's been in development for five years and isn't at the stage of being announced even. This isn't EA being evil or trying to destroy people's lives, its them taking a business decision which unfortunately sounds like the right one.

Hope all the developers can find jobs asap!
Wait, did they close the studio/lay off the devs?
 

eyeball_kid

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,236
I can't imagine spending 5 years of my life on something and then it just gets cancelled before anyone can even see what I worked on. Talk about soul crushing.
 

MZZ

Member
Nov 2, 2017
4,259
This feels to me like EA is finally cracking down on non viable games. Given that the PS4 generation their games were pretty much a huge miss except for a few titles. I want to see them finally getting their shit together.
 

Fisty

Member
Oct 25, 2017
20,227
Didn't Motive just release Squadrons? I imagine this was already backburnered for awhile, once support on Squadrons finished up they looked at Gaia and said meh
 

Aether

Member
Jan 6, 2018
4,421
Means nothing, they are working on "several projects" even if GAIA was cancelled
Depends. if its your second project in 5 years being canceled it could lead to you just giving up in the industry. It can destroy your moral.
Not of all, but maybe some. Like feeling stuck in failure.

Between Anthem's (live-service) cancellation, DA4 going back to single-player, Mass Effect falling back on the original trilogy, and now pulling the plug on this, it seems like EA is making a lot of risk-averse moves recently. I wonder if this is signaling a change in direction at EA overall.
Or... just realizing that mistakes where made and trying to refocus?
It seems as if they wanted to just wish 5 well running big money service games into existence after it became the new standard with last gen and fell hard with it.
Taking a step back and reevaluating the direction is not directly risk-averse. Maybe it leads to more reasonable risks? (smaler scale projects that actually get finished in a reasonable timeframe)
 
Oct 25, 2017
19,102
I would seriously be suicidal if I'd poured half a decade of creative blood, sweat, tears and crunch only to see it all flushed away. Developers, you have my utter respect.