surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
It will try and fail again at doing a c&c fps, I mean they tried making c&c shooters twice, the universes of c&c would work well in them but they just seem to fail.
Syndicate was fun. I don't have any superlatives to say about it or anything but it's worth picking up if you can find it on the cheap. It doesn't deserve ridicule. It just didn't deserve $60.
Well, maybe if EA didn't sell it for $60 or made it Origin-only, it would have been more successful.
Or maybe if they didn't turn it into a first person shooter, you know.
Or maybe if they didn't turn it into a first person shooter, you know.
Theme Hospital already had some shooty elements to it, so it's not a total stretch. Looking forward to Theme Hospital: Rat Sniper Team Bravo.
EA would have done much better if they re-booted Syndicate in its original genre. I mean, I would have been all over a downloadable HD version of the original.
I'd personally rather that they just stop, personally if every IP they dig up is going to be mutated into yet another shooter. But that would require a level of contemplation and creative risk taking I don't think EA capable of. They don't see the legacy, just a brand they haven't destroyed yet, kinda like calling that studio making the new C&C:Generals game Bioware Victory. Bioware is just a name they think they can stamp on it to make people give a shit, to be discarded when it's cache is gone.
It was nice when EA took some chances by making the first Dead Space and Mirror's Edge, but they've reverted back to business as usual, which more often then not, resembles a plague of locusts, consuming all in their path before moving on.
It was nice when EA took some chances by making the first Dead Space and Mirror's Edge, but they've reverted back to business as usual, which more often then not, resembles a plague of locusts, consuming all in their path before moving on.
"Syndicate was something that we took a risk on. It didn't pay off -- it didn't work,"
Yes, this is what risk is for EA these days. I'm going to take a stab in the dark here, and say that anything that doesn't sell well enough to become a vessel for DLC would be considered a failure, considering "digital services" is where most of EA's profit is coming these days.
I know I've been beating this drum non-stop, but it really is down at the base of things and it seems to go almost completely ignored by gamers.
Yes, this is what risk is for EA these days. I'm going to take a stab in the dark here, and say that anything that doesn't sell well enough to become a vessel for DLC would be considered a failure, considering "digital services" is where most of EA's profit is coming these days.
I know I've been beating this drum non-stop, but it really is down at the base of things and it seems to go almost completely ignored by gamers.
"SSX Resurrection" I've never played that FPS. Dear EA dicks, you did not not turn SSX into something it was not, whereas you turned Syndicate into something it was not. Please don't compare apples to oranges. SSX was good because it was a refinement of what came before it, not some weird, alternate-world spinoff. When you release the SSX RPG and it sells well, then we talk about why the new Syndicate did not sell well. Even if it was not a shitty game, it carries the weight of lofty expectations that could just not begin to be met unless a great game of the same genre was released.
EA should give Madden a year off and then resurrect it as a Call of Duty killer where you shoot footballs at the bad guys.
Syndicate wasn't a bad game, they just didn't put much thought into it so it ended up being just another FPS with a brand name printed on it. It could have worked if they hadn't cookie cuttered it.
SSX was fun, but the fact that the unique personality was stripped from the characters and the godawful Survive It portions kept it from being as good as it could have been. The only other (sorta) oldish franchise I want them to bring back is Mirror's Edge, and I'm scared about how they would "update" that.
Yeah im sure SSX did well... LOL. It probably generated like 30% of what the original trilogy drew in, if that. Just in - SSX Trilogy sales = 8 million... SSX resurrection sales = 1 Million. So its actually well below 30%, especially considering Dev costs have gone up so much since the PS2 days. Theres no way this game can be seen as a success, not unless it had a Digital Download XBLA budget, which i doubt.
"Syndicate was something that we took a risk on."
When I think of "risk" I don't usually think of a first person shooter.. especially when said FPS is not even technically a new IP. Give me a fuckin' break. This failed -because- you took no risk at all. Well, I guess releasing yet another decent FPS could be considered risk-taking of its own, given how over-crowded the marketplace is. Still, I'm guessing that's not how EA sees things....
When I think of "risk" I don't usually think of a first person shooter.. especially when said FPS is not even technically a new IP. Give me a fuckin' break. This failed -because- you took no risk at all. Well, I guess releasing yet another decent FPS could be considered risk-taking of its own, given how over-crowded the marketplace is. Still, I'm guessing that's not how EA sees things....
Yeah, EA, everyone loves you because you 'resurrected' Command & Conquer...
As much as I would love to see a Dungeon Keepers sequel, EA's business mentality would assuredly fuck it up. I'd rather see a third party create something similar, something better than 'Dungeon' on Steam.
As much as I would love to see a Dungeon Keepers sequel, EA's business mentality would assuredly fuck it up. I'd rather see a third party create something similar, something better than 'Dungeon' on Steam.
@TheChosen
Well there was that Shadowrun game back in 07.
And I'll probably get some hate for even bringing the thing up :P
Well there was that Shadowrun game back in 07.
And I'll probably get some hate for even bringing the thing up :P
@Chosen
Off the top of my head, X-Com is still getting that FPS title that is in stuck development hell. That's 2K mind you, not EA. But at least we're getting Enemy Unknown from Firaxis first, so it's not a total slap in the face.
Off the top of my head, X-Com is still getting that FPS title that is in stuck development hell. That's 2K mind you, not EA. But at least we're getting Enemy Unknown from Firaxis first, so it's not a total slap in the face.
Syndicate was a great FPS with a good amount of style that is mostly absent from the genre. I loved it, it actually spurred me to seek out a copy of the original on the Jaguar.
Dario Silva: Did you just compare 3 games entire lifetime sales to a game that's been out for only 4 months?
You, are an idiot.
You, are an idiot.
Syndicate was like FEAR 3 - a really good game IMO but NOT worth $60. Not long enough, not enough content for that full price. Again that stupid price point kills another worthy title.
@SeymorDuncan17 & UltorOscariot
Ah yes. Im reserving my opinion for X-Com though, since it could be good which to me trumps the fact that its not like in the old days. Shadowrun is a good point though.
and @theinbetween, I'd play the hell out of FPS game that has elements from Jagged Alliance. And the amount of guns.
Ah yes. Im reserving my opinion for X-Com though, since it could be good which to me trumps the fact that its not like in the old days. Shadowrun is a good point though.
and @theinbetween, I'd play the hell out of FPS game that has elements from Jagged Alliance. And the amount of guns.
I'm just going to read the title of the article as
"EA out of Ideas, resorting to grave robbing"
I'm all for resurrecting old IPs, the problem is most of the time they do it wrong. They take a beloved franchise and they disfigure it beyond belief by appending to it whatever new craze/fad has flooded the market.
If they think they can breathe new life into an old IP and still keep the core of that IP then more power to them. Even if they are EA.
"EA out of Ideas, resorting to grave robbing"
I'm all for resurrecting old IPs, the problem is most of the time they do it wrong. They take a beloved franchise and they disfigure it beyond belief by appending to it whatever new craze/fad has flooded the market.
If they think they can breathe new life into an old IP and still keep the core of that IP then more power to them. Even if they are EA.
If they wanted to take risks, why didn't they just use the classic Syndicate gameplay style instead of making it a FPS? It probably would have sold just as well, if not better, because the people who are familiar with Syndicate wanted more Syndicate - not a FPS called Syndicate. SSX was successful because it stayed within its own genre and its established fans knew what they were getting.
@AngryAvatar
but but but but the inevitable paid DLC would have totally made it a $60 investment. Remember lower game prices devalue IPs after all, I think by proxy the more you spend the more you enjoy?
I'm really not fully sure how EA logic works so that's a best guess :P
but but but but the inevitable paid DLC would have totally made it a $60 investment. Remember lower game prices devalue IPs after all, I think by proxy the more you spend the more you enjoy?
I'm really not fully sure how EA logic works so that's a best guess :P
Here's a tip. When making a Syndicate game, make an actual Syndicate game. Don't make an FPS (that may be good on it's own right) and slap the Syndicate name on it for brand recognition. I'm looking at you XCOM. A game with smaller scope that actually follows the isometric 3rd person style would have been cheaper, and certainly more well received.
@Chosen
They've won me back a little bit with the Enemy Unknown release later this year. They at least acknowledged that they were doing something that could be construed as not taking what X-COM actually was seriously at all, and put the title in capable hands.
As for the shooter, outside of any other reservations, I worry for it. It sounds like it's undergone multiple internal reboots, and creative drift is a cause for concern. But for what it's worth I hope it ends up being a good title. Because if it bombs, I wouldn't hold out much hope for new strategy titles.
They've won me back a little bit with the Enemy Unknown release later this year. They at least acknowledged that they were doing something that could be construed as not taking what X-COM actually was seriously at all, and put the title in capable hands.
As for the shooter, outside of any other reservations, I worry for it. It sounds like it's undergone multiple internal reboots, and creative drift is a cause for concern. But for what it's worth I hope it ends up being a good title. Because if it bombs, I wouldn't hold out much hope for new strategy titles.
@TheChosen
The criticism is regarding EA's practice of changing their IPs in order to appeal to the mass market, and also their lack of risk taking. Of course they won't turn every IP they have in a FPS, but it's very possible they will try to streamline them to appeal to what's more popular, instead of staying true to it's roots.
The criticism is regarding EA's practice of changing their IPs in order to appeal to the mass market, and also their lack of risk taking. Of course they won't turn every IP they have in a FPS, but it's very possible they will try to streamline them to appeal to what's more popular, instead of staying true to it's roots.
"it doesn't change my appetite for wanting to go look in the library and see what we have and maybe bring back some IPs for the next-generation"
Ultima...
*Shudder*
Ultima...
*Shudder*
Of course it failed, they barely promoted it and announced its launch date in December. That being said, I don't think promotion probably would have helped it as there wasn't a ton of interest in it and FPS fatigue is really starting to set in. I bet this might influence if that Xcom fps might come out.
I'm with Scuffles on this one. What's so bad with taking risks with new IP? Sure, Mirror's Edge didn't do well, but Dead Space definitely paid off. Let people be creative, EA!
@Fugly Duckling
Except Dead Space has never sold up to EA's expectations, which is why every iteration of the game seems to try harder and harder to appeal to the mainstream. They're throwing money at it and it'll probably pay off in the end, but Dead Space is far from a success story.
Also, Mirror's Edge sold 2.1 million copies. For reference, that's 500k more than Dark Souls, a much larger and more popular game (I realize ME has been out much longer, but retail sales for that game petered out many moons ago). All I mean to say by this is that it's amazing how one publisher could see 2 million sales as a failure, and another can see 1.5 million a rousing success.
Except Dead Space has never sold up to EA's expectations, which is why every iteration of the game seems to try harder and harder to appeal to the mainstream. They're throwing money at it and it'll probably pay off in the end, but Dead Space is far from a success story.
Also, Mirror's Edge sold 2.1 million copies. For reference, that's 500k more than Dark Souls, a much larger and more popular game (I realize ME has been out much longer, but retail sales for that game petered out many moons ago). All I mean to say by this is that it's amazing how one publisher could see 2 million sales as a failure, and another can see 1.5 million a rousing success.
@One Red
I'd still say Dead Space was much more successful than Syndicate, regardless of whether or not it lives up to EA's unrealistic expectations.
I'd still say Dead Space was much more successful than Syndicate, regardless of whether or not it lives up to EA's unrealistic expectations.
"Syndicate was something that we took a risk on. It didn't pay off -- it didn't work,"
Yeah, fuck you. You guys took a beloved strategy series and turned it into a Call of Duty ripoff. That's not taking a risk, that's being lazy.
Yeah, fuck you. You guys took a beloved strategy series and turned it into a Call of Duty ripoff. That's not taking a risk, that's being lazy.
Dead Space has sold over 2 million copies, OneRed. Dead Space 2 sold 2 million in one week.
Anyone from EA will tell you Dead Space is their Early Year Money Maker.
Anyone from EA will tell you Dead Space is their Early Year Money Maker.
Mark my words: these assholes will release System Shock 3 as casualised horseshit, just like Bioshock was, only EVEN WORSE.
@Fugly Duckling
Absolutely. EA saw potential in Dead Space, and god help 'em they'll spend until it reaches that potential. Can't fault them for that, it's just too bad they don't see that potential in more games, and give more games that treatment.
@Daxelman
No, Dead Space 1 sold about 3.6 million copies, and Dead Space 2 sold about 2.5 million copies (and they almost certainly spent far far more on DS2). I have no clue where you got your numbers from, but they don't seem to be too correct unless DS2 sales dropped off the face of the earth after a week.
Absolutely. EA saw potential in Dead Space, and god help 'em they'll spend until it reaches that potential. Can't fault them for that, it's just too bad they don't see that potential in more games, and give more games that treatment.
@Daxelman
No, Dead Space 1 sold about 3.6 million copies, and Dead Space 2 sold about 2.5 million copies (and they almost certainly spent far far more on DS2). I have no clue where you got your numbers from, but they don't seem to be too correct unless DS2 sales dropped off the face of the earth after a week.
follow
