Dead Space 3 Dev: The Last Thing We Think About is Money

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Dead Space 3 Dev: The Last Thing We Think About is Money

image

Visceral producer defends decision to add paid content to the single player campaign.

If the introduction of microtransactions in Dead Space 3 has left you a bit sour, you're not alone; Fans far and wide have expressed their displeasure with developer Visceral's decision to include paid perks to the single player experience. But if the move strikes you as a cash grab, Dead Space 3 Producer John Calhoun wants to disavow you of that notion. Speaking with Gameplanet, Calhoun insists that money was not a motivating factor in the decision.

"EA leaves us alone. Almost every decision when it comes to the game is ours and ours alone," Calhoun explains in regards to who made the call to include paid weapon and credit packs. "We're trying to find ways to make sure that Dead Space 3 is really accessible. That doesn't mean we're going to sacrifice who we are or what the core tenets of Dead Space are in order to attract new players. Dead Space 3 shares the exact same DNA as Dead Space 1 and Dead Space 2." Adding later, "The last thing we think about is monetization."

Regardless of your personal position on the matter, it's not difficult to understand why some fans of the survival horror franchise are upset. Yesterday it was revealed that Dead Space 3 will offer nearly $40 worth of optional weapon and resource packs.

Despite this, Visceral insists that the game isn't "pay to win," and the bonus packs are simply there as a tool to make the game more accessible to all types of players. What's your stance? Will you be dropping some extra cash on weapons and gear, or are you planning to play it as a true survival horror experience?

Source: Gameplanet

Permalink

I find that difficult to believe, I really do.

However, if what EA says is true, and that Dead Space 3 will be the last game in the franchise if the game doesn't sell 5 million copies, then micro transactions might be the dev's ill conceived effort to close the monetary gap.
Hey, you sleep with EA, you get fucked.

You put around $40 of buyable in game content and then you insist that the last thing that you care about it money? REALLY? I don't even care about Dead Space and the micro transactions frustrate me and I've taken shots at them, but I'm not working a rage up over it. But they put them in and then just tell me THIS!? I....I....I...

I seriously doubt that this game is going to break 5 million. So between this and Medal of Honor, EA is slowly starting to lose it's IPs. This news should not be viewed as a relief, and I should not be viewing it as the IPs getting a mercy kill.

Does this sound familiar to anyone else?

I honestly hope this game crashes and burns.

Not because I don't like them, I just don't want to see this series ruined any more than it already has been.

I don't lol often. But oh my. I read the headline and I was rolling. What...how....HOW DID HE SAY THAT WITH A STRAIGHT FACE?!

Really? Accessibility is done through money these days?
Wouldn't just inserting cheat codes accomplish the same effect? Y'know, without causing $40 worth of DLC?
I distinctly remember playing through Age of Empires 1 with the help of cheat codes when I was 6. That's how you're supposed to make it 'more accessible'. (Or just lower difficulty levels)
Instead you've apparently decided to see how many people you can make mad and how many lies you can spew.

"See, officer, the last thing I think about is money. I just wanted to make the bank robbery- experience more accessible to the bank-going-newcomers by pulling my gun out and shoving it down the clerk's throat!"

"EA leaves us alone. Almost every decision when it comes to the game is ours and ours alone,"


I'll probably get dead space 3 at a steam sale or something. Oh wait. EA doesn't believe in sales!
OT: I'll probably not buy anything.

The operative word here is "Think".

- Demanding you 60$ for a game
- Demanding you to pay for cheatcodes
- Announcing buyable bonus content worth nearly the game's original price before it's even released

"The last thing we think about is monetization"

Ooooh, these slaves of EA never cease to amuse me. Make's me almost feel sorry for them

Edit:

bazaalmon:
snip

Damn! Ninja'd again...

This is pants on head retarded, for the first time ever I laughed at a headline.

Do they actually expect us to believe a word of that?

He's lying through his teeth! Of course he can't say anything bad about the publisher. And of course the publisher made him say these things. We're not idiots.

It's kinda funny that EA told them to tell us that EA doesn't tell them what to do.

I don't mean to rip off Jim Sterling's argument here, but if $40 worth of microtransaction content is your idea of accessible, that could be argued... if you weren't charging $60 for the game up front

This sales model could actually work for a console game, if you think about it. Charge $5, $10, maybe even $20 for the game in stores, THEN offer a ton of paid content that can make the game whatever you want it to be. That would actually be a half-decent idea. I might wanna buy that game.

Not EA though. Can't possibly try to charge for the actual value of content you're selling; if they did, they'd be at risk of their stock prices going up.

Therein lies the problem: Publishers are run by CEO's. People who are great at making money, but clueless at making games, and unfortunately they decided to make money on games. That's why EA appears to be self-sabotaging 24/7; the people in charge genuinely don't understand the market they're selling to

That's a load of bullshit and he knows it. It's almost insulting that he would try and convince us otherwise. When you effectively charge someone for every time they type "Show me the money" into console then it's quite obvious you actually want them to show you the money.

He and everyone else at Visceral responsible for this are greedy and deserve every bit of backlash they get from this. When you need to sell 5 million copies of a game to break even, you don't piss off the people that wanted to buy it before it's even released.

In all honesty monetization should be the FIRST thing you think about! It's so you don't slam a unfit business model onto a game that can't support it quite right. Like asking 15$ a month to play an MMO whose primary selling point is a long, branching story. Or allowing you to buy upgrades and resources in a game about scavenging for supplies.

Once you know how you are going to make your money, you can build a game to make sure it's fair and balanced. You can forge ahead with your game mechanics without fear of asking yourself how they could interfere with your business model... Or... Y'now... Enrage your fans.

Hard to believe. Not that I think they're being intentionally greedy, but because EA has stated that DS3 must sell at least 5 million copies to survive, or they'll drop it. Considering this is their biggest series, I'd find it hard to believe they aren't focused on making as much money as possible.

I think he's totally correct.

Money most likely was the last thing they thought about. And the first. And the second.

Money Money Money.

"It's just a new way of immersing you[r debit card] into the game. If you find yourself in need of help, you can accept [these charges] or decline. It's not required [, unless you want to not suck]. The main [Microsoft] point[s] that we are after is that we are not [not] trying to take your money. We believe that $41 is a perfectly reasonable pay-wall for day one locked out weapons and armor in a single player game that already costs $60, includes an online pass, and will likely have additional future DLC packs [sic]. We never think about monetization[sic]."

At least that's what I read.

image

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAH!!!!! WOW! I needed that laugh. That is one of the funniest things I have heard in weeks. Lets be honest if they were concerned with "accessibility" then they would just let you put in the Konami code and Contra it up in the game. If you are going to lie to us at least do not insult our intelligence in the process........

Hahahahahahahahahaha

No, really, just admit it's about money. People would be annoyed, but at least he'd be honest. It's kind of sad that he honestly seems to expect that we would believe him. I could accept them being a bit greedy, but if they are going to insult our intelligence like that they can go fuck themselves.

Oh hey, now my desire to watch this game fail miserably has increased five folds.

I'm sure the people at Visceral are decent people, but these are just blatant lies.

Sounds like someone's covering hard.

'Oh we don't think of money at all; we just thought putting pay-per-content throughout the game was a good design decision'.

Either he's lying or EA just tacked this stuff on to the finished product.

Hagi:
I think he's totally correct.

Money most likely was the last thing they thought about. And the first. And the second.

Money Money Money.

I see your money, and I raise you....loads

OT: Pretty funny stuff. I hope consumers and journalists continue to call out this bullshit.

Man, that's more spin than Bill O'Riely in a tornado. Seriously does this man think we're stupid? Making a game more accessible doesn't mean asking the player for more cash to unlock things. The game should be plenty accessible through various levels of difficulty settings which the player should choose. Honestly do they think no one of the intended age group can handle playing Dead Space on the lowest difficulty? If this game shared the same DNA of the previous two games then we could simply use a cheat code to get more money and power ups like we did in the original game.

Argh, Atary77 you beat me to this, I agree with you 100%. This can easily be done through difficulty settings and what can or cannot be unlocked by your choosing. The community need to come together and smash this down.

I laughed so hard my stomach hurts.

BLAH BLAH BLAH; we've heard this all before. EA is making it harder and harder for me to be okay with buying their games. I think Dead Space 3 might be the first video game because the EA label is attached to it; it's just getting out of hand.

image

Oh yeah, good one there, Visceral, we believe you *nudge nudge*

Well, after Medal Of Honour's death yesterday, I believe Dead Space may be the next to go.

Instant laughter.

MikeWehner:

"EA leaves us alone. Almost every decision when it comes to the game is ours and ours alone," Calhoun explains in regards to who made the call to include paid weapon and credit packs. "We're trying to find ways to make sure that Dead Space 3 is really accessible. That doesn't mean we're going to sacrifice who we are or what the core tenets of Dead Space are in order to attract new players. Dead Space 3 shares the exact same DNA as Dead Space 1 and Dead Space 2." Adding later, "The last thing we think about is monetization."

You know, all your accessibility perks used to come in the form of cheat codes for free... just saying.

edit:

Andy Shandy:
image

Oh yeah, good one there, Visceral, we believe you *nudge nudge*

Well, after Medal Of Honour's death yesterday, I believe Dead Space may be the next to go.

And you just know they'll blame the fans and critics for it too.

Too bad it's the FIRST (possibly only) thing your publisher thinks about.

So they make it more accessible by making players PAY MORE? Ok, let's say that by paying the game gets easier for some players, due to stronger weapons and stuff, but hey, wasn't that supposed to be "easy mode"? And how long until they release ultra hard games, making you PAY to get a "normal" experience?

The only reason I don't believe this is because of the removal of the in-game currency making it much harder to do things you used to do.

On one hand, EA is the same company that said "they have to sell 5 million copies to remain a viable franchise".

On the other hand, and I'm going to just point this out... how is this ANY different from the ORIGINAL game?
http://deadspace.wikia.com/wiki/Downloadable_Content_for_Dead_Space

You could pay money for better suits, better weapons, better abilities... or you could ignore it. DS1 came with a large chunk of DLC that serves the exact same purpose of giving you an edge in the game.

Total Bullshit!

There has been something around nearly since the first computer game saw the light of day - it was called:

Difficulty Level! Remember that? and it was the FREE in about every game.

And now, here comes the big part!
some let you CHANGE the difficulty level during gameplay and some even better games throw you a few bones when you are doing really badly.
What was wrong with that???

Now If I suck at a game I am supposed to BUY my difficulty level?
Really?!

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here