History is a funny little thing, isn’t it? It should exist as a series of teachable moments to avoid future disasters. But, of course, we always think we know better than those who came before us. So, I can’t say it surprises me to learn that EA’s CEO, Andrew Wilson, seems to think that Dragon Age: The Veilguard commercially flatlining was a result of the game not being a live-service juggernaut!
As reported by PC Gamer, Wilson spoke about Dragon Age: The Veilguard‘s underperformance during a quarterly financial call. “In order to break beyond the core audience, games need to directly connect to the evolving demands of players who increasingly seek shared-world features and deeper engagement alongside high-quality narratives in this beloved category. Dragon Age had a high-quality launch and was well-reviewed by critics and those who played. However, it did not resonate with a broad enough audience in this highly competitive market.”
Here’s a Dragon Age: The Veilguard fun fact you can take to trivia night. Did you know that initially, the game was indeed going to be a live-service joint? At the time, EA had its foot on the GAAS, and live-service games were the future! …Then, Anthem happened. A critical and commercial washout. So, that left Veilguard to pivot to, you know, being what the Dragon Age series always has been. Even people who like the game said they absolutely see the live-service framing in the dedication to the lore against the rough-around-the-edges characterization and subplots.
‘dragon age: The veilguard’ — or: i love it when we learn all the wrong lessons over and over
Capitalism is a curious devil, isn’t it? You see it so often: people worshipping these pillars of financial greatness. Millionaires, billionaires, musicians, “successful” creators and artists across the entertainment spectrum. We spend so much time glorifying lives we’ll never have that we refuse to see a stark, horrible truth in blaming each other for not “making it.” That the systems and processes we’re used to suck. So flagrantly exploitative and anti-human that it’s almost impressive. Barring a few exceptions (hey, Helldivers 2), live-service games are equally anti-human.
To the bigwigs and other executives who make the real decisions during any one moderately budgeted game’s development cycle, the player having fun is entirely irrelevant. This isn’t a game — it’s a product you endlessly consume and pour money into to make shareholders and investors happy. It doesn’t matter that Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League ate shit and perished as a live-service game. That Concord was one of the biggest live-service disasters in recent memory, leading to devastating layoffs for people who had little creative control over the final cut. That Helldivers 2 is an exception rather than a rule of a successful live-service game, and you want to know what the Arrowhead team prioritized first? The goddamn game being fun and giving players real value.
But, sure, Andrew Wilson. A historically single-player RPG series not being a live-service sinkhole is what Dragon Age: The Veilguard did wrong. The craziest and scariest part? They have the money to keep throwing themselves at the diamond live-service wall until something eventually slips through the cracks and becomes a hit. That path is laden with financial insecurity for developers as they’re marched to the live-service gallows. But, who cares? At a certain tax bracket, they become ants.
The post If You Ask EA’s CEO, the Problem With ‘Dragon Age: The Veilguard’ Was That It Wasn’t a Full-Blown Live-Service Game! appeared first on VICE.
