Electronic Arts Cancels 'Gaia' Game After Years in Development (bloomberg.com) 42
Video game publisher Electronic Arts has canceled a game that was in development at its Montreal office for nearly six years, Bloomberg reported Thursday, citing people familiar with the matter. From a report: The game, code named Gaia, was first hinted at in 2015, but was never officially announced or given a title. Since then, EA executives have released a drip feed of information, sharing tidbits every few years on what it described as a brand new franchise. Last summer in a video showcasing future games, EA provided a few seconds of footage from Gaia, describing it as "a highly ambitious, innovative new game that puts the power and creativity in your hands." The cancellation is part of a recent resource shift by the company as it evaluates projects and decides which ones will move forward. Earlier this month, the publisher reviewed in-progress games including Gaia and a new iteration of the poorly received online game Anthem, which was also canceled. Gaia's development was turbulent and the game went through at least one major reboot, which may have been a factor behind its demise, according to the people, who requested anonymity because they weren't authorized to talk to the press.
Why not open source it? (Score:4, Interesting)
I wish, when game studios abandon a game, that they would dump it out on the world as open source under a permissive license for people to experiment with it and try to turn it into something. It could be a great educational opportunity for young people interested in computer programming.
It just seems sad for something that probably took hundreds of engineer-years to get discarded outright if someone could learn from it.
Re: (Score:3)
Well to do a car analogy, they can reuse the parts elsewhere. It's not an all or nothing thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, maybe, but how often does that actually happen? Other than DNF, I mean. :-D
Re: (Score:2)
Well, maybe, but how often does that actually happen? Other than DNF, I mean. :-D
Often when there is a new game that would be in the same "genre", style game of play, etc. And unless too much time has passed.
Re:Why not open source it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not going to happen. These games are almost always built using proprietary engines (either licensed or internal), and they may very well re-use code or assets built for the game in some other product. Besides that, its often difficult to even build these games unless you've got all the game and engine-specific tools and SDKs set up properly, so it may not even be all that practical if you've got the source.
Besides, having worked on several titles that were either cancelled or failed somewhat spectacularly, I think you're over-estimating the value of what could be gained by releasing them as open source. There are already some great open source games (both free and commercial) which can be studied for people interested.
When there *are* worthwhile things to share, such as new techniques or algorithms, professional game developers will often share their work in a more platform-neutral fashion, with more detailed explanations in books, blogs, or papers. I think this is far more useful anyhow.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be G3D.
https://sourceforge.net/projec... [sourceforge.net]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why not open source it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Game development doesn't really work that way. You certainly try to nail down core mechanics as soon as you can, but it's not like a business application where you can reasonably define what it needs to do, and if the application does x, y, & z, it's finished. You're always chasing the elusive "fun" factor, which can't exactly be nailed down just because it's in a design document. Even if you've prototyped the game and think you're on the right track, you can often find that when you put the game in front of a focus group, they don't find it as fun as you thought it was.
Some of the most successful games I've worked on spent a *very* long time time trying out and refining their core game mechanics. You implement your ideas, and try them out, and test it out to see if it feels fun. Gather feedback from team and focus groups, figure out why it doesn't feel fun or satisfying, rework some part of the game, repeat. This cycle can take a very long time, and while this is going on, artists are creating worlds, designing enemies, props, effects, sounds, and story. Hopefully, by the end of the allotted time budget, you've had enough feedback cycles to iron out enough rough parts in the gameplay systems, and it still fits well enough with all the assets the artists have spent years creating. It's a very iterative process, not something you just design up front and you're done.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Why not open source it? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, it's a small note that says "Listen to Shigeru Miyamoto."
Re: (Score:2)
Depends a bit on the style of game. For minigames (as in Kongregate / Newgrounds) you can prototype it very fast with placeholder graphics and only bother writing briefs for the graphics and audio teams if the core mechanic is fun. My personal record for idea to playable alpha is 2 hours; with games on that scale you don't even need a design document.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We can all guess, it was probably a micro transaction shitfest and we all know that does not sell any more, they could not rebuild it into a normal game, so killed.
I think the current trend is to redo existing games, and force in micro transactions, but that is also proving unpopular but they want gambling based micro transactions targeted at minors, they want it real bad. They are sick fucks.
Re: (Score:2)
it was probably a micro transaction shitfest and we all know that does not sell any more,
Seems like it still sells well (think of Fortnight).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> having worked on several titles that were either cancelled or failed somewhat spectacularly, I think you're over-estimating the value of what could be gained by releasing them as open source.
Me too but I respectfully disagree. While getting the build environment setup would be a complete and major PITA there is still value in reading the source. It gives insight into the bigger picture of what the programmers, designers, and artists were thinking.
But I get at what you are saying. Is it needed? No.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish, when game studios abandon a game, that they would dump it out on the world as open source under a permissive license for people to experiment with it and try to turn it into something. It could be a great educational opportunity for young people interested in computer programming.
It just seems sad for something that probably took hundreds of engineer-years to get discarded outright if someone could learn from it.
I am not a developer but I suspect I can come up with a couple good answers regardless.
IP. Companies prefer to retain their IP for future possible use. While this attempt at Gaia might have failed, it's reasonable to image a future where they try again. So anything regarding lore, setting, and plot secrets would have to be stripped. Same thing goes for all art and sound assets. Same thing goes for anti-cheat tech.
Usefulness. Modern games rely on licensed engines. Releasing source code that doesn'
Re: Why not open source it? (Score:2)
And would releasing the source to this really add any value to the gaming/coding community?
It sounds like another "sim" type title, of which there are plenty of already covering nearly every subject conceivable.
I'm starting to see all this as a non issue. What would Gaia really have brought to the table nothing else had, and how truly useful would the source code have been?
Re: (Score:2)
If it turns into something. Ie, Morrowind-Oblivion port never finished now it's Morrowind-Skyrim port, and there's an Oblivion-Skyrim port and an Oblivion-Fallout4 port. My guess it that it never gets done. The amount of effort to have a full game is just too much for volunteers most of the time, and when you do get a game sized mod it's very clear that it's fan made and has problems in QA and design and story, etc.
The hard part in a lot of big projects is knowing when to give up, such as when to toss ou
Re: (Score:2)
Because then it's a double hit. Not only did you lose the development money, but now people are potentially not buying one of your other games because they are playing what you just gave away for free.
Code will likely get reused in something else (Score:3)
It could be a great educational opportunity for young people interested in computer programming.
I believe id has made source to real world games public for those interested in learning.
It just seems sad for something that probably took hundreds of engineer-years to get discarded outright.
It probably won't. The code will likely wind up in some other EA game. This happens all the time with canceled games.
Re: (Score:2)
While I like this idea, realistically the chances are slim of somebody picking it up.
We're talking about very hard work here. Just learning your way around a large project can take months. You'll have tons of not fun issues like "why doesn't this compile?", "why is it crashing here?", and "what is the obscure process to generate this particular file?". Then you'll still have to figure out how the structure works and spend days chasing bugs. Then it still won't be fun to play, most likely.
I think a game is o
Alternate Universe. (Score:2)
Seems time doesn't mean the same thing in the game universe as it does out here. That's why seven days to die can still be seven plus years in early access, and there are plenty of other games that have spend years in development.
Far more interesting news (Score:3)
The next Dragon Age was slated to be multi-player, but after the success of Jedi: Fallen Order it has been changed to being a single player RPG [theverge.com] - the kind of things most people want to actually play.
I suspect (Score:2)
yet again... (Score:2)
EA decided Madden or one of the other more generic titles was guaranteed to make more money than a new untested concept. I get it, we all like money, but you never discover new things unless your willing to take a risk. EA will be putting out the same tired bullshit unless the collective gamer population stops buying them.
Re: (Score:2)
So you would say this profit-chasing behavior is ... Madden-ing? (U Madden, bro?)
Re: (Score:2)
Well it is football. Just how many ways can that be done?
Re: (Score:2)
Any sensible company, in any large industry, should have money-makers.
And then they should use those money-makers to put out feelers in new and interesting directions, until they stumble on something that could work. That's literally the entire point of R&D departments.
I don't know if EA have a specific R&D department in name, but they should - and it should be there trying out all kinds of new ideas, even if they never get seen in public. Funded by the same old boring games over and over that peo
Can't buy it, don't care. (Score:3)
I just stick by a very simple principle: If I can't buy it, why should I care? And if I can buy it, let others buy it first and find out if it's actually any good.
Like Duke Nukem Forever, and all kinds of other titles - until it's actually released and available on a decent service that I'm willing to pay for it (cough, oh well, never mind, EA, let's just wait till you put it on Steam), it's simply not worth even thinking about. Certainly never pre-ordered anything in my life.
And then when it *is* available... I'll let some other mug pay through the nose for it, find out that it's junk, and warn me off.
Have over a thousand games on my Steam account going back 17 years, probably spent less in total than an average console player spends on even one console and all the games that they get for it.
Bought a new gaming laptop last year, deliberately to let me catch up on everything that I "missed" in the last 8 years or so, all those games I got but couldn't run properly, and all the games that have come down in price over the years.
It's been almost universally disappointing, with a free game given away on Epic (Watch Dogs 2), and a cheap Christmas deal on Red Dead 2 being the best games by far.
And, sorry, but the launcher-shite is killing PC gaming for me. I'm disgusted that Steam allowed their service to get that bad for it. No, Prison Architect does not need a fucking launcher, especially when it didn't have one for the entire existence of the game, until last year.
If this is what modern gaming is, I'm glad they're cancelling shite, because surely that will only increase the quality of whatever does come out?
I was buying this with a view to getting into VR and I can say that I've abandoned those plans due to cost alone (even if I like the look of HL:Alyx, there's just not enough to justify it).
And the next generation of consoles and games look just like more of the same, so I can't see anything changing any time soon.
Ah well, despite being keen to keep up with all the latest games, all it's done is made me happier with my choice of older games - and made them look better and run even faster.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
In all likelihood (Score:1)
Power of Creativity? (Score:2)
So uh, what exactly was the game supposed to do?
A new version of Adventure Construction Set ? [wikipedia.org]
Another Non-Story (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Outrageous (Score:2)
Cancel coulter has really gone too far now!!!
Sooo ? (Score:1)
SimEarth? (Score:1)
Wasn't this originally SimEarth? Or did they cancel it because simulating climate change revealed too many, shall we say, inconsistencies?
Part it out and reuse (Score:2)
This game will just end up in bits and pieces to use in other future games.
Players won't get Gaia, but instead they will get other games using Gaia's code and resources.
It would be very foolish to discard all of this work wholesale.