Before we enter into Split Fiction glazing territory, a little over a month ago, EA addressed the underwhelming reception of Dragon Age: The Veilguard during an earnings call. While reviewing their financials, EA adjusted their projections due to the game’s failure to meet expectations. At the time, EA stated that they had “engaged” 1.5 million players, a number that fell nearly 50% short of their internal expectations. However, the term “engaged” is a bit too open, as it likely includes returned copies, shared accounts, and other non-purchase interactions. A more accurate estimate of actual copies sold is likely closer to 1.3 million, which still signifies a significant shortfall.
This shortfall suggests two key points. First, EA likely never expected Veilguard to turn a profit, given its long and tumultuous development cycle. The game underwent multiple shifts from single-player to live service and back, making it an expensive investment with little chance of significant returns. Second, it reaffirms the power of word-of-mouth in the gaming industry. In today’s market, a high Metacritic score is not enough—players must actively recommend a game for it to succeed. EA’s restrictive review process, which only provided review codes to select critics, backfired when those reviewers, such as Maddie and SkillUp, were highly critical of the game.
At preview events, EA showcased the most impressive elements of Veilguard, heavily implying that the rest of the game contained even more engaging content. Unfortunately, the final product did not deliver on these promises. This misrepresentation contributed to negative word-of-mouth, further damaging the game’s performance.
EA’s Misguided Live Service Obsession
EA CEO Andrew Wilson attributed Veilguard’s failure to a lack of “shared world features” and “deeper engagement,” which are corporate euphemisms for live service elements. He suggested that the game might have performed better had it incorporated these aspects. However, this perspective seems disconnected from reality. Adding live service features to a game that already struggled with its core design would have alienated even more players. The suggestion that a battle pass or persistent online elements could have saved Veilguard is delusional and ignores the fundamental reasons for the game’s failure.
This stance reflects a broader industry issue where executives assume that every game can succeed by adopting a live service model. This approach has also plagued Warner Bros. Games, where executives have told investors that their future projects, including Hogwarts Legacy 2, will incorporate live service elements. However, industry insiders, such as Jason Schreier, have reported that Hogwarts Legacy 2 is being developed as a purely single-player experience. This contradiction suggests that these companies are misleading investors about their true development plans, causing confusion and frustration among stakeholders.
The Success of Split Fiction
Contradicting EA’s assertion that single-player or co-op games cannot succeed without live service elements, Split Fiction has emerged as a major success. Released just weeks after Veilguard, Split Fiction has become the highest-rated EA game on Metacritic in nearly a decade. In just 48 hours, it surpassed one million copies sold, outperforming It Takes Two, which won Game of the Year in 2021.
One of Split Fiction’s most pro-consumer features is its co-op model. The game not only lacks live service elements, but it also allows players to enjoy it in couch co-op mode or online with just one purchased copy. The free Friend’s Pass system enables a second player to join without an additional purchase, demonstrating a commitment to consumer-friendly practices.
Despite EA’s insistence that live service models are the future, Split Fiction proves that there is still a strong market for well-crafted, narrative-driven experiences. While live service games like FIFA (now FC) and Madden continue to generate billions, that does not negate the demand for high-quality single-player or co-op experiences. The gaming industry encompasses a diverse range of players with different preferences, and attempts to force live service elements into every genre misunderstand these distinctions.
