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


The Dude
Aug 21, 2011
Dead Space 3 Dev: The Last Thing We Think About is Money

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 []

Dec 14, 2009
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.


Oct 5, 2011
United States
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.


Madness to my Methods
Feb 28, 2010
I don't lol often. But oh my. I read the headline and I was rolling. DID HE SAY THAT WITH A STRAIGHT FACE?!


New member
Jul 9, 2012
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.


New member
Nov 9, 2010
"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!"


New member
Apr 19, 2009
"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.


New member
Jun 13, 2011
- 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

bazaalmon said:
Damn! Ninja'd again...

sir neillios

New member
Dec 15, 2012
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?

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
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.


New member
Dec 25, 2008
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


Casual Plebeian
Oct 23, 2009
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.


New member
Oct 14, 2010
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.


New member
May 22, 2009
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.


New member
Apr 10, 2011
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.



Lord Cromulent
May 21, 2010
"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 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.


New member
Dec 7, 2009

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........


Were it so easy
Oct 2, 2008

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.