Advertisement
Eidos halts Carmageddon News
PC
PlayStation 2
Xbox
News
by
Tom Bramwell
Eidos has halted development of Carmageddon at Visual Science, Eurogamer understands, although it's not clear whether the game has been canned completely or whether it will resurface at another developer.
According to sources at the Scottish developer, development stopped over a fortnight ago, but Eidos has so far said nothing. Calls for comment to Eidos had not been returned at the time of publication, and nobody from Visual Science was available to take our call.
It's not known whether any jobs were lost following suspension of the game's development.
Carmageddon, an SCi product prior to its acquisition of Eidos, is thought to have been in development for at least two years, having first been mentioned in a financial report in 2003 - it was later linked with a 2005 release on PS2, Xbox and PC.
The news of the revival of SCi's driving action series, which had courted much controversy during its early days on the PC thanks to regular and violent obliteration of human pedestrian sprites, had been met with some interest by gamers - particularly as new technology seemed to pave the way for much more exotic visuals - but details have always been thin on the ground.
Advertisement
Are you excited about Carmageddon on PC?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games
Thanks!
Related Games
Carmageddon
Carmageddon
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Comments: 1-47 of 47 in total
Poster
|
captain-future
19/08/05 @ 16:30
0
wasn't that game out on PC a long time ago? a friend of mine said something about a racing game where you should drive over people.
|
|
tonynibbles
19/08/05 @ 17:38
0
We DO need a new Carmageddon.
Refer to first comment
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 19/08/05 @ 18:38
|
|
[VS]Insider.
19/08/05 @ 21:29
0
This was fucked from the start, it had no design, leads were quitting all over the place and the level design team had no experience. Poor the visual shiteness, no jobs were lost with all the 'talent' moving on to other projects.
|
|
0
Aaaah come on guys don't be so harsh!
OK so Carmageddon 2000 was a pile of wank. Granted. But I think that this is a franchise that desperately needed a MAJOR kick up the arse, and could potentially have been far more exciting than just running people over. Let's face it. Eidos don't have a fucking clue what they're doing with any of their "IP's"... I look at Carmageddon and what it has become and think "What a shame". I also look at Burnout 4/: Revenge and think "What a shame". ...still here's looking to 'Burnout:2007' ..yeah thanks EA ..thanks Eidos... you cocks.
Edited 3 times,
most recently on 19/08/05 @ 22:37
|
|
0
I think the fact that it's been 2 years in development yet nothing was ever shown or anounced is a telling clue.
Could be that the project was stuck in development hell and for wha tever reason could never produce anything worthy of being shown to the press and now Eidos has just pulled it althoghther or moved it to another developer. Purely speculation ofcourse. |
|
0
"Visual Science have a proven track record to be able to deliver on time every time and within buget" (sic)
You might want to change that and run a spellchecker on your site while your at it. Inept managment and game designers, well I'm sure they must have lost their jobs after this....so lets get the official statement then. |
|
0
Because companies like that are to the detriment of the games industry. 11 or 12 years they've been around and what have they done? fuck all. they get handed a golden license like carmageddon and, somehow, they fuck it up. i'm just glad it's finally been canned so that someone else can do a decent job of it. it's too good a license to leave in the wilderness.
|
|
DeveloperPump
20/08/05 @ 21:04
0
>Because companies like that are to the detriment of the games industry. 11 or 12 >years they've been around and what have they done? fuck all.
I'm interested to know what you mean by "Companies like that". Can you explain this? I also think you'd be wrong to say that they've done nothing in 11 or 12 years. A company employing over 100 people can't do nothing for 11 or 12 years 'cos they need to pay salaries. I think it would be fairer to say that they have produced a great many products for many SKUs over this period. Most of them have been under the EA banner, such as the F1 and Harry Potter games and are licenses. Just because they don't produce their own IP doesn't make them crap. Not every developer can have kick-ass catalogues of IP in their coffers. Some just make money through development and that tends to make them anonymous to people too lazy to find out about them. Of course, I also believe that any company who doesn't attempt to obtain revenue through generating their own IP is putting themselves and their employees in for a bleak future. Just out of interest...which developers do you all think would produce a worthy version of Carmageddon? Oh, and Carmageddon definitely ain't a "Golden License". It's more like the Barry from Eastenders caliber of icense, definitely languishing closer to the bargain-basement side of the license bin. Successful only because of its extreme content for the time. They'd have to go a bit further to get folk to notice these days.
Edited 2 times,
most recently on 20/08/05 @ 22:10
|
|
0
"Successful only because of its extreme content for the time. They'd have to go a bit further to get folk to notice these days."
So I assume you never actually played 1 or 2 then and are just going on your preconceptions of the series. For the time they were some of the most exciting arcade driving games around and with hooks like the ability to take enemies out of the race through damage, an open map with no obstructed paths, and extra time for driving off the beaten path (ok, it could have been done with starts or coins rather than peds but they had justifiable reeasons by tying it into to a cult hit built on the same premise) felt unique for the time with good risk/reward mechanics and open ended gameplay* *and you don't hear that often in the driving genre anymore unless you're talking about spending 5 minutes driving to the start of the next race in a NFSU type thing. |
|
0
To Developer Pump,
Well done you checked out their history. but they didn't do the main part of those games. that was done by other companies. they did bolt ons like multiplayer. Did you enjoy the online Multiplayer of Medal of Honor: European Assault? It's not about licenses, it's about outright lies like putting those games on their softography so people like you think they've done them whereas all they did was a part of the multiplayer or spell checking the credits or something. And all this just a few months after Russell Kay sold the company to that Christian fella. Unlucky! As for who'd make a decent Carmageddon game, I'd keep it away from Eutechnyx too. There must be some reason why SCI didn't want to give it to the guys that did the others though. |
|
DeveloperPump
21/08/05 @ 20:45
0
shivoa wrote:
>So I assume you never actually played 1 or 2 then and are just going on your >preconceptions of the series. For the time they were some of the No, I played them both quite alot actually. I played 1 mostly and it was a real hoot. It was also very solidly put together for the time. The Stainless boys were definitely a talented bunch and they managed to cram a whole load of creative content into these two products. When I said that they were so successful due to their extreme content I really did mean it. If you remember when they were released there was an uproar in the press regarding the blood content and Stainless were forced to change the blood from red to green to appease the PC brigade. Had the game originally been released with verdant zombie blood instead of the real deal then it wouldn't have had such amazing free coverage by the press and I think it's reasonable to assume that this positively affected sales. But it was still a very solid and playable game, with a seminal reward system for brutal driving. northy wrote: >Nobody with any kind of ambition / talent is going to hang around for long in a >company which has a track record of mediocrity. It's a vicious circle which is very >hard to break. This is also true. But it's the situation that most PC or console developers find themselves in. Making your own IP costs money. You have to employ designers, artists and coders to make demos and then you have to have influential management to pitch it to the correct people. And then you have to strike a deal that allows you to be able to KEEP some of the IP that you've spent tons of cash making. Your publisher has to be totally behind it in terms of marketing spend, which is very rare if they don't own the IP. It truly is a vicious cycle and so hard to escape in a market that is so saturated. I think most studios in this situation are really hoping to be bought by a Sugar-Daddy publisher that'll make things alright. Therefore, Visual Sciences have to present themselves as a lean mean developing machine to appear attractive to publishers. The problem is, why would a publisher fork out millions to buy and maintain a 100+ staff company when they can rent it for cheaper and leave it soiled and used at the end of it? wattoo wrote: >Well done you checked out their history. but they didn't do the main part of those >games. that was done by other companies. they did bolt ons like multiplayer. Did >you enjoy the online Multiplayer of Medal of Honor: European Assault? Yeah, I know that as well. Once again, not the fault of VS per se. It was another one in the ass for them by EA. Probably lucrative development money changed hands here, but it's still not making for a sustainable business in my very humble opinion. Does anyone know of any middleweight developers (100ish) who are making original content these days, retaining the IP for themselves AND balancing the books? If so, then I'd love to know their secret! It's a wicked world. It truly is... |
|
0
/applauds again
We tried mixing original IP with licences as backup projects. At peak we had three projects, two original IP and one license. One of our own IP projects got canned due to the publisher running out of money, and then the license got canned too. Then we finished the remaining product and went out of business. Who'd be a third party independent developer, eh? Nobody if this trend keeps up. |
|
0
Im guessing SCI have canned this now for several reasons:
1. Usual publisher misunderstandings of what they want from the devco. 2. IP probably not as strong as the stuff they have acquired from Eidos, hence 3. Waited until Eidos acquisition was complete otherwise may have affected their SP and can now bury sunk costs alongside integration of Eidos expenses IE the cancelation (or moving to another devco) is reported as a strength rather than weakness of management. >>Does anyone know of any middleweight developers (100ish).. In the PC space quite a few (all those yank FPS,RTS devcos), on consoles a few but they aint making the big hits anymore and are likely to be getting further into financial difficulties with the next gen. In the UK there are f all, Free Radical owned their IP dont know how well theyre doing - 2ndsight didnt do that well, Lionhead (but they had to give up shares for VC cash recently), CircleStudios (self-financed from the smiths and we'll have to wait and see what their titles are like - I reckon they increasingly wont be able to compete next-gen and will sellout in the next couple of years if they can find interest from any publisher). Tis virtually impossible to be an independent console devco doing original games in the UK nowadays unless you have founders with 7figure (preferably 8figure) assets to bankrole the initial startup phase and cyclical downturns in cashflow between projects. Even then if I had 10mil I wouldnt start a devco in this day and age, maybe if I had 50mil, I could finance operations from interest and not worry about recouping. |
|
0
eutechnyx are in calmer waters now because they own the BMT and SRS ip's and therefore got bigger royalties on those than most devco's do (although none of that went to any of the staff). plus they've got pretty decent relations with a big publisher at last so they're no longer trying to go for AAA titles, and churning out simpler budget titles fairly quickly. i think it's the only way smaller indies can survive in this country at the moment.
[edit] full stops... phew...
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 22/08/05 @ 17:29
|
Comments: 1-47 of 47 in total
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
