EA thinks gamers don't enjoy single player games anymore.....

Dreiko_v1legacy

New member
Aug 28, 2008
4,696
0
0
It's harder to make a game full of pay to win microtransactions if it's a single player non-f2p release and actually sell it to people. Of course they would say that people don't like single player games.

Also, didn't games like Zelda and Nier and Persona 5 win like all of the awards? I'm pretty sure you can't do multiplayer in any of them lol.
 

Quellist

Migratory coconut
Oct 7, 2010
1,443
0
0
EA only cares about bottom lines "Players don't like singleplayer" means "We don't care what players think about singleplayer, multiplayer games make us more money"
 

Charli

New member
Nov 23, 2008
3,445
0
0
EA doesn't like the lack of money:effort ratio that comes from Single player games.

Don't try to swing your hips around the point you slut, EA. We know your tricks.

You're as transparent as they come and we're not tolerating your lack of care and blind profit driven stance on things anymore. Make a worth while gaming experience and maybe we'll throw you a bone.

Every time you lick your wounds and try to crawl out of the trench into something resembling dignity you shit all over yourself doing something sleazy for the sake of money in the most blatant way possible and I don't know honestly how you don't know why you have no player good will left to tap.

16th year giving EA no money. Still going.
 

cathou

Souris la vie est un fromage
Apr 6, 2009
1,163
0
0
No, no EA, it that we don?t enjoy bad single player games anymore. Make good one and they will sell...

Seriously I really hope that Disney revoke their exclusivity deal on Star Wars...
 

Lufia Erim

New member
Mar 13, 2015
1,420
0
0
MaixMai said:
funny that EA says this when the top nominated GOTY where all single player games:

Mario Odyssey
Breath of the Wild
Horizon
Persona 5
Nier

I'm sure there's more but those are the ones I can remember.
no one cares about GOTY. even gamers think those awards are a joke. multiplayer games make just as much if not more money with less effort.

plus its easier to make a multiplayer game than a singleplayer one. plus microtransactions.
 

Sniper Team 4

New member
Apr 28, 2010
5,433
0
0
Kerg3927 said:
Sniper Team 4 said:
After months of fighting it, I finally deleted Mass Effect Andromeda from my PS4. I kept saying, "Have to get the platinum, have to run it one more time," but since they have abandoned the game and gutted it, I just can't stomach going through and not knowing what happens again.
As a huge fan of the Mass Effect trilogy, I have MEA installed on my PC. I stupidly pre-ordered it, paid the full $60. Read all the shitty reviews and internet outrage. Played through the prologue, and didn't really like the characters or how the story was unfolding. Didn't like that it was basically DAI in space, because I hated DAI. So I shelved it, and said I'll come back to it later, after its been patched up.

But I haven't. That was 9 months ago. I think I just love the Mass Effect universe too much, and I don't want that game to taint it. Because deep down I know it's bad. And I know I'll be hugely disappointed. I think it might be better if I just pretend that the game doesn't exist and that Bioware is dead. Kinda like I pretend that Metallica broke up and stopped making new music around 1991.
And that makes me so sad, because before, I would have told you to give it a chance. No, it's nowhere near the same level as the original trilogy, but it had promise. It was certainly rough, but there was enough there that it would be worth it.

And then they gave up. No sequel to answer ANY of the leftover questions, not even single player DLC to wrap up what very well could have been an awesome story at the end. Nothing. And now, I have all those questions rotting in my brain, knowing that they'll never be answered, and because of that, I can safely say that NO ONE should bother with the game now. There's a reason it's in the bargain bin everywhere, and why it's not really selling. And it's so frustrating.
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Apr 18, 2020
7,671
2,374
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
Sniper Team 4 said:
And that makes me so sad, because before, I would have told you to give it a chance. No, it's nowhere near the same level as the original trilogy, but it had promise. It was certainly rough, but there was enough there that it would be worth it.

And then they gave up. No sequel to answer ANY of the leftover questions, not even single player DLC to wrap up what very well could have been an awesome story at the end. Nothing. And now, I have all those questions rotting in my brain, knowing that they'll never be answered, and because of that, I can safely say that NO ONE should bother with the game now. There's a reason it's in the bargain bin everywhere, and why it's not really selling. And it's so frustrating.
Yeah, I'm really done with this whole "DLC to make up for lack of game content" shit. With very few exceptions, I'm not buying a game until the story DLC are all done releasing and then I'll just buy the package that puts it all together. Because I'm really not into paying $60 for a game and then another $10-60 beyond that to see the whole package.

I make kind of an exception for Paradox strategy games, but partially because the expansion DLC isn't covering up a lacking base game...and the fact the DLC never seem to stop.

I'm going to echo what a lot of other people have said. EA's single player games have been lacking for quite a while. The last game I can remember buying from them was Mass Effect 3, and that was more a Bioware thing then an EA thing(but the corruption was already starting to show). Battlefield: Bad Company 2 wasn't impressive, which struck me as trying to mock COD while at the same time being an inferior imitator(if you're going to ape Modern Warfare 2, either don't be so obvious about it or do it better).

MAYBE(and that's a big maybe) if EA actually showed they cared about making good Single Player games, I might give them another chance, but at this point it's really, really hard to see even that happening considering all the shit they've pulled over the years.
 

Gethsemani_v1legacy

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,552
0
0
It helps to remember that Visceral's game was, for all intents and purposes, a train wreck where boundless ambition and high creative demand met the harsh realities of inadequate technological expertise and the limitations of software coding. EA shut Visceral down and canned the game for economical reasons, but further reading reveals that Visceral had very little in the way of game and lots in the way of ambitious design docs. When you're given something like three years to develop a working prototype and all you've got to show for it is a single cutscene rendered in the game engine, you've got problems.

EA has shown its' true colors with the recent lootbox scandals, but I still feel that their call with Visceral was right. Visceral majorly screwed up in delivering the product they had signed up to deliver, canning them and icing the project was the sensible business move.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
17,356
1,493
118
In all honesty... EA's right.

Yes, a lot people still care about (linear) single-player games, but that number pales in comparison to the amount that play, and most importantly spend money on, multi-player games. Even the single-player games we do get (not by EA obviously) are generally open-world, because that structure lends itself better for selling DLC packs. This is where certainly the AAA side of the industry is heading toward. Some might say we're already there. And I don't see EA as the cause, but the symptom.
 

Odbarc

Elite Member
Jun 30, 2010
1,155
0
41
I recently got Divinity Original Sin 2 and I haven't done any of the multiplayer stuff yet.
Multiplayer only games are pretty boring. For me, particularly, shooters like Overwatch and Doom or whatever, repetitive 30 second play times with obscene amounts of deaths and revives isn't very fun or interesting.

I like RPGs, saving progressions, the option to grind out for extra power (loot, xp, stats) before I continue to the next area to maintain supremacy over the AI or try to min-max my way through if there's rewards for delaying those power spikes. (Final Fantasy 3 with the Esper bonuses, the lower your levels, the more levels you have for the stats gained when you level up).

It would make more sense for a company to just admit that the games they do and want to make aren't the games other companies make and are better at making. There's little reason to become EA Mahjong just because some other company is making money with Mahjong (whatever the hell that is) or say EA Final Fantasy because their staff and company isn't geared towards creating those games or experiences.

However when the game your making is centered around a loot box mechanic and the entire point is to gouge addicts into forking over money and gouging regular players and kids into forking over money, that feels entirely like a scam created to steal and swindle as much money out of customers versus attempting to provide an experience for gamers. It's not going to be remembered a decade from now, "Oh, remember all those times we got that one loot box full of stuff we wanted?" It's not an interesting story to tell and it's not a fun experience to endure.

I think the greatest majority of the stories I could tell about gaming moments happened while playing wrestling games and just commentating. Like the time my character probably died in ring and (probably a glitch) wouldn't get back up on it's own despite half an hour of spamming the controller when it usually only took (at most) 30 seconds or the half inch bunny hop jump that results in a 12 foot drop that would probably have shattered the guys shins in real life. It was how he fell that was hilarious because it kept up with the effortless 'bunny hop' despite falling a lethal distance.
 

Rangaman

New member
Feb 28, 2016
508
0
0
I can't be arsed getting a screenshot (or better yet, a GIF), but EA continues to remind me of Nostalgia Critic's "chart guys" gag. "The chart says multiplayer games sell better." "Well that must mean people don't like singleplayer games."
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Apr 18, 2020
7,671
2,374
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
Casual Shinji said:
In all honesty... EA's right.

Yes, a lot people still care about (linear) single-player games, but that number pales in comparison to the amount to play, and most importantly spend money on, multi-player games. Even the single-player games we do get (not by EA obviously) are generally open-world, because that structure lends itself better for selling DLC packs. This is where certainly the AAA side of the industry is heading toward. Some might say we're already there. And I don't see EA as the cause, but the symptom.
Single Player games do make money and even pretty good profit in some cases(Hellblade apparently did a lot better then expected) but they generally don't make ALL THE PROFIT(AKA COD/AC wads of cash), and apparently that's all the AAA developers really care about anymore. If they can't make ALL THE MONIES, why bother?
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
17,356
1,493
118
Dalisclock said:
Casual Shinji said:
In all honesty... EA's right.

Yes, a lot people still care about (linear) single-player games, but that number pales in comparison to the amount to play, and most importantly spend money on, multi-player games. Even the single-player games we do get (not by EA obviously) are generally open-world, because that structure lends itself better for selling DLC packs. This is where certainly the AAA side of the industry is heading toward. Some might say we're already there. And I don't see EA as the cause, but the symptom.
Single Player games do make money and even pretty good profit in some cases(Hellblade apparently did a lot better then expected) but they generally don't make ALL THE PROFIT(AKA COD/AC wads of cash), and apparently that's all the AAA developers really care about anymore. If they can't make ALL THE MONIES, why bother?
There's no real increase of annual profits with (linear) single-player games -- there's no yearly growth. And companies are all about that growth.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
I'm trying to imagine any other industry doing this. This would be like Pepsi saying that Pepsi was more profitable than Mountain Dew, so better get rid of Mountain Dew instead of making money off of both of them.

Also get fucked EA. I hope you get slammed with gambling legislation after the shit you pulled.
 

JUMBO PALACE

Elite Member
Legacy
Jun 22, 2020
3,552
7
43
Country
USA
*Looks at games bought during previous Steam sale*

-Wolfenstein II
-Hellblade
-Dishonored Death of the Outsider
-Prey

Fucking news to me. EA can spout all the nonsense it wants, nothing's going to change the fact they lost 3 billion over BF2. In the few multiplayers games I play I quickly find the mute all key and enjoy the spoils it brings.
 

Gethsemani_v1legacy

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,552
0
0
Dalisclock said:
Single Player games do make money and even pretty good profit in some cases(Hellblade apparently did a lot better then expected) but they generally don't make ALL THE PROFIT(AKA COD/AC wads of cash), and apparently that's all the AAA developers really care about anymore. If they can't make ALL THE MONIES, why bother?
Hellblade also took 3 months to break even after release, which is pretty bad compared to Battlefield, CoD or AC, who all tend to break even scant few hours after release. In the same, depressing, vein we have Dishonored 2 and Prey, both stellar single player games that haven't lived up to sales expectations.

Single player is not dead by any means, but since player retention is increasingly important due to the proliferation of DLC and in-game purchases, you want to either go multiplayer or open world single player, because that's where you can monetize. Even for us players the idea of open worlds as opposed to linear Hellblade/Wolfenstein games hold a certain appeal as we'll get more game time per money spent in a game like AC, Far Cry or Fallout then we'd get out of Wolfenstein. When cash is short, most of us would probably prefer Far Cry 4 (c:a 30-40 hours for one playthrough) over Wolfenstein (c:a 10-12 hours for one playthrough) because we get more game time with diverse content from Far Cry.

I believe that this is one of those cases when us "hardcore gamers" aren't representative of the gaming population at large. We like our focused single player stories, but the numbers supports the idea that we are a minority.
 

Jamcie Kerbizz

New member
Feb 27, 2013
302
0
0
SupahEwok said:
Nah. EA doesn't believe in that line. Know what they do believe in?

The fact that DLC, mostly lootboxes, forms 45% of their revenues in 2017, over 800 million dollars, mostly from their sports games (espescially FIFA). This is according to their official financial reports.

You can spend $30 million and 4 years on a masterpiece AAA game, and make back $100 million. You can spend $20 million, mostly licensing fees, on crapping out a patch for a sports franchise every year, and make back $800 million.

You know who invented the lootbox? The man who is currently CEO of EA games.

What does that math tell ya?
Precisely this. 'EA thinks' is a misnomer. 'EA miscalculated'... would be more apt description. They make short term hit and run market calculations and draw disastrous conclusions. All the while not seeing, that they not just cut off the branch they sit on, they literally burn the forest they live in and profit on.