EA thinks gamers don't enjoy single player games anymore.....
- Thread starter FakeSympathy
- Start date
Cool, this just makes EA even easier to ignore. Honestly, as long as there are other single player games being made, I'm not going to be too upset that some mediocre AAA publisher who have barely made anything particularly interesting in several years isn't doing it. If EA wants to corner the market on Vegas-style virtual slot machines and microtransactions then have at it. I think sales of games like Breath of the Wild and Mario Odyssey have proven that there is still plenty of market for actually pretty good single player games, and someone will be there to supply it.
As others have said, someone will always make good single player games, because people want good single player games, even if they don't make COD dump trucks full of cash. Which is fine with me because I know which companies to write off and ignore and focus on the good ones made by people who give a shit.
It also makes it easier to catch up on my steam/gog/PS backlog that keeps building up, and numerous good/great SP games came out this year alone.
It also makes it easier to catch up on my steam/gog/PS backlog that keeps building up, and numerous good/great SP games came out this year alone.
Come to think about it pachinko machines were created to circumvent gambling regulations. Would be awsome to see EA go all out 'pachinko' and fight to death with Konami.C14N said:
So no one, not even the OP, read the article...
Every one was just amped up to jump on that EA hate bandwagon. I mean really guys, the OP's title is wrong, the quote is "players don?t like linear games as much as they used to". There is nothing about EA in this article about EA touting multiplayer over single player.
The article is speaking about how EA decided to shut down the Star Wars single player game because it was too linear and that isn't popular in the current market place so they made a financial decision to cut their loses.
Every one was just amped up to jump on that EA hate bandwagon. I mean really guys, the OP's title is wrong, the quote is "players don?t like linear games as much as they used to". There is nothing about EA in this article about EA touting multiplayer over single player.
The article is speaking about how EA decided to shut down the Star Wars single player game because it was too linear and that isn't popular in the current market place so they made a financial decision to cut their loses.
Admittedly I did not read article linked in OP, I read and heard quoted EA explanation to the investors from other sources. However, I think you don't fully understand the meaning of 'linear' here. Linear just means no branching opportunities to further monetize the game outside initial purchase and player playthrough.Rednog said:
EA just doesn't like clean cut, done deal, cause they can't dip into your pockets afterwards. Which is, short term, very sound idea to have and hold as explanation to investors. However it's a very short sighted premise to have in gaming industry and pushing this as gamer's fault and shift of preferences is absurd.
Like claiming just because you started to sell oranges and found out that more people would buy oranges than apples (which you use to sell) it means the customers now don't want apples anymore.
This is what happens when boards of directors a) get their information on the gaming industry from focus groups, and b) exclusively focus-test 10 year old kids.
And, equally importantly, what happens when us consumers don't actually buy the games we profess to like in sufficient numbers. As has been mentioned a few times in this thread, linear single player games (and even fairly open ended linear like Prey and Dishonored) have under-performed for a long time. If we don't buy them, don't expect EA (or anyone else) to continue making them.Grouchy Imp said:
I also think a part of it is how companies gather their info on game usage. For example, I much prefer the single/co-op campaign of Halo 5 to the arena-style multiplayer - however the campaign only takes ~8 hours to complete so any 343 employee looking at my Halo 5 usage data will see that although I've only played the singleplayer campaign for around 8 hours I've played the multiplayer for nearly 100 and, looking purely at the raw data, might therefore assume that I prefer the multiplayer to the singleplayer.Gethsemani said:
I don't think EA execs *really* believe that. Rather, it's harder to monetize a single player game that has a life of 20-60 hours, especially when it comes to microtransactions and loot boxes, then it is a multiplayer game.
You play a single player game, and then you're done. You may pick it up again at some point months or years down the road, especially if there's DLC, but most likely you'll move onto another game in the meantime. Which means that they only have the opportunity to sell you microtransactions during that brief window. But what if they made a game that you played on and off almost constantly? Like a multiplayer title? Maybe you only play it once a week for an hour or two. But it's there, and you play it for months or years. During that time, they have a constant chance to sell you loot boxes. And there's free advertising as well. That other guy is playing as darth vader. It looks like fun. You'd probably like to play as vader too. And you can, if you invest 40 hours, or divvy up the cash. But you have a job. You can't play all the time, like you could as a kid. So you pay. And now you're vader.
The modern game is not a product. It is, in itself, a storefront. A storefront you have to pay to even enter. And you know what? It works. You can say EA is greedy, and you're right, but they're not stupid. They know their lying through their teeth. And, most likely, they're not even lying to you. They're lying to investors, and casual gamers, who don't care or know better. EA has made explosive financial gains as a result of games as services. People may constantly hate them, but they make more money then anyone else anyway, so why should they care? They'd be stupid not to do this, especially since they make more money off of loot boxes then they do from actual sales of the game. Taking them out entirely is literally not an option, because in the long run they'll make more money from the loot boxes then they would have from lost sales. They know this is going to blow over. Which leaves gamers with two ways to actually hurt them. Make this a recurring PR disaster, and pressure disney to revoke the license by telling them that this hurts the brand, and legislate against loot boxes. The first is hard, because we can't let up. The contract give EA the license for several more years. The second is difficult because game companies have started pressuring the government to not legislate. But the steps have been taken to make this a long fight, and victory can only be achieved by keeping a light on this.
You play a single player game, and then you're done. You may pick it up again at some point months or years down the road, especially if there's DLC, but most likely you'll move onto another game in the meantime. Which means that they only have the opportunity to sell you microtransactions during that brief window. But what if they made a game that you played on and off almost constantly? Like a multiplayer title? Maybe you only play it once a week for an hour or two. But it's there, and you play it for months or years. During that time, they have a constant chance to sell you loot boxes. And there's free advertising as well. That other guy is playing as darth vader. It looks like fun. You'd probably like to play as vader too. And you can, if you invest 40 hours, or divvy up the cash. But you have a job. You can't play all the time, like you could as a kid. So you pay. And now you're vader.
The modern game is not a product. It is, in itself, a storefront. A storefront you have to pay to even enter. And you know what? It works. You can say EA is greedy, and you're right, but they're not stupid. They know their lying through their teeth. And, most likely, they're not even lying to you. They're lying to investors, and casual gamers, who don't care or know better. EA has made explosive financial gains as a result of games as services. People may constantly hate them, but they make more money then anyone else anyway, so why should they care? They'd be stupid not to do this, especially since they make more money off of loot boxes then they do from actual sales of the game. Taking them out entirely is literally not an option, because in the long run they'll make more money from the loot boxes then they would have from lost sales. They know this is going to blow over. Which leaves gamers with two ways to actually hurt them. Make this a recurring PR disaster, and pressure disney to revoke the license by telling them that this hurts the brand, and legislate against loot boxes. The first is hard, because we can't let up. The contract give EA the license for several more years. The second is difficult because game companies have started pressuring the government to not legislate. But the steps have been taken to make this a long fight, and victory can only be achieved by keeping a light on this.
Well Bethesda and Sony have both come out and said that single player games are still a priority for them and that they intend to keep making them. Clearly Sony has data about what it's audience likes, so they must believe that their single player offering draw users to their ecosystem. I know that the only reason I have PS4 is for the single player exclusives that Sony makes.