EA Turns Its Back on Single-Player Games

TheSteeleStrap

New member
May 7, 2008
721
0
0
This kind of goes to show that EA doesn't have enough faith in its ability to make a good single player experience anymore.
 

SextusMaximus

Nightingale Assassin
May 20, 2009
3,508
0
0
WHY IN THE HELL DO DEVELOPERS THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA?

PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE CONSTANT INTERNET ACCESS.

MANY HAVE POOR INTERNET, AND MANY ALSO HAVE NO INTERNET ACCESS AT ALL.

'scuse me, I feel caps lock should be permitted for this.

EDIT:
Crazy Zaul said:
Yer thats good EA, stop making single player games, COS YOUR MMO IS GOING SO WELL.
ALSO THIS.
 

pppppppppppppppppp

New member
Jun 23, 2011
1,519
0
0
It'll be interesting to see how they'll manage to shoehorn multiplayer into every IP. I mean, when you look at a survival horror game like Dead Space, there's no way they could turn that into a cooperative expe-OH WAIT
 

DrunkOnEstus

In the name of Harman...
May 11, 2012
1,712
0
0
I didn't sift through 280 posts (though I try to read as much as I can) but this is too stupid for me to handle, and it has to be let out.

Buddy, did anyone leave a memo on your desk that Skyrim has made over 500 million dollars? All without co-op, deathmatch, or bugging my friends on Facebook with "Hey, I killed a Dragon! Click here to help me give EA more money!"

Honestly, every time a talking head from this company decides to speak to their buying public, they say the most inane, thick-headed, pretentious and pompous bullshit and its the kind of things that people who actually play video games have nightmares about.

"Haven't greenlighted a purely single-player experience"? Then you suck at your job, diversity gives you the willies and urrrrrghhhhh fjhgdoshugdouhfgodfh alright much better. Well, only a little, but it helps.
 

daibakuha

New member
Aug 27, 2012
272
0
0
Eppy (Bored) said:
daibakuha said:
Yep, people are jumping the gun. In fact Gabe Newell said the same thing months ago, yet no one complained then.
SOURCE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMgfPU9y3yo

I think it's a combination of blind EA hatred, and nerdbaiting title that leads to all these stupid comments.
I would like to point out that Gabe Newell can do whatever he pleases because he has never shipped a game that wasn't at least excellent. If HL3 ships with multiplayer hopefully it will follow the original Half Life model and be Counterstrike instead (I wouldn't be surprised).

Meanwhilst, people are jumping the gun and raging, yes, but this is EA; they deserve every bit of it, for their terrible PR department if nothing else. Anybody who knows ANYTHING about the core gaming communities will tell you in an instant what a terrible idea anything vaguely related to the content of that announcement is and how negative the reaction will be. Just for saying it like that EA deserves it.

TL;DR, survival of the fittest applies to your PR department.
I see, so having a double standard and being a hypocrite are ok as long as it's valve and they make good games.
 

daibakuha

New member
Aug 27, 2012
272
0
0
Rooster Cogburn said:
They are not jumping the gun, what they're worried about is already happening and they are sick of watching it play out. This reminds me of when Bioware told us Dragon Age 2 was going to suck. Those of us who complained were told to just trust the assurances of the one true god and don't believe your own lying eyes.

Anything that was less 'nerdbaiting' would have been a less accurate description of the article. Especially less accurate of the original article. Now I'm reminded of when people were calling "yellow journalism!" when an escapist article seemed to imply that there may just be some unspecified trouble of unknown magnitude with Diablo III's servers on launch day. Accurately describing what is happening or what is likely to happen makes accusations of "yellow journalism!" seem purely defensive.

People don't go insane over Valve making multiplayer games because a developer making multiplayer games is not the problem. You are taking everything out of context to make everything look equivalent. It's the role of multiplayerization in gutting and cannibalizing beloved franchises and giving gamers an increasingly raw deal. If Valve contributes to either of those things, they are pretty insidious about it because I can't think of a franchise they cynically ruined and exploited for a quick buck lately. They certainly appear to provide quality at a great price. Well, usually. More often than EA.

You cannot tell me with a straight face that the world is a better place with Command and Conquer 4 in it. Those idiots tried to turn a good single player franchise into a more exploitable multiplayer service. And instead of learning their lesson from that failure and just making a solid, traditionally single player C&C, they're just trying the multiplayer route again. They would obviously prefer making a low-budget, cash market exploitable multiplayer service that blows up your computer if you go offline or try to adjust the font to attempting a C&C title worthy of the name. Yes, C&C always had multiplayer. That is not the problem. I don't see how anyone can ignore how stuff like this is bad for gamers and fans.

EA is not your friend. They are going to rape you exactly as hard as you let them. Maybe that's true of a lot of companies, but for whatever reason they are a lot, lot more insidious about it than EA.
You know, if you'd actually taken as much time to read the article and the statement as you did to write this overlong, bloated hyperbole, you would see that it's not strictly about multiplayer. It's about connectivity. Something that's already happening in the industry.

Again like I said earlier it's suddenly ok for you and others to be hypocrites about this because it's EA?

I know it was a strawman, but I will take a minute and address the C&C argument though. It's 2012, how many RTS games today release without at least SOME form of online multiplayer? Starcraft 2 is the largest RTS in the world right now, and it got that way with online multiplayer. Hell, even indie RTS's release with online multiplayer now. Why shouldn't C&C? So what if it used to be a single player only game? Last time I checked the campaign was still there.

anything else you say hyperbolic nonsense.
 

MrBaskerville

New member
Mar 15, 2011
871
0
0
DrunkOnEstus said:
Buddy, did anyone leave a memo on your desk that Skyrim has made over 500 million dollars? All without co-op, deathmatch, or bugging my friends on Facebook with "Hey, I killed a Dragon! Click here to help me give EA more money!"
But think of all the money the sales they lost due to lacking social network integration! They could have made over 1000 million dollars!
 

Ed130 The Vanguard

(Insert witty quote here)
Sep 10, 2008
3,782
0
0
daibakuha said:
Ed130 said:
Unfortunately tacked on multi-player seems to be EA's preferred choice.

That and Day One DLC cut out from the game.
*Citation needed*
Mass Effect 3: Both
Dead Space 2: Multiplayer
Dead Space 3: Multiplayer (so far)
Dragon Age 3: (rumoured to have multiplayer)
Syndicate: Actually the multiplayer was closer to the original game than the actual campaign.
Project ten dollar in general
Dragon Age: DLC (iffy one as they really could have been telling the truth about Shale's reason for not being in the game)

I get the reason for some of these, but with EA you give them a finger and they bite your arm off. There was no logical reason for locking the Prothean behind a DLC barrier for customers who were NOT buying a second-hand copy.
 

Gunner 51

New member
Jun 21, 2009
1,218
0
0
Oh Electronic Arts, where did you start to go wrong?

First rule of running a successful business is surely to build not only a good product but good relations with your customers. Build a GOOD game that's worth it's price and people will buy it. Build a great one, and people will keep it. Think of all the PC gamers who still have a copy of Doom lying around.

But watching EA alienate it's customers and ripping them off - it's only going to be a matter of time before they go the way of the dodo. And the sad thing is that there is something they can do to reverse their fortunes - sack the idiots in the executive positions and replace them with the artists which EA used to be many moons ago.

While the same could also be said for Activision - though they've done the next best thing and kept Bobby Kotick from opening his mouth. (Hell, it was only yesteryear everyone was going on about how evil Activision is and what a cancer it is upon gaming.)

The big problem is publishers and their avarice. If only they'd be happy with smaller profits, better games and let customer happiness and positive PR do the rest by creating customer loyalty.
 

EeveeElectro

Cats.
Aug 3, 2008
7,055
0
0
Of course they aren't. They can't scam people out of even more money with online passes if the game is single player.
I don't have Gold (Man, I already bought an xbox, a TV, I'm paying for an internet connection already so I don't want to spend £40 or whatever it is for Gold, on top of the online passes they have sometimes) so I guess it sux2beme.

At least they haven't given up on single player completely. I think that would be the deaf of them.
Although I don't know how they're going to make games like Dragon Age into multiplayer... Doesn't seem right.
 

Sanat

New member
Apr 7, 2012
149
0
0
This can't be fucking real. Holy mother of Jesus and titty-biscuits, this hurts.

Andy Chalk said:
things like Dead Space 3, which has evolved from a solo horror experience to a co-op shooter
Fuck this gay earth.
 

Zeraki

WHAT AM I FIGHTING FOOOOOOOOR!?
Legacy
Feb 9, 2009
1,615
45
53
New Jersey
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Death matches, capture the flag and squeaky condescending voices coming soon to a Dragon Age 3 near you!

And don't worry about missing out on it, because we'll guarantee you won't be able to get the entire experience of the single player campaign, unless you grind out arbitrary numbers in this tacked on mode that you'll get bored with in less than an hour after your fifth match that dropped before it even left the lobby!

SON OF A *****!

-plays Dragon Age, Knights of The Old Republic and the Mass Effect trilogy simultaneously whilst sobbing uncontrollably-


(I'm half serious, half exaggerating for comedic purposes... to keep myself sane)
 

theSteamSupported

New member
Mar 4, 2012
245
0
0
I wouldn't actually blame EA for this.

Keep in mind that they use Madden and FIFA as justifications, and those games sell way more than Skyrim or GTA or any other "niche" titles. What I'm trying to get at, is that we're in a minority.

You know, before video games, if you wanted to play a game, it had to be with someone else, a breathing human being. It may not be natural for us to consider multi-player as a default state, but for everyone else, that is the case.
 

Zeraki

WHAT AM I FIGHTING FOOOOOOOOR!?
Legacy
Feb 9, 2009
1,615
45
53
New Jersey
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Contradiction said:
Let us all share a minutes silence for DA3...

It never even... never had a chance to show the world what it had to offer.

-hammy over the top emotional crying scene... then holds hand out for an Oscar-
 

prophecy2514

New member
Nov 7, 2011
328
0
0
EA

- You've ruined dead space for me
- Your destroying bioware
- ...and now you're going to screw over future potential games/IP's by adding in unnecessary multi-player

3 strikes. you're out EA. Not touching my money again, or more importantly my love again
 

blackdwarf

New member
Jun 7, 2010
606
0
0
MarsProbe said:
blackdwarf said:
"yeah, i really want multiplayer on DA3!"

-nobody.

there is nothing worse then a use MP component that nobody likes, because you wasted money, time and effort in making it.
I can see the "Kingdom Readiness" (working title only) meter already for DA3. Not got enough KR points to get through the games final moments? Better grind away at the multiplayer component for hours on end or play our "free" mobile game, Dragon Age 3: The Fleecing to up your rating!
thing is, that worked for ME3. sure, it was nothing new, but the MP atleast was enjoyable. DA gameplay would make for some boring MP, unless they use different game mechanics.