This kind of goes to show that EA doesn't have enough faith in its ability to make a good single player experience anymore.
ALSO THIS.Crazy Zaul said:Yer thats good EA, stop making single player games, COS YOUR MMO IS GOING SO WELL.
I see, so having a double standard and being a hypocrite are ok as long as it's valve and they make good games.Eppy (Bored) said: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).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.
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.
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.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.
*Citation needed*Ed130 said:Unfortunately tacked on multi-player seems to be EA's preferred choice.
That and Day One DLC cut out from the game.
But think of all the money the sales they lost due to lacking social network integration! They could have made over 1000 million dollars!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!"
Mass Effect 3: Bothdaibakuha said:*Citation needed*Ed130 said:Unfortunately tacked on multi-player seems to be EA's preferred choice.
That and Day One DLC cut out from the game.
Fuck this gay earth.Andy Chalk said:things like Dead Space 3, which has evolved from a solo horror experience to a co-op shooter
Contradiction said:Let us all share a minutes silence for DA3...
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.MarsProbe said: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!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.