EA Turns Its Back on Single-Player Games
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Try to use actual facts, relevant to the conversation and I may actually read your overlong, hyperbolic verbal diarrhea.Rooster Cogburn said:
It's a strawman because you attempt to make the the conversation about something it isn't. You use C&C to try and prove a point about something that isn't relevant.
This article isn't strictly about multiplayer. Maybe you should be the one who actually takes the time to read the article, no?
EDIT: it's yellow journalism because the title of the article doesn't match it's contents. It's reporting facts that aren't true.
Well, they've been botching single players for a while. Who knows, now they throw it out of the window anyway, they might actually put the effort and make good multiplayer games?
I'm an optimist.
Yeah, the last fuck I gave just flew out of the window, never to return. He won't call me, he won't send me any mails, the fuck just broke all contact with me, leaving me wondering what I did for it to leave me so toroughly.
I'm an optimist.
Yeah, the last fuck I gave just flew out of the window, never to return. He won't call me, he won't send me any mails, the fuck just broke all contact with me, leaving me wondering what I did for it to leave me so toroughly.
So let me get this straight: you didn't read my arguments, and my arguments are irrelevant. The arguments you didn't read are irrelevant. I think I see what's going on here lol.daibakuha said:
That's not what a strawman is. I think you're trying to say my argument is a red herring. It isn't. I know the article isn't strictly about multiplayer and neither is my argument. But you couldn't possibly know that, because you didn't read it. Your strawman that makes us all out as hypocrites for liking a developer that makes multiplayer games is strictly about multiplayer, but that has fuckall to do with me. I read the fucking goddamn article. Please do not refuse to read my posts and then accuse me of not reading because you just made up what you think I said because you don't know what I said because you didn't read it. For fuck's sake.
The title of the article could not be a better match for it's contents. The guy boasts, "I have not green lit one game to be developed as a single player experience. Today, all of our games include online applications and digital services that make them live 24/7/365." EA made a gaffe, the escapist reported it, and now you're calling "yellow journalism!" on the escapist because they accurately reported something that put EA in a bad light. Even if I conceded that the title demonstrates bias against EA, which it absolutely does not, that's a pretty weaksauce example of "yellow journalism!" which is a serious thing to accuse a journalist of. Talk to me when the escapist reports Bobby Kotick and Saddam Hussein Adopt Shaved Ape Baby.
For the record, the post you are calling overlong, hyperbolic verbal diarrhea was not that long. And I don't know what basis you could possibly have for calling it hyperbolic verbal diarrhea because you did not read it. The only hyperbolic verbal diarrhea in this thread is the strawman you have been beating up since page two.
When you put "multiplayer in everything is awesome!" next to "they would never do that, guys!" it seems dissonant. Technically those things are not contradictory but it leaves us in the dark about your motives. It makes it seem like you would just defend EA regardless.
I...I don't know what to say. There are some games that don't benefit from the addition of multiplayer, good God why are you shooting yourself in the foot like this.
Pokemon Red/Blue sold well because it was an amazingly addictive singe player experience that looked nothing like anything before it.daibakuha said:
Well, that and the fact that there were 2 versions and trading between both was required to get the pokemon from the other version, so instead some of the more hardcore fans now buy each version which means double the sales from some players.GAunderrated said:
Hear ye Hear Ye!
The People of the noble Kingdom of Escapistia hath proclaimed that the Interactive entertainment publishing firm, Electronic Arts, Hath contracted a mental disease in which it appears to be attempting to remove itself from the business world of publishing games!
His Royal HighnessWhite Death He who shalt not be named, hath recommended that the people do not purchase their published products as they may be of low standard and quality!
The people hath also proclaimed,that Frank Gibau,is a ****.
The People of the noble Kingdom of Escapistia hath proclaimed that the Interactive entertainment publishing firm, Electronic Arts, Hath contracted a mental disease in which it appears to be attempting to remove itself from the business world of publishing games!
His Royal Highness
The people hath also proclaimed,that Frank Gibau,is a ****.
I really try my best to always give EA the benefit of the doubt --since I believe a lot of people just mindlessly bash the company because it's an easy target-- but sometimes they make it bloody difficult for me.
In this story, especially, they seem to be confusing core demographics with 'what is currently popular' and they're going to be in for a nasty shock when the casuals they're suckering in with their fad-games are spirited away by Nintendo's next gimmick or the next big mobile innovation.
In this story, especially, they seem to be confusing core demographics with 'what is currently popular' and they're going to be in for a nasty shock when the casuals they're suckering in with their fad-games are spirited away by Nintendo's next gimmick or the next big mobile innovation.
Seems like a self correcting problem to me. To put it simply if a game (other than an MMO) can't stand as a single player experience, I'm not going to have any interest or buy it. To me this announcement is simply that I won't be spending much money on EA products, or even want to, and really that's no big deal as I've never prided myself on any paticular brand loyalty.
That said given that their big money makers ARE multi-player titles, where they can make a bundle on microtransactions for maps, new weapons, etc... it really doesn't surprise me terribly that a company as greedy as EA would be thinking like this.
That said, I don't care if they include multi-player components, as long as they aren't mandatory and it's a complete product that I'm not going to feel shorted on without them. If they pretty much sell their products based entirely around multi player development though, then they simply won't be having me as a customer.
That said we can pretty much say RIP to Bioware at this point. If this annoucement is to be believed, I imagine Bioware isn't long for this world. The reason is simply that Bioware's big selling point, and area of talent, was brilliant single player storytelling via cut scenes and character development of a sort that doesn't work well in a multi-player setting. As many people have said, part of the big failure of "The Old Republic" was that it pretty much unfolded like a single player game with an MMO tacked on, which kind of demonstrates why Bioware has no real future with this kind of development, they are good writers and coders, but this isn't to their strengths. We can pretty much assume Bioware is slated for execution right now, and is walking down the aisle, no matter what EA might be telling them, how long does everyone think they have before someone flips the switch and has 'ol sparky put them out of their post-EA misery? I'm guessing about a year. I imagine that with the work already done they will be kept around until DA3 is finished, and then no matter how it does... zzzzap, following by some of their key personell being transferred to other EA run studios while others are given their walking papers. They just do not fit in with what EA says it's current plans are.
That said given that their big money makers ARE multi-player titles, where they can make a bundle on microtransactions for maps, new weapons, etc... it really doesn't surprise me terribly that a company as greedy as EA would be thinking like this.
That said, I don't care if they include multi-player components, as long as they aren't mandatory and it's a complete product that I'm not going to feel shorted on without them. If they pretty much sell their products based entirely around multi player development though, then they simply won't be having me as a customer.
That said we can pretty much say RIP to Bioware at this point. If this annoucement is to be believed, I imagine Bioware isn't long for this world. The reason is simply that Bioware's big selling point, and area of talent, was brilliant single player storytelling via cut scenes and character development of a sort that doesn't work well in a multi-player setting. As many people have said, part of the big failure of "The Old Republic" was that it pretty much unfolded like a single player game with an MMO tacked on, which kind of demonstrates why Bioware has no real future with this kind of development, they are good writers and coders, but this isn't to their strengths. We can pretty much assume Bioware is slated for execution right now, and is walking down the aisle, no matter what EA might be telling them, how long does everyone think they have before someone flips the switch and has 'ol sparky put them out of their post-EA misery? I'm guessing about a year. I imagine that with the work already done they will be kept around until DA3 is finished, and then no matter how it does... zzzzap, following by some of their key personell being transferred to other EA run studios while others are given their walking papers. They just do not fit in with what EA says it's current plans are.
I'd say it's justified even if it was illegal.Callate said:
Let's add that to the list, shall we?
Most common piracy excuses:
- I don't have enough money.
- I wouldn't have bought the game anyway.
- It has no demo.
And now,
- It's EA's game. Fuck those assholes.
OT: I think you can assume how I feel about them from what I wrote above.
I also do not condone piracy. I'm mad at EA.
