EA Turns Its Back on Single-Player Games

[Wintermoot]

this has got to be a prank.

 

[deadpoolhulk]

See this was the first i heard about what dead space 3 is going to be like.

that+ this= FUCK YOU EA YOU USELESS MORONIC SONS OF BITCHES.

 

[Something Amyss]

It's EA... we actually buy like maybe one ea game a year. Honestly, who cares?

Who is "we" in this case?

EA is so right. That's why The Sims 492 sold far more copies than Skyrim did.

You are so right. That's why Skyrim sold far more copies than Modern warfare 3 did.

>.>

 

[daibakuha]

EA is so right. That's why The Sims 492 sold far more copies than Skyrim did.

and COD sells more annually than Skyrim did. See where this reasoning gets you?

Even going further than that, the best selling game of all time is Pokemon Red/Blue, which had a multiplayer component.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

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.

You called my post overlong and you obviously didn't read it. Fair enough, but I don't know what you think you are responding to. I won't say too much this time because it's all in the post you quoted that you didn't read. And yea, I did use hyperbole. Your computer won't really explode. I don't think anyone was confused about my meaning. My argument about C&C was describing something that happened. It literally cannot be a straw man even if it's totally wrong. Your argument about Starcraft II is one I anticipated and specifically addressed. Please READ for comprehension, don't just scan. Or don't respond. It's not admitting defeat. If I'm trying your patience don't bother, but responding without reading is not fair to me.

Call it hypocritical all day long. If you choose not to understand what the objection is I guess you can call it whatever you want. It isn't "THERE'S MUTLIPLAYER IN THE STUFFFFFS!" as I took great pains to explain, all wasted because you didn't read it. All of your responses in this thread have been a response to that argument which no one has made. If that was the objection, sure, that would be hypocritical.

 

[AdumbroDeus]

It's EA... we actually buy like maybe one ea game a year. Honestly, who cares?

Who is "we" in this case?

Core gamers.

 

[Folji]

Spoiler: And then...

Spoiler: Oh... my...

OP: Feeling kind of sorry for studios like BioWare getting caught right in the middle of the whole "everything should be multiplayer" frame of mind EA is in right now.

 

[Jinjer]

Its like EA CEO wakes up in the morning thinking "hmm, how can i piss every gamer off the most??".

It's no wonder that EA's shares are going down the drain when they are so oblivious to the needs and wants of their customer base.

 

[daibakuha]

[You called my post overlong and you obviously didn't read it. Fair enough, but I don't know what you think you are responding to. I won't say too much this time because it's all in the post you quoted that you didn't read. And yea, I did use hyperbole. Your computer won't really explode. I don't think anyone was confused about my meaning. My argument about C&C was describing something that happened. It literally cannot be a straw man even if it's totally wrong. Please READ for comprehension, don't just scan. Or don't respond. It's not admitting defeat. If I'm trying your patience don't bother, but responding without reading is not fair to me.

Call it hypocritical all day long. If you choose not to understand what the objection is I guess you can call it whatever you want. It isn't "THERE'S MUTLIPLAYER IN THE STUFFFFFS!" as I took great pains to explain, all wasted because you didn't read it. All of your responses in this thread have treated that like the argument, and it isn't. If that was the objection, sure, that would be hypocritical.

Try to use actual facts, relevant to the conversation and I may actually read your overlong, hyperbolic verbal diarrhea.

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.

 

[inidu]

*facepalm*

*head desk*

*head desk*

*head desk*

*head desk*

That's it, I'm done.

You forgot the handy *neck wall*

 

[Avalanche91]

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.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

[You called my post overlong and you obviously didn't read it. Fair enough, but I don't know what you think you are responding to. I won't say too much this time because it's all in the post you quoted that you didn't read. And yea, I did use hyperbole. Your computer won't really explode. I don't think anyone was confused about my meaning. My argument about C&C was describing something that happened. It literally cannot be a straw man even if it's totally wrong. Please READ for comprehension, don't just scan. Or don't respond. It's not admitting defeat. If I'm trying your patience don't bother, but responding without reading is not fair to me.

Call it hypocritical all day long. If you choose not to understand what the objection is I guess you can call it whatever you want. It isn't "THERE'S MUTLIPLAYER IN THE STUFFFFFS!" as I took great pains to explain, all wasted because you didn't read it. All of your responses in this thread have treated that like the argument, and it isn't. If that was the objection, sure, that would be hypocritical.

Try to use actual facts, relevant to the conversation and I may actually read your overlong, hyperbolic verbal diarrhea.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Froggy Slayer]

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.

 

[GAunderrated]

EA is so right. That's why The Sims 492 sold far more copies than Skyrim did.

and COD sells more annually than Skyrim did. See where this reasoning gets you?

Even going further than that, the best selling game of all time is Pokemon Red/Blue, which had a multiplayer component.

Pokemon Red/Blue sold well because it was an amazingly addictive singe player experience that looked nothing like anything before it.

 

[Josh123914]

EA is so right. That's why The Sims 492 sold far more copies than Skyrim did.

and COD sells more annually than Skyrim did. See where this reasoning gets you?

Even going further than that, the best selling game of all time is Pokemon Red/Blue, which had a multiplayer component.

Pokemon Red/Blue sold well because it was an amazingly addictive singe player experience that looked nothing like anything before it.

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]

EA is so right. That's why The Sims 492 sold far more copies than Skyrim did.

and COD sells more annually than Skyrim did. See where this reasoning gets you?

Even going further than that, the best selling game of all time is Pokemon Red/Blue, which had a multiplayer component.

Pokemon Red/Blue sold well because it was an amazingly addictive singe player experience that looked nothing like anything before it.

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.

Got me there. I completely forgot about that aspect.

 

[kasperbbs]

As someone who doesn't like online games very much i am not very pleased, in other words suck many dicks ea.

 

[darlarosa]

SERIES OF INCOMPREHENSIBLE NOISES!


Thank you *leaves the room*

 

[Gitty101]

Oh god.

Fuck off EA.

Seriously.

This. My sentiments exactly.