EA Turns Its Back on Single-Player Games
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I can only hope that EA doesn't get a hold of any respectable IPs. *looks at Mass Effect 3* whoops, too late.
well...now I'm siding with the "screw EA" folk I guess lol...
I mean I don't even mind games with co-op, but these days it's rarely split-screen and rather online co-op cuz then ppl'd have to buy 2 copies to do that...and no, not gonna happen! keeping things simple haha
I mean I don't even mind games with co-op, but these days it's rarely split-screen and rather online co-op cuz then ppl'd have to buy 2 copies to do that...and no, not gonna happen! keeping things simple haha
You know, it's possible that playing the game pirated and cracked will be the only way to get around the always online nonsense. So it would be more than just a fuck you to EA, it would actually be a more convenient way to play.GameMaNiAC said:
Consider that with Mass Effect 3 the only way to get the best ending, before the EC DLC, without additional bullshit, was to hack the game and change some of the values of the war assets.
Just pointing out the obvious.
Single player games don't hold consumer interest for economic reasons like multiplayer games do.
As a company like EA who's constantly running into economic bombs and keeps getting itself into the newspaper for being an ass to employees and customers, yeah. They're going to say that they prefer multiplayer experiences.
They're a corporation. They want to make money.
As a company like EA who's constantly running into economic bombs and keeps getting itself into the newspaper for being an ass to employees and customers, yeah. They're going to say that they prefer multiplayer experiences.
They're a corporation. They want to make money.
I would only add that I think you give the guy way too much credit. I think he is telling a transparent lie. I don't believe for one second that EA is taking this route because of their desire to make good games, or that anyone at EA believes that. They're taking this route because fuck gamers- money. I didn't expect anything else, but that does not make it OK and it is no excuse for insulting my intelligence as consumer.CriticKitten said:
I had assumed there would always be single-player experiences, that they're in inherent part of the whole thing, but the world is changing rapidly. I mean, if you can connect to the universe with a quad-core thing-in-your-pocket, maybe connectivity to everything is the new normal?Deviate said:Folji said:
Words cannot describe the number of lols I got out of this
They are so proud that they are going to do precisely what everybody hates. First KOTOR MMO fails to take down WoW, ME3 pisses off the fans with crappy ending, bastardizing DS3 into only the most generic game ever in order to have "a broader audience" and now they're going to drop single player in favor of "what kids like these days".
Seriously, this is like the funniest thing ever. It's like they're in a bubble completely oblivious to the outside world. It's like a cartoon character walking on ice and thinking putting on banana peels instead of ice skates is a genius idea. I used to think they were evil but now I honestly think they're just...genuinely clueless...
They are so proud that they are going to do precisely what everybody hates. First KOTOR MMO fails to take down WoW, ME3 pisses off the fans with crappy ending, bastardizing DS3 into only the most generic game ever in order to have "a broader audience" and now they're going to drop single player in favor of "what kids like these days".
Seriously, this is like the funniest thing ever. It's like they're in a bubble completely oblivious to the outside world. It's like a cartoon character walking on ice and thinking putting on banana peels instead of ice skates is a genius idea. I used to think they were evil but now I honestly think they're just...genuinely clueless...
Slightly tempted to enter into a "fuck EA" rant but it's been done a few times already, and better...
I only play games for what they can offer me in terms of single-player. For that reason, a multiplayer-only game will be one I never play. If I want to be social I'll go to the pub with some mates. Or maybe watch a film. Gaming is for when I want to be left alone for a few hours.
For that reason I'll no be buying any of EA's new and upcoming games. A shame, but oh well. Also, bioware's inevitable loss is a bit of a blow, but there'll be other RPG makers.
I only play games for what they can offer me in terms of single-player. For that reason, a multiplayer-only game will be one I never play. If I want to be social I'll go to the pub with some mates. Or maybe watch a film. Gaming is for when I want to be left alone for a few hours.
For that reason I'll no be buying any of EA's new and upcoming games. A shame, but oh well. Also, bioware's inevitable loss is a bit of a blow, but there'll be other RPG makers.
My emphasis.Andy Chalk said:
Coming from EA, I'm interpreting this as:
"We'll keep the multiplayer running for a year, then you'll have to get the sequel... but... man, that's going to be one hell of a year!"
Yeah, I'm not buying EA stuff on principle, can anyone tell?
It is probably a bit late here, but let me point out to you that the "online" part of the Sims 3 amounts to something akin to a "Sims 3 facebook" in which you and your friends can share wall-updates, look at each others achievements/screenshots etc. and chat while in game. With one of the expansion packs you can also sends a Sim in one of the performance careers "on tour" to your friends, basically letting your sim appear in their game to give a performance.
As far as features go, it ain't very intrusive or disruptive and it fits in pretty well with the Sim fans who love to share their stuff and stories. I personally don't agree with putting multiplayer in everything, but EAs idea of making everything connected online so that you can share it with friends isn't that bad really. Those of us who don't want to share won't and those that want to will. I am just hoping DA3 stays on the level of Dragon Age:Origins (constantly updating online profile with character progression, quest progression etc.) and don't put in multiplayer like ME3.
As far as features go, it ain't very intrusive or disruptive and it fits in pretty well with the Sim fans who love to share their stuff and stories. I personally don't agree with putting multiplayer in everything, but EAs idea of making everything connected online so that you can share it with friends isn't that bad really. Those of us who don't want to share won't and those that want to will. I am just hoping DA3 stays on the level of Dragon Age:Origins (constantly updating online profile with character progression, quest progression etc.) and don't put in multiplayer like ME3.
90% of all people just read the standard misleading article courtesy of EscapistMagazine, the EA of article naming, the other 10% read on to read that EA in fact is making games that integrate online elements into their games to give them more value for the people that care about that sort of things.
Singleplayer games will still be made. The only difference is you will have online stats. The bad side I can't see, unless they use some always online DRM other than Origin.
But of course facts don't matter to the rage mob, they just want to shout at EA. Even if EA had announced they would save starving children they would still rage. Pointless and useless.
Singleplayer games will still be made. The only difference is you will have online stats. The bad side I can't see, unless they use some always online DRM other than Origin.
But of course facts don't matter to the rage mob, they just want to shout at EA. Even if EA had announced they would save starving children they would still rage. Pointless and useless.
(Facepalm) ...Really, EA? You're going to go there? I'd say we should stop buying their games... but stupid people will buy them anyway. (SIGH)
Facts don't matter to corporate apologists, either.1337mokro said:
The confusion about singleplayer was EA's, not the escapist's. It's what the guy said, and the escapist reported it accurately. You and the other ten percent who keep pretending otherwise are just mad because someone reported something that put EA in a bad light.
We know that singleplayer games will still be made, that's not the point. And no, the only difference is not online stats, even if the guy wants to convince you of that. If you've been paying attention, you know there is a lot more nefarious intent surrounding online and multiplayer functionality that EA and Activision are head-over-heals for, to the utter bafflement of gamers. Gamers who can't use mods or play LAN anymore but rent EA-owned servers to play eight month old games. The point is we're going to be subjected to more pay-walls, more advertising opportunities, more always online and DRM, more low-budget free-to-play cynical cash-ins of once beloved franchises, more games chopped up and cannibalized Bioware-style for DLC, more online passes, more "Project 10 Dollar"/aka/"Project Rip Off"s, more multiplayer components interfering with single player (say they are totally separate, see how hard I can laugh), more games treated like services and not like products, more popular features removed to funnel customers into multiplayer and online capable modes, and more control taken from gamers for the benefit of EA.
No one is mad because a developer is making multiplayer games. For fuck sake, why do people think this? We don't like what EA is using multiplayer to do. We're not against mutliplayer, but we see what the motivation behind it is, and what has resulted, and what will continue to result.
as much as i love multiplayer, i'm VERY VERY picky about who i play with, as a rule of thumb, any game that requires a router somewhere nearby for it's multiplayer, raises a huge red flag for me
orcs must die 2 was a good example of this, i played it through with a friend, sitting not 2m away from me, it had massive network lag, and 2/3 of the levels had to be played more then once because of a disconnection
not all games are this bad, but too many games have a risk of this, there was no reason at all for orcs must die 2 to be forced online as the only method of multiplayer, it's a copy protection thing, that reduced the overall quality of the game
diablo 3 is another, i'm sorry blizzard, but in what universe did you think i would find it acceptable for me to have ANY network lag in single player?(i have many other problems with diablo 3 that would be offtopic here)
another thing i hate is multiplayer specific content, me and my friends generally never even look at it
we(me and my RL friends) want the single player campaign, with nothing more then an extra player or three, NOTHING ELSE, no features, even most balancing is bad, and in my experience often messes up the game to the point we need to mod the "balancing" out for it to be fun again
the regular difficulty modes work fine, if it's too easy, we will pick a harder mode, please don't do stupid shit like multiply the enemy HP with the number of players, that makes tons of fights just take forever, for no reason
also i completely agree with everything from the CriticKitten's post from the bottom of page 10, you said everything i never say because i dont like making my post a dozen pages long
very well written wall of text though
orcs must die 2 was a good example of this, i played it through with a friend, sitting not 2m away from me, it had massive network lag, and 2/3 of the levels had to be played more then once because of a disconnection
not all games are this bad, but too many games have a risk of this, there was no reason at all for orcs must die 2 to be forced online as the only method of multiplayer, it's a copy protection thing, that reduced the overall quality of the game
diablo 3 is another, i'm sorry blizzard, but in what universe did you think i would find it acceptable for me to have ANY network lag in single player?(i have many other problems with diablo 3 that would be offtopic here)
another thing i hate is multiplayer specific content, me and my friends generally never even look at it
we(me and my RL friends) want the single player campaign, with nothing more then an extra player or three, NOTHING ELSE, no features, even most balancing is bad, and in my experience often messes up the game to the point we need to mod the "balancing" out for it to be fun again
the regular difficulty modes work fine, if it's too easy, we will pick a harder mode, please don't do stupid shit like multiply the enemy HP with the number of players, that makes tons of fights just take forever, for no reason
also i completely agree with everything from the CriticKitten's post from the bottom of page 10, you said everything i never say because i dont like making my post a dozen pages long
very well written wall of text though
actually on this, i see a pattern emerging from the trend here, in a few years the companies will see the hatred for their forced online DRM as a sign that multiplayer is no longer in demand, and then we will get single player only game as the standard..Rooster Cogburn said:
damn i dont miss the years where nothing had multiplayer suddenly.
please big publishers, understand that there is always a huge demand for LOCAL NETWORK multiplayer, that i myself would actually pay extra for
in turn, i think a forced online multiplayer, and "online pass" shit makes the entire product worth less, even when i dont directly run into it
the few times i do run into "online pass" and network lag, makes me see all this as a big red RISKY PURCHASE flag
for every game that MIGHT employ these