EA Turns Its Back on Single-Player Games

Evil Smurf

Admin of Catoholics Anonymous
Nov 11, 2011
11,597
0
0
EA should hire the Apple marketing and PR guys. They are the best there is.
 

Danial

New member
Apr 7, 2010
304
0
0
today i went to buy a brand new copy of Skyrim (sod the PS3 version), was £35, and apparently still one of there best sellers.


Brand new copy of any EA game from the same time frame? £15 and they had loads left.

SINGLEPLAYER NO SELL :<
 

Araethuiel

New member
Apr 23, 2010
26
0
0
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.
 

Spy_Guy

New member
Mar 16, 2010
340
0
0
Andy Chalk said:
[...]
"We are very proud of the way EA evolved with consumers," Gibeau said. "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."
[...]
My emphasis.

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?
 

Gethsemani_v1legacy

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,552
0
0
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.
 

1337mokro

New member
Dec 24, 2008
1,503
0
0
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.
 

CrazyGirl17

I am a banana!
Sep 11, 2009
5,141
0
0
(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)
 

Rooster Cogburn

New member
May 24, 2008
1,637
0
0
1337mokro said:
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.
Facts don't matter to corporate apologists, either.

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.
 

Enizer

New member
Mar 20, 2009
75
0
0
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 :)
 

Enizer

New member
Mar 20, 2009
75
0
0
Rooster Cogburn said:
1337mokro said:
Facts don't matter to corporate apologists, either.

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.
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..

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
 

Rainboq

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2009
16,620
0
41
major_chaos said:
Didn't Valve say the exact same thing a ways back everyone just went "Ok cool" ? But I know by now that the rule is if Valve does something it is revolutionary and good, while if EA does something it is evil and bad.

OT: I don't have brand loyalty and I will continue to buy EA games as long as they produce games that I enjoy. I also think its worth mentioning that a multi-player mode doesn't automatically make a game bad, dead space 2, mass effect 3, and bioshock 2 all had tacked on MP and still manged to be great games.
Valve said that they wanted multiplayer to enhance or to extend the singleplayer. Sort of Left 4 Dead, but not necessarily with bots.
 

blackrave

New member
Mar 7, 2012
2,020
0
0
Oh, that's awesome!!!
Can someone get me ME3 multiplayer numbers at this moment?
No, better month or two after release?
EA, please note that multiplayer usually lasts for 0.5-3 months.
Have you even thought that...
Screw it, I'm talking to myself again.
Either way, good-bye EA it was good to know you for a brief time.
 

bat32391

New member
Oct 19, 2011
241
0
0
Have they forgotten how games like Skyrim and the Witcher 2 sold a shit ton of copies, or on they really that dense?

Anyway, if Dragon Age has any type of multiplayer that isn't only Co-op in story mode they can shove it.
 

Emiscary

New member
Sep 7, 2008
990
0
0
"WE DON'T CARE WHAT YOU WANT."

That's about the long and short of it. Incidentally, I can't WAIT to see how ludicrously stupid the multiplayer is in DA3. I'll never buy the game and I doubt I could be bothered to pirate it once it's out, but the youtube commentary will be hilarious.
 

AlwaystheUnlucky

New member
Oct 5, 2010
173
0
0
I say i'm feeling pretty optimistic about this, at where Dragon Age 3 is concerned. Neverwinter Nights had a multiplayer aspect. Who's to say that Dragon Age 3 won't have such an aspect?

Anyway, I'd feel bad if this policy extended to indie game developers. God knows how much help they need.
 

w00tage

New member
Feb 8, 2010
556
0
0
fix-the-spade said:
So basically, they intend to cram micro-transaction into EVERYTHING!

EA's disconnected from reality certainly. What makes it sad is that the combination of their exclusive licensing and aggressive marketing means a majority of users will just go with it.

It's a shame, it already damaged Mass Effect 3, it's probably going to damage Dead Space Part 3. It will damage Battlefield 3 when they pull the plug on support for it (See Bad Company/BC2) and people will keep buying it, because they're stupid.

Ah well, Planetside 2, Black Mesa Source, World of Warplanes and Natural Selection 2 are coming, you now have no excuse to buy an EA made shooter ever again!
Sadly, PS 2 is being made free to play (more sadly, the IP is still with SOE - I had hopes they'd have sold PS 1 off and some indie dev would take it to glory days again :( ) Good to hear we've got some non-F2P coming though.
 

Sansha

There's a principle in business
Nov 16, 2008
1,726
0
0
So... wait, that's it for The Sims? Wow, there goes one of their oldest cash cows.

Oh like I care, since Origin literally found its way on to my system without my permission, I won't touch anything EA again. My computer now identifies Origin as malicious software and terminates any attempt it makes to install, and reports it as malicious to ESET.

CS:GO already quenched my lust for Battlefield3, and I loves me some Valve. So I'm happy for them to wither and fucking die.
 

MadHatter1993

New member
Jul 28, 2009
52
0
0
the sad part is, they'll just blame the developers for all the misfortune they've brought upon itself. if Bioware goes down....i'm gunna give up gaming for good.
 

Aerduin

New member
Sep 19, 2010
44
0
0
Oh dear..... Please release your little subsiduary companies before you finally "shoot yourself in the head". They don't deserve the fate you so surely do.