EA Turns Its Back on Single-Player Games

[Kingjackl]

To be fair, aren't pretty much all of the games they publish multiplayer titles anyway? Between Need for Speed, the various sports games, Battlefield and so forth, this isn't really anything new and it makes sense as a business decision.

About the only big single player release they've got lined up are Dead Space 3 and Dragon Age 3. So, basically two out of two hundred million games published by EA are getting fucked over by this policy. Could be better, but could also be a lot worse.

 

[CarlMin]

You vote with your wallet, simple as that. If you don't like the direction EA is going with some of their titles, don't vote for it. I mean, it's just games after all, right?

 

[O maestre]

it is as if their PR group solely fixates on pissing of gamers, or they just have no positive way of spinning this.

the amount of glee he had as he described changing fundamental parts of the games he mentioned almost oozed of the screen.

EA are truly corporate trolls

because of them i have still not played mass effect 3 even though i really love the series and really want to play it bad ending or not, however i cannot get myself to support the company they make my skin crawl, despite of only being guilty of souring my pass-time activities.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

Don't they realize that by putting multiplayer on everything, it's going to have an online pass? And by putting an online pass, everyone who rents/buy it used will only play the single player?

And so they end up actually creating more single-player games?

 

[Randomperson9999999]

basically everything will have a multiplayer mode in it along with a single player.

 

[sunsetspawn]

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.

Your argument has been dissected and proven wrong so many times through this thread that I'm not even going to bother going into depth here. If you want a thorough explanation for why you're wrong, go looking through the rest of the thread as you clearly didn't do before.

Your earlier post was a absolute, jump from the foul line, nuts all up in the face, SLAM DUNK!

Very commendable.

Yes, I'm still bitter that EA wanted me to play multiplayer to get the best ending in Mass Effect 3, and because of that I will never drop dime-one on their shitty multiplayer.

I'll also never purchase an EA within 6 months of the release date just to make absolutely google-sure that I don't NEED to play multiplayer to get the best ending.

I'm mad, bro.

 

[Allthingsspectacular]

I don't think even EA believes their BS. There was no way that the intention was specifically because single player only is out of date. Especially with a lot of great single player games selling so well.

No, this is an anti-piracy and used game sales thing. They know they can't get away with project 10 dollar on single player games so they have to do it through multiplayer. Because that makes sense!

 

[1337mokro]

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.

O I actually hate EA. In fact, did I ever once praise them?

No so again my point is validated. You will vomit out a huge amount of words to insult me and a company which in THIS instance has done nothing wrong (though they have done TONS and will do TONS of bad things). So again. You're just a dickless rage drone. Going against EA because it's cool now and you have no life other than raging at things.

I don't care about vague rumours on the internet. I care about what was in the article and there was nothing bad in the article. Just the horrible EscApist title.

 

[1337mokro]

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.

Your argument has been dissected and proven wrong so many times through this thread that I'm not even going to bother going into depth here. If you want a thorough explanation for why you're wrong, go looking through the rest of the thread as you clearly didn't do before.


If not, here's the Cliffnotes:

No one is mad about them making multiplayer games, or adding multiplayer elements to single player games. We're mad about them taking single player games and REMOVING the single player in order to twist the game into a vague multiplayer shadow of what it was. "But they didn't say that in this interview!", you say? They didn't need to say it directly, because most of us (except you apparently) can read between the lines. Most of us aren't purposely ignoring their recent examples of how they "add multiplayer" to a single player game: Ultima Forever, SWTOR, and C&C Generals 2. Three games which were heavily based on prior single player titles (the Ultima franchise, KOTOR, and Command & Conquer respectively), and yet they're all being made into F2P MMOs with extremely limited amounts of actual single player (or in the case of Generals 2, absolutely NO single player whatsoever) and with a hefty focus on micro-transaction scams. Players have every right to be mad about EA basically announcing that they proudly refuse to greenlight any games without some form of community widget or multiplayer embedded into the game, and anyone who actually comes out and defends this bullshit clearly has less understanding of what EA said than the "rage mob" you like to bash.

With "two" many times.. you literally meant two. Including yours.

But that's not true is it? Cause all I saw was one message calling me an EA drone, despite me never defending EA once, simply stating the actual content in the article and of course your reply.

Which is equally as stupid as the other guy. Like I said. In the article they never stated singleplayer will be taken away. They never stated multiplayer will be forced. All they did was very poorly say "we plan to add online elements to our games now" but of course your inability to read after reaching a certain rage level kicked in and you ignored it after reading the title instead choosing to start reading what they "Indirectly" said instead of what they actually said. If I "Indirectly" read what you said you are actually saying I am absolutely right. Because you are parodying a mindless EA rager going on about what EA supposedly intended to say covered up with blurb. "Indirectly" you could be saying anything couldn't you?

The three games you mentioned were made FAR before this announcement. Ultima Online is fuckign ANCIENT, so I don't even know what that has to do with the current announcement. You are just afraid another beloved franchise is going to be turned into an MMO or MP only so you are going nuts shaking your fist in blind rage speculation on an article that once again said nothing about making games multiplayer only or MMOs.

Speculation doesn't make proof. Nor does it make good argument material. Which is ALL your article was.

 

[Xdeser2]

Inside an EA Boardroom meeting...

Smart Investor: "Hey have you seen how much Skyrim has sold?"

Frank Gibeau: "Alot, why?"

Smart Investor: "....Dont we own that one Developer that specializes in long, deep single player RPGs that we've been running into the ground latley?"

Frank Gibeau "Bro, I'm way ahead of you. BIOWARE...MAKE A COMMAND AND CONQUER SEQUEL! AND MAKE DRAGON AGE 3 HAVE MULTIPLAYER!!"

Smart Investor: *Facepalm*

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

O I actually hate EA. In fact, did I ever once praise them?

No so again my point is validated. You will vomit out a huge amount of words to insult me and a company which in THIS instance has done nothing wrong (though they have done TONS and will do TONS of bad things). So again. You're just a dickless rage drone. Going against EA because it's cool now and you have no life other than raging at things.

I don't care about vague rumours on the internet. I care about what was in the article and there was nothing bad in the article. Just the horrible EscApist title.

I don't give a rat's hairy ass if you like EA or not. You made an ad hominem by way of unfair generalization about the people criticizing EA, and you continue to do so. So don't rage so hard when I give you a taste of your own medicine. Glass houses, dude.

The only thing that has been "validated" is your confirmation bias.

I can't believe this is happening again in the same thread. This is the first time I have ever had this problem. Reading for comprehension is for nerds now, I guess. If my arguments are vomit you should have no trouble identifying and addressing them. If you don't have the patience, fine, don't bother. But it's not fair to me to quote posts you haven't read and waste my time. All you have said so far is that EA did nothing wrong and anyone who disagrees with you is a rage drone. I tried to elevate the discussion a little bit but this is just more insults.

The guy proudly boasted he wasn't greenlighting single player games. It was his gaffe. It was him twisting the facts. Not the escapist. One way to pretend what he said wasn't bad is by pretending you don't understand what it means. I explained to you what it means and you literally ignored it.

Nothing I said was a "rumor". If you want me to get more specific I can, but everything I mentioned was something I have personal knowledge of.

 

[Stripes]

They are wrong about single player games not being viable anymore but maybe this will lead to some decent multiplayer games, if they have multiplayer as the sole focus. Multiplayer gaming can always do with some decent stuff to ward away the bad.

 

[FantomOmega]

basically everything will have a multiplayer mode in it along with a single player.

What better way than to use DLC as a hook to get more money out of your wallet, better yet why not make a complete game on schedule THEN separate it intentionally into smaller parts then pretend that after the altered game is sold on disk THEN start adding the removed parts as DLC saying that they were parts of the game that "couldn't be included on time for release" That would mean even more profit at the same effort. Mass effect 3 was a probably a victim to this but the negative press made them no longer charge for the remaining DLC

I can't prove that this is not whats happening but this is EA we are talking about here...

 

[Imthatguy]

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.

Your missing the point man the fact is that they screwed over the campaign that was supposed to be the final grand glorious act for the Tiberian series to focus on Multiplayer that no one liked to begin with. (Sucked so hard it brought down EALA)

Also C&C pioneered online multiplayer no one saying it shouldn't have been included just that they shouldn't fuck with what people cared about in the IP. (Kane ect)

 

[Gameguy20100]

Single player should always be the foucas EA thats the games meat the Multiplayer is just a nice little side dish ffs they honstly call themselves game developers /FACEPALM

 

[Miral]

This makes me sad. The new SimCity looked quite interesting at first, until I saw the pervasive multiplayer elements, which I'm fairly certain are going to ruin it (just as they did for Cities XL).

 

[disgruntledgamer]

I don't think even EA believes their BS. There was no way that the intention was specifically because single player only is out of date. Especially with a lot of great single player games selling so well.

No, this is an anti-piracy and used game sales thing. They know they can't get away with project 10 dollar on single player games so they have to do it through multiplayer. Because that makes sense!

Oh no they do believe their own BS, trust me they just have their head stuck up their own a$$ so far that they're clueless to what's really going on.

 

[Drummodino]

... words fail me. Seriously fuck you EA. FUCK YOU. Yes that kind of always connected thing works fine with games like FIFA and even to a lesser degree the multiplayer fps games like Battlefield. But and this is a HUGE but, my favourite games are the ones that are intensely personal, individual experiences. Even games like Skyrim which everyone has played is personal because no two players play it the same way or in the same order. Tacked on multiplayer modes will only detract resources from the singleplayer and you will end up destroying franchises like Dead Space and Mass Effect.

I could keep rambling but you get the point...