EA Turns Its Back on Single-Player Games

[Sandjube]

I'd be actually surprised if it wasn't EA. I'd elaborate but I don't actually care enough to and this post is just to contribute slightly and give me +1 post count.

 

[Eppy (Bored)]

/snip

I see, so having a double standard and being a hypocrite are ok as long as it's valve and they make good games.

Basically, yeah. Being Valve gives you a free pass. I'd like to think reputation counts for something too.

 

[Jinjer]

Well, I was already convinced that EA was staffed entirely by chimpanzees. What's new? I'll just keep doing what I've been doing for 2 years or so - stick to older games I actually like. *hugs copy of C&C First decade* At least you'll never change!

 

[Valanthe]

Well, that's going to make the Steam Christmas sales easy to sort through... oh wait, they gave up on that too.

Meh, nothing to see here for me, just EA finally admitting what people having been saying about them for ages. I for one find I'm having more fun with singleplayer games, and for what little multiplayer I do play, I prefer splitscreen. I'm a dying breed, I know, but I can still wish that I wasn't, can't I?

 

[Seneschal]

I see, so having a double standard and being a hypocrite are ok as long as it's valve and they make good games.

I think it's basically a question of faith. The reason there is no equivalence between Valve and EA's publishing policies is because we've seen EA implement such ideas (which, inherently, aren't bad at all) horribly, never in the interest of the consumer, but only to deepen their invasive control over the IP and look good in front of investors. And when such methods backfire, they absorb the damage by cannibalizing the development studio whose game they ruined by interfering.

Yes, it's okay to give the benefit of the doubt to a company that's proven themselves to the consumer base. Yes, it's justified to think EA will fuck this up. No, it's not a "double standard" if you would sooner hire an upstanding citizen over a multiple offender.

 

[Blunderboy]

As long as the "connected" aspect is optional, I don't care. I'll pick and choose which games to buy as usual.

Yep. Exactly. The games are still going to have a single player mode. (At least for now).
Besides, I actually really enjoyed the Mass Effect 3 multiplayer.

 

[lord Claincy Ffnord]

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.

Just got to point out on that one. There is nothing wrong with an rts having multiplayer, that's fine. But EA have announced that they are making C&C generals 2 (YAY). BUT that it will be multiplayer only to 'return to the roots of the franchise' or something like that. And that right there is decidedly NOT ok.

 

[Padwolf]

Well there goes any hopes I had for Dragon Age 3.

SCREW YOU EA! It was bad enough they screwed up the last two Harry Potter games. It was bad enough that they have screwed up Bioware. Now this!

But meh, they are just admitting to what they've been doing for years now.

 

[mrhateful]

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

 

[Something Amyss]

Yeah, we noticed.

About five years ago!

I mean, I'm surprised this counts as news.

 

[lord Claincy Ffnord]

As long as the "connected" aspect is optional, I don't care. I'll pick and choose which games to buy as usual.

Yep. Exactly. The games are still going to have a single player mode. (At least for now).
Besides, I actually really enjoyed the Mass Effect 3 multiplayer.

I too really enjoyed the Mass effects multiplayer. That was an example of when it really worked well, and sometimes it does work. However some games simply shouldn't have multiplayer, they don't add to the experience, there's the same but better that already exists, waste of dev time, etc. Examples where it doesn't work: spec ops the line, bioshock 2, most horror games, sreiously mp just shouldn't be in them.

 

[Folji]

Ea is definetely doin the right thing here THERE AWSOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Single Player is for ppl with no lives that hav no freinds.

Shouldn't you be moaning and mourning, then?

 

[Folji]

Ea is definetely doin the right thing here THERE AWSOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Single Player is for ppl with no lives that hav no freinds.

Shouldn't you be moaning and mourning, then?

Ever heard of a joke? Wait no, ur on the internet and ur wayyyyyyyyyyy to serious for me.

I have heard of jokes, that was a joke I wrote to you.

And you thought I was being serious!

 

[AdumbroDeus]

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

 

[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.