Poll: EA boss proudly refuses to publish single player games

[OrokuSaki]

A.) Wouldn't that cost a lot just to keep all the servers on those games running?
B.) (In conjunction with A) Will they shut down the servers when a game is outdated? (Like madden 2012 being removed when 2013 comes out. They might have different names, but i don't sports.)
C.) How am I supposed to ignore the rest of humanity now? You bought BioWare, now I have to hope that Square Enix removes their heads from their asses and releases a game that I give $60 (Considerably more than a shit) about.

 

[NerfedFalcon]

And here I thought Mirror's Edge 2 would be the only thing worth installing Origin on my computer for. Well, guess not. Not to worry, though: with Dishonored, Far Cry 3 and Borderlands 2 about to come out, I'm not exactly starved for first-person action games.

 

[Maeshone]

http://kotaku.com/5940782/ea-says-theyre-not-killing-single+player-games

Huh, well look at that. I was right. Thank you to whoever posted that article first. Just as I said on page freaking one, this had nothing to do with forcing multiplayer into every single game, but, just because it's EA, that is what people decided to read it as. This thread has officially lost any merit and is now just another "wwaaahh, EA is ruining everything you guyz, wwaaahh" thread. And honestly, I've had enough of those.

That was taken painfully out of the spirit of the statement. They were referring to the connectivity of their games to one another, for people to see their friends and to chat.

I'm all for pointing out bad moves on the part of the big guys (how else do they adapt?) but this is just looking for ways to kick them.

Not everyone likes to play games with Facebook features.

So opt out of using said features then? The only game I've played where online connectivity was required is Diablo 3, and I honestly don't think anyone but blizzard is stupid enough to try it again after the uproar that caused.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

http://kotaku.com/5940782/ea-says-theyre-not-killing-single+player-games

Huh, well look at that. I was right. Thank you to whoever posted that article first. Just as I said on page freaking one, this had nothing to do with forcing multiplayer into every single game, but, just because it's EA, that is what people decided to read it as. This thread has officially lost any merit and is now just another "wwaaahh, EA is ruining everything you guyz, wwaaahh" thread. And honestly, I've had enough of those.

That was taken painfully out of the spirit of the statement. They were referring to the connectivity of their games to one another, for people to see their friends and to chat.

I'm all for pointing out bad moves on the part of the big guys (how else do they adapt?) but this is just looking for ways to kick them.

Not everyone likes to play games with Facebook features.

So opt out of using said features then? The only game I've played where online connectivity was required is Diablo 3, and I honestly don't think anyone but blizzard is stupid enough to try it again after the uproar that caused.

Oh look at that!

http://kotaku.com/5915377/like-diablo-iii-sim-city-will-require-an-online-connection

I'm sorry what were you saying about a company being that stupid?

At least Ubisoft is jumping off the Always Online bandwagon.


As for your link, yes he is backpedaling on his statement. Rather humorously so.

 

[Maeshone]

Oh look at that!

http://kotaku.com/5915377/like-diablo-iii-sim-city-will-require-an-online-connection

I'm sorry what were you saying about a company being that stupid?

At least Ubisoft is jumping off the Always Online bandwagon.


As for your link, yes he is backpedaling on his statement. Rather humorously so.

... What. I... Just, what? ok, EA are officially just as stupid as Blizzard. Or even more so since it's a SimCity-game. What the hell are they gonna use the online for?

Ubisoft never bothered me, I play their games on console so I've never had to deal with their always on DRM. I do think it's a horrible idea though

As for the backpedaling, if you actually read the quote he doesn't say anything near that mutliplayer has to be in very game, he quite clearly states online connectivity, not multiplayer. Darksiders 2 Serpent Tomes are a great example of that in action.

 

[GAunderrated]

A.) Wouldn't that cost a lot just to keep all the servers on those games running?
B.) (In conjunction with A) Will they shut down the servers when a game is outdated? (Like madden 2012 being removed when 2013 comes out. They might have different names, but i don't sports.)

I'd just like to point out that these are two very important questions that I never thought about. For all the games that have multiplayer shoved into them. I wonder how long EA and other companies who will follow this misstep can keep up those servers? I personally have gotten games 1-2 years old and I wonder if in the future when I do that I won't even be able to either play the game or play all the content? Thank you for posing that question.

 

[Wintermoot]

EA is a bunch of idiots. Only bigger idiots copy their stupid idea's

 

[irishda]

I'm not saying that people don't buy games like Call of Duty. As samey as they are, the industry has gotten very good at making FPSs. They're functional, usually fun if not all that spectacular. But people like variety too. The question is whether or not a game needs multiplayer.

Let's take Skyrim for example. Would Skyrim have been significantly improved by a multiplayer mode? Probably not. Same with LA Noire, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Dragon Age, or Bioshock. I wasn't crazy about Dead Space 1, but it was fine without multiplayer. There's room for both in the market.

But like I said, multiplayer inclusion doesn't necessarily diminish from the single player experience. It doesn't have to take up resources from the single player team, especially if the publisher puts another developer on the multiplayer facet. So while it may not need multiplayer, it doesn't mean the single player is lessened. Dead Space 2 for example, was received positively, even though it didn't need the multi-player.

As for your insistence that people hate single player games that aren't made by Valve or that are original, that's just bizarre. Bastion, Braid, Limbo, and other indie games have managed to become hits without multiplayer. And Bastion had one of the most original combination of aesthetics I've ever seen. More on that in a second. And of course, prior to Mass Effect 3 the series didn't have multiplayer and was a bestseller.

Bastion, Braid, and Limbo are the exceptions to the rule. For every one of those there's several Psychonauts, good, original games that get lost among the sequels. Consider the escapist's own editor picks for 2011 game of the year. In the honorable mentions I see 9 sequels, one MMO based on a huge pre-existing setting, another zombie game, and the game of the year itself is the samey sequel to Oblivion with better graphics. That left three games of original creation. And one of those is essentially video game legos.

So no, I don't buy into your argument that the industry only makes multiplayer modern war FPSs because that's the only thing that the market is interested in. This is actually a very exciting time for gamers and developers because the industry is slowly changing. The publishers will either have to evolve their business model or they're going to find themselves facing more problems.

I didn't say the industry only makes multiplayer war FPS's. The industry only makes sequels with the end goal of enough content to keep people interested in their game for a long time. That can mean a massive open world sandbox, or multiplayer, or randomly generated maps, or dungeon crawlers, etc. And guess which one is the easiest to implement and fits into the most genres?

But like I said, none of this matters because having an extra option in the start menu doesn't mean any less for the single player experience.

 

[TheAmokz]

I shall proudly refuse to buy games from EA anymore.

 

[Matt King]

wow, really? i've really not had that much off a problem with ea before, but that's just stupid

 

[Quaidis]

It'll be real easy to unintentionally boycott EA games if they do this. Sometimes I just want to sit on the couch and enjoy a game in solitude without being hassled to go online for squat. Now they're saying they're going to stuff each game with online components like some weird-ass gimmick to pawn off online scrap to the masses? By all means, count me out. There are better publishers out there.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Yeah, I heard about this. I don't really care what EA does anymore as I've basically written them off for good. I don't think there's anything they can do to make me want to buy any of their products again.

 

[Brendan Stepladder]

EA thinks that adding multiplayer in every game will make them a fortune in DLC and mictrotransitions. I can't wait to see how wrong they'll be proven.

 

[Charli]

We had a problem with Blizzard doing it to D3 what the FLYING SQUIRREL NUTS do you think we're going to say to you.

Dumb dumb de dumb, dumb dumb de DUMB, DUMB DUMB DEEE DUMB DUMB DEE DUMB DUMB DEE DUUUUMMMMB.


But fine y'know what EA, you do that, continue, willingly drive yourself into the ignoramus station, pool all resources into making mediocre multiplayer and we'll see what happens when your I.P. no longer stands up because of flimsy, cheap, backstory, we'll come back when the full circle of whine is complete when you claim piracy is ruining you again. Because being always online (Don't deny this is the plan, because it IS the big picture, you're too bloody obvious) is not synonymous with 'UNABLE TO BE HACKED So MOAR MONEY FUR US LOLOL'

 

[Zeraki]

I have to imagine that after this announcement was made, the sphincters of everyone in the Dragon Age team at BioWare just clenched so hard they shot out blood, in preparation for the shitstorm... I still love you BioWare, despite how you've hurt me in the past(I'm looking at you Casey Hudson, pretentious prick). But please, don't let them put some stupid pointless tacked on multiplayer crap into Dragon Age 3.

In the words of the single most annoying character in Dragon Age: Origins "Must I beg!?"

 

[StriderShinryu]

Let's take Skyrim for example. Would Skyrim have been significantly improved by a multiplayer mode? Probably not. Same with LA Noire, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Dragon Age, or Bioshock. I wasn't crazy about Dead Space 1, but it was fine without multiplayer. There's room for both in the market.

But like I said, multiplayer inclusion doesn't necessarily diminish from the single player experience. It doesn't have to take up resources from the single player team, especially if the publisher puts another developer on the multiplayer facet. So while it may not need multiplayer, it doesn't mean the single player is lessened. Dead Space 2 for example, was received positively, even though it didn't need the multi-player.

Exactly. Let's take Skyrim, since that seems to be the one example everyone loves bringing up. and then look at what Gibeau actually said which is that online connectivity and online features are a requirement for EA games going forward. In Skyrim this could be something like being able to access and view your armour, item and book collections from anywhere via a mobile app. It could be a side game on Facebook that goes into more detail on the individual races. It could be a website that lets you share screen shots and videos taken in game and automatically uploaded to a storage server. Etc. All optional, all online features, and none online multiplayer.

(Or, of course, it could mean online multiplayer in certain specific cases.. which is something I remember a LOT of posters here on The Escapist wishing for and praising potential PC version mods for prior to game launch)

 

[Jak23]

Wow. I never really got the hate for EA before, but I just jumped onto the bandwagon.
He PROUDLY forces people to shoehorn MP elements into their games?!? I have to go lay down...

 

[Lt._nefarious]

Well that sucks... I'm still gonna give EA my money because I still like the games they publish but I'd really rather they didn't do this... It's kinda dumb, I mean, I like multiplayer and all but imagine if some genius gave Silent Hill multiplayer, a game series of truly brilliant single player games, it would be moronic and they'd have to have undergone several back ally lobotomies to think is was- oh, wait...