Poll: EA boss proudly refuses to publish single player games

[Zing]

Dear EA,

Is that why you keep publishing awful games?

Sincerely, Fuck you EA.

edit: EA apologists everywhere...sad. EA does not need your to defend them.

 

[aguspal]

Well at least EA its honest about it, unlike some other companies, I guess.


Althougt for some reason or other, I dont think it was actually their intention, so yeah...

After all, REMEMBER PEOPLE:

EA = CHALLENGES EVERYTHING!!!

 

[DexTEnt]

Personally, i don't like the change.

But EA will survive because they mainly make online sports games anyway and thats where they get their big bucks.

Sadly, they ended many great games

But hey! they're gonna be classics pretty soon.

R.I.P. Mass Effect, Dead Space, Medal of Honor, etc...

 

[Blazerules]

Hey guys I found a petition that is against this. Think we should sign this to stop this stupid decision by EA.

http://www.change.org/petitions/ea-electronic-arts-start-green-lighting-singleplayer-focused-games

Oh there is also a thing about EA making Generals 2 into an F2P game...

http://www.change.org/petitions/ea-electronic-arts-bring-back-generals2-stop-the-future-free2play-model-of-the-c-c-franchise

Guess you should sign that as well.

 

[Something Amyss]

EA sucks big ones anyway, so i really dont care. i did not touch one of their games in a year.

As Jim Sterling has pointed out: EA may not be the innovator of policy, but they are the trend setter. You might want to think twice if you think this won't affect you.

 

[charge52]

So what does this mean for Bioware then? Does this mean there flat out will be no more single-player focused Bioware games ever again?

You know, that might not be a bad thing for Bioware to include multiplayer, I mean, their most successful RPGs ever all had multiplayer, and were greatly praised for it... God EA makes it hard to be optimistic.

 

[charge52]

So how the hell is multiplayer dragon age going to work? They're going to have to warp the series so far beyond recognition that they might as well not call it Dragon Age anymore, just "EA's attempt at a F2P WoW clone"

Well actually, multiplayer Dragon age could work, I mean it worked for Baldur's gate, and Dragon Age is the spiritual sequel to that series.

 

[GAunderrated]

EA sucks big ones anyway, so i really dont care. i did not touch one of their games in a year.

As Jim Sterling has pointed out: EA may not be the innovator of policy, but they are the trend setter. You might want to think twice if you think this won't affect you.

My thoughts exactly. Everytime I hear people say "its not a big deal about x and y", a few years later I see every game have an x and y component to them. These types of things are trend setters for the industry so if we don't express our distaste for them now we'll have to deal with all the bullcrap later.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Misleading thread. Probably on purpose.

EA didn't say they were only going to publish exclusively multiplayer games. They said that games had to have an online component.

You know that app for ME3 that lets you earn EMS points for... something, I'm not really sure.

That's an online component.

Social Networking interaction is also an online component. Those little news reports in ME2 were online components.

It doesn't mean everything will have multiplayer forced into it.

ME3 is something that usually comes up with this. For those people that don't know; the ME3 MP was developed by a different team to the single player, and continues to be to this day. When you lament the lack of SP DLC whenever new MP stuff is announced, remember that. Apart from the EMS link, SP and MP are effectively different games from a development standpoint. What's more, is the MP was originally developed as a different game (you can even find screenshots proving this) but was ultimately decided to be included in ME3. It's not some rushed and tacked on extra.

Hey, you, what are you doing here with your actual reading of the news stories and your logic?

Seriously though, you are totally right.

 

[Maeshone]

That's what those stupid things were for? Oh well, I never bothered to use them for anything other than the dlc that came with the game, and the few in-game rewards that came from achievements. Plus I played through the whole thing without ever touching the crucible so nothing of value really lost there if you buy used.

More to the point though; when they're talking about multiplayer I don't think they're talking about things like the crucible. (and far as I know those serpent things only require you have a THQ account or something, damn game barks at me to sign up for one every time I boot it up.) They're clearly talking about games with a persistent multiplayer aspect to them since they went out of their way to clarify every game they've greenlit this year has some kind of 24/7 connectivity attached to it. Whether it's something like the upcoming Sim City game with a D3 like multiplayer, or to the extreme of straight up turning a previously single-player franchise into a co-op game (hell even ME3 had multiplayer attached to it didn't it?) they will not be publishing any purely single-player games.

As someone who really enjoys single-player games and doesn't really like multiplayer outside of an MMO that leaves me a rather dissatisfied potential customer. When I buy a who's core-component is single-player it really chaps my ass to see items or perks in the game locked away behind some BS multiplayer they decided needed to be in there. I'm also never able to shake the notion that having to develop a multiplayer portion to the game took away time and money that could have gone into improving the single-player side, you know the more important and core of the game. Multiplayer never adds time to the a single-player game's life. The multiplayer portion usually ends up a deserted wasteland less than a month after the game is released and then becomes a useless waste of development assets as it becomes unplayable with the single-player portion remaining quite unaffected by the lack of constant players.

So no, this isn't about EA doing something innocuous and getting unwarranted hated for it. This is about EA trying to setting a dangerous precedent of doing away with the single-player experience in favor of a disposable sudo-mmo business model. Which because of consumers, like yourself, who just don't really care what EA is doing is probably going to end up working and eventually spread like a plague to the other major publishers.

I actually agree with you about multiplayer being an absolutely needless component in most singleplayer games, like Bioshock 2 and Dead Space. But, from the quote posted on the OP, I didn't take it to mean that every game ahs to have multiplayer. I only think that online connectivity means things like the serpent tomes in Darksiders or that new live-feed thingy EA have put in their racing/sports-games. As I said though, it might just be me being too optimistic.

Congratulations, you've just made yourself immune to any disagreement by playing the "Defending Martyr" card. By already deciding that you are the only brave defender of sanity amongst a horde of lunatics you have simultaneously closed yourself off to any consideration of other people's opinion and made sure that most of the comments towards you will, most likely, be openly hostile to you. This effect lasts until the thread devolves into a raging flamewar, you ragequit the conversation yourself, or everyone involved gives up the discussion in frustration thus leaving a little more closed minded than when they entered. Pat yourself on the back old bean, you have helped sabotage any thoughtful discourse that may have sprouted here. Don't worry, you didn't hurt the rest of the internet; it's much too far gone for anyone too hurt anymore except on localized scales.

Actually, that last part was in jest. I know a lot of Escapists disapprove of EA, but most of them are reasonable and not prone to flaming people. I honestly didn't mean to come off like I'm some champion for poor EA, but I can understand that some would take it that way, and for that, I apologize.

Kingdoms of Amalur was only published by EA. It was developped by 38 studio's and Big Huge Games.
Bioware is actively owned by EA.

I am sure you can put the pieces together

Oh damn, I was sure EA had a hand in the developement there... Thanks for correcting me

 

[TehCookie]

As long as other companies don't follow suit I'm fine. It's not like EA has any franchises I have to worry about them mutilating.

 

[GAunderrated]

All this EA hate is really disgusting. Multiplayer is the future, and EA is embracing it. Gamers need to understand this, but many of them clearly lack the intellectual capacity to. Look at Modern Warfare 3, it's multiplayer made it unarguably the best game of last year, as a single player experience it's lacking.

That is kinda a poor example since cod's mutli-player has had very few changes over the past several years. For many that formula got stale a long time ago. Multiplayer is fine for some games, but not all games need multiplayer. Some of my favorite games of all time still rank from single player. Why? Because while multiplayer is fun, there are no memorable, interesting, or deep moments. Its just mindless killing.

 

[Tropicaz]

Multiplayer is definately the way forward. I mean, there was a single player game launched recently that just sank without trace, it's called Skyrim, I doubt you've heard of it. Due to its lack of multiplayer, no one bought it.

 

[viranimus]

Well of course. I mean how else will you be able to change a product into a service, demand your customers give up their rights and otherwise attempt to retain control of your customers actions while you view them as expendable piggybanks fresh for the crackin.

Im going to keep saying this. Until these people can exhibit they have the ability to use the tool responsibly, WE NEED TO PULL THE PLUG. We have already lost more than we could ever hope to gain out of online connectivity, and this is just further proof of it.

TL;DR PULL THE PLUG!

 

[GAunderrated]

Multiplayer is definately the way forward. I mean, there was a single player game launched recently that just sank without trace, it's called Skyrim, I doubt you've heard of it. Due to its lack of multiplayer, no one bought it.

I know right? I mean the games we all consider to be our favorites and classics all have the best multiplayer out there!

 

[ArmyTanker8402]

Wasn't entirely sure if I should vote yes or no here.

EA ignoring singleplayer games can mean less negative influence on certain game genres. EA don't have a stellar track record, but they do have alot of market share.

Less effect, more quality?

For me as much as I hate EA's attitude, you have to acknowledge that they are a major disturber and publisher. If they don't push single player games or add multiplayer to formerly singleplayer games that do well(see ME3) then other companies will follow suit. I have no issue with multiplayer games or single player games with that aspect but when you make a singleplayer game that feels like a training mode for multiplayer then I care because it impacts the portion of the game that I'm playing.

 

[Weaver]

Why waste your time on ensuring every game has MP?

You know what the best multiplayer games are? The ones explicitly designed for multiplayer and competitive gaming. Does anyone remember the space marine multiplayer? You probably spent a few days on it then stopped, because it wasn't really that great.

I feel like EA is suffering from extreme myopia. There are fantastic multiplayer games on every platform right now, so why would I want your half assed, pieced together, tack on multiplayer when I could play any of the other dozens of fully featured and balanced multiplayer games?

Just make the single player experience lengthly and engaging instead of throwing in 5 maps and some bog standard death match modes.