Poll: EA boss proudly refuses to publish single player games

[veloper]

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.

Let's assume then that the SP portion in future EA games will only be training mode for multiplayer.
Will fans of SP campaigns move over to multiplayer games, or will they take their business elsewhere? I'm thinking the last one.

It's true that among the game companies there's a tendency to follow the perceived trend, but it just may be that other publishers can see an opportunity to corner this abandoned part of the market. And if it's not activision taking over, then it's probably an improvement.

 

[Riddle78]

Meanwhile,the boys at Bethesda are laughing their ways to twelve different banks...

In all seriousness,though,EA IS a big name in the indusrty. People WILL follow suit. And it will be a grim day when they do.

 

[C117]

*sigh*...

This just makes me sad. Why does every publisher seem to think multiplayer needs to be included in every darned game they release? It doesn't! And it will just put off people like me, who seldom touch the multiplayer-portion of a game! We need more games that show that you do not need any multiplayer to be successful! Come forth, singleplayer experiences! Bastion! Skyrim! Twilight Princess! No More Heroes! Final Fantasy X! Go with pride, and show EA what singeplayer-only games can do!

Damn, that sounded evil...

 

[White-Death]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOgvlfWKw-I
Ea is so going to crash and burn.
Also, that guy is still a total ****.

 

[GAunderrated]

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.

Let's assume then that the SP portion in future EA games will only be training mode for multiplayer.
Will fans of SP campaigns move over to multiplayer games, or will they take their business elsewhere? I'm thinking the last one.

It's true that among the game companies there's a tendency to follow the perceived trend, but it just may be that other publishers can see an opportunity to corner this abandoned part of the market. And if it's not activision taking over, then it's probably an improvement.

You are quite correct in your assessment of the situation. Games are a luxury, that means people can live without them and if people like me who really enjoy SP cant experience it, then ill take my business elsewhere.

This is also shooting EA in the foot because well let me use an example: Its the year 2014 and all games have a minor SP campaign an huge multiplayer. Well multiplayer cant last quite a while so you wont really need many games.

FPS category: call of duty or battlefield
RPG: FF online or elder scrolls online
sports: madden 14
racing: forza/gran trismo online
strategy: starcraft 2 complete online


etc etc you get the idea. Essentially you would only need to buy like 3-5 games a year because a good multiplayer can monopolize your time for months. And thats bad if gaming companies like making money.

 

[RESURRECTION21]

and Dead Space 2 marketing says hi!

Is it wrong to say I actually LIKED that marketing.

YES it was immature
Yes it was immature
YES it was immature
YES it wasn't perfect

BUT it was pretty funny. If I were to describe it, I would call it a jackass stunt. But like the movies its not meant to be mature as in sophisticated. I mean mature as in immature maturity. (Childishly Savage-like)

Sin it to win it? No. Your mom hates this? HA! Actually funny.

but it did in a way seem to be trying to sell the game to kids under 17 like the way the jack thompsons of the world say that m games are doing all the time and the dantes inferno sin it to win was not the dumb thing most gamers are talking about when thy are talking about that games marketing (but that was dumb) what they are talking about is the fake evangelical christian protest out in front of e3 no joke it just sent a bad image of games and gamers

 

[RESURRECTION21]

*sigh*...

This just makes me sad. Why does every publisher seem to think multiplayer needs to be included in every darned game they release? It doesn't! And it will just put off people like me, who seldom touch the multiplayer-portion of a game! We need more games that show that you do not need any multiplayer to be successful! Come forth, singleplayer experiences! Bastion! Skyrim! Twilight Princess! No More Heroes! Final Fantasy X! Go with pride, and show EA what singeplayer-only games can do!

Damn, that sounded evil...

singleplayer game powers activate!!! from of a good story shape of interesting characters now off to save the video game industry from ea and its stupid ideas!!!!

 

[Gameguy20100]

right dragon age 3 then never buying an EA game agiain i feel so bad for bioware another good company is being draged trough the mud

 

[Don Superior]

Some people do not realize EA's immense power as a publisher. As a publisher it doesn't matter if they are making the game or not - they force their hand by threatening not to release the game - you can see that in the statement made by its CEO in the article. He tells us, in a matter of speaking that HE decides by what criteria a game goes to market. Their investment comes with that price (control). So those of you who say "EA isn't the developer so it's not their fault" are sadly mistaken. If that were the case, then explain why so many games went to pot only after signing over their souls to EA.

I have to wonder about these companies who keep partnering with EA, though. It seems like a quick cash grab - maybe they really don't care? EA has long had a track record that was filled with the bones of dead developers who were foolish enough to travel down that road - so why would any more recent developer jump on that bus, knowing Freddy Kruger is the full-time demented driver - unless they knew it will only end badly and just wanted some quick cash?

Tsk, tsk.