Poll: EA boss proudly refuses to publish single player games

Recommended Videos

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
I am horrified at the prospect of what DA:3 will be. I didn't buy ME3 because the franchise tanked, and now I'm relatively confident I will have no reason to buy DA:3, despite my love for the original and my appreciation for the second. EA is running bioware into the ground, EA will likely live on, but I wouldn't expect bioware to make it past it's DA:3 launch, if they get even that far. RIP Bioware.
 

Arcane Azmadi

New member
Jan 23, 2009
1,232
0
0
The boss of EA is a colossal dick who doesn't understand evenb the most basic things about game development. Why is this surprising?
 

GAunderrated

New member
Jul 9, 2012
998
0
0
bloodmage2 said:
Andy Shandy said:
It seems Mister Gibeau was a little bit misunderstood.

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

And at least it seems they actually remember Mirror's Edge exists.
"Let me clarify," Gibeau began. "What I said was [about not greenlighting] anything that [doesn't have] an online service. You can have a very deep single-player game but it has to have an ongoing content plan for keeping customers engaged beyond what's on the initial disc.
so we've gone from

"No more singleplayer games"

to

"Every game has pay-for DLC to milk customers of every last penny"

What. a. Fucking. Improvement.
My thoughts exactly. Either answer he gives its all about providing inferior content and then massively milking via DLC.
 

Nazulu

They will not take our Fluids
Jun 5, 2008
6,242
0
0
Marketing geniuses but completely corrupt. Happens with most things now and people will keep buying their shit because they're addicted or just have low standards, and soon it will devour everything and we will never see a quality product again. This is the future I'm predicting.

It's good to see most people see this as folly, but they will still sell.

I just have to say, this is pretty hard to believe. Their industry is scum but this just makes them look they are proud of it.
 

TheDrunkNinja

New member
Jun 12, 2009
1,875
0
0
Bioware has always been very keen on giving people what they want if they are screaming loud enough.

Now is the time, ladies and gentlemen...

Honestly, maybe multiplayer will be a great addition to a Dragon Age game. (I imagine this kind of decision came from the success of the TOR multi-person conversation system) I don't know until it comes out. What I do know is that the best qualities about Dragon Age stem from its focus on a single player. This is not what I want to see the developers to waste their time on, time that could be put to use to refine a brilliant single player campaign. That's what it comes down to. I want a great and refined single player experience, and I feel like this addition would just turn it into... just a pretty good single and multiplayer.
 

AD-Stu

New member
Oct 13, 2011
1,287
0
0
Shpongled said:
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? If so, why the fuck did EA buy Bioware in the first place then?
Because if EA hadn't, someone else would have, and Bioware was just too valuable a brand not to snap up if you've got the opportunity.

Like everyone else, I just can't see the logic behind 1: making this move in the first place or 2: making a big song and dance about it in the public arena.
 

ChildishLegacy

New member
Apr 16, 2010
974
0
0
I'm almost a solely multiplayer gamer and I don't want this.

If they keep just tacking on multiplayer modes to single player games then neither multiplayer or single player gamers will like them. SP gamers will get less gameplay because they will ignore the multiplayer. Multiplayer gamers will get a pretty poorly designed multiplayer mode because the devs didn't have any plans/don't have any experience in multipalyer.

That's not to say you can't have both on your games, as long as it was planned from the start and they both have teams working on and balancing them. I buy a lot of games solely for multiplayer that have single player components that are perfectly fine.

Akalabeth said:
And I bet that's the last time you'll ever see a single-player focused game out of Valve.
They still green light hundreds of single player games on steam again and again and again though. They actually see potential in solely single player games and so they sell them.

Also, want to know the difference between Portal 2's/Left 4 Dead's multiplayer and multiplayer like ME3's?
They're well made, thought out and balanced, they didn't just throw it in there to tick boxes, they made amazing multiplayer games.

You can't really make an example of CS/DotA/TF2 either because they are made for the multiplayer.
 

Dreadman75

New member
Jul 6, 2011
425
0
0
...You know what? I'm not surprised, hell I'm not even angry anymore. For the longest time now, EA has seem dead set on accruing as much gamer hatred as it can and it's doing a bang up job of it.

So no, I'm not surprised at this. I'm not gonna yell, curse, or swear to whatever deity that will listen that I'll never buy an EA game again (because EA still owns Bioware).

I'm just gonna say one thing: Keep it up EA. Just keep up the bullshit, each and every time you screw up you're just giving us more ammunition. And the more ammo you give us, the easier it will be to finally put you in the ground...for good.
 

Teacakes

New member
Sep 5, 2012
24
0
0
If I may paraphrase what I said in the article comments earlier, I do think EA is pushing this connectivity/Facebook/cloud business because social media games are on a slight decline, and their money is riding on pretending always-online single player with multiplayer elements is the direction games are supposed to be going.

I don't know this for a fact, but from the state of various subsets of the industry today, this is my best guess.
 

Lunar Templar

New member
Sep 20, 2009
8,225
0
0
i don't think EA realizes that we don't need MORE reasons to hate them, or to not buy they're crap
 

Mirroga

New member
Jun 6, 2009
1,119
0
0
Stay true EA. Now you gave me 100% to never buy your games. Before it was 99.99999999999% considering you may have gotten a wonderful company that can make at least a decent single player.
 

Ed130 The Vanguard

(Insert witty quote here)
Sep 10, 2008
3,782
0
0
Hold on!

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

In other words:

So while forced in multiplayer with everything isn't on the cards (but it is preferred), Always Online content (ala that new SimCity) is the way of the future!

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/119443-Ubisoft-Ditches-Always-On-DRM

Huh.
 

Extra-Ordinary

Elite Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,065
0
41
Right.
Because Bioshock, Elder Scrolls, Half-life, Portal, Zelda, Assassin's Creed (for the most part), freaking Dead Space and Mass Effect, so on.
Pffft! That's not where money is made!
 

irishda

New member
Dec 16, 2010
968
0
0
DrAlex said:
irishda said:
I'm curious when video gamers became akin to political parties. "This person/company is destroying our way of life..." No, no they're not. Single player games will always be around. They're not going away. Bethesda, Activision, and Nintendo still exist along with a host of other developers. EA does not hold the keys to video game development. Not to mention, a "tacked on multiplayer" doesn't diminish the quality of a single player element. I still liked Dead Space 2's campaign, and didn't once feel I had to play the multiplayer.
There is a difference between a developer and a publisher. Publishers unfortunately wield too much power and are currently out of touch with their market. That's the problem.
But that's the point. It's not that publishers are out of touch with the markets. On the contrary, they know exactly what people want. And what people want is a lot of shit to do. In video games that means two things. Either you can make an open world sandbox where there's a lot of random stuff thrown in but no one really cares cause it's fun to do whatever you want, narrative be damned. Or, you can throw in a multiplayer.

Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong. Tell me people NEVER hold it against a game when the campaign is only 6 hours or so and it's NOT made by Valve. (I'm looking at you Portal). Please, tell me that everyone loves games that are so completely original.

The sad fact is, the vast majority of gamers these days LIKE the CoD shooters, the easy RPGs, the multiplayer aspects, the free-to-play casual models, because the vast majority these days are casual players. But you'd never know that on here or other "hardcore" gaming sites where people still think everyone played Diablo 2 and wants gaming to stay the same as it was in the 90s.

And yes, multiplayer is what a lot of gamers go by to justify buying a game to ensure they get their 60 dollars worth. Hell, I know I typically just rent single player games unless they're really really good. Not every developer can make some massive open world environment that tricks players into thinking its really good just because its got a shit-ton of random stuff to do.
Then don't charge $60 for a game that isn't worth $60. Running a business is not as difficult as some people make it out to be. It's only difficult if leadership and management are incompetent.
That's the catch 22 of today's technology. Either spend a fortune putting together the graphics, voice acting, etc. of a AAA game in today's market, or get lambasted on review websites for having "shit graphics", "the same guy doing everyone's voice", and everything else your game doesn't that every other game in your market bracket does.
 

Mirroga

New member
Jun 6, 2009
1,119
0
0
Boudica said:
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.