Maeshone said:
A good example of what I mean is Darksiders 2, which didn't have multiplayer, but used an online pass to grant access to the online serpent tomes (and the crucible, but that's just a typical online pass thing) where you can send gifts to people on your friends list who also have the game. At least, that is what I think of when someone says "online application", not tacked on multiplayer just because "lol it's what sells". Granted, I might just be overly optimistic.
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.
Maeshone said:
And that last sentence is probably gonna get me ostracised on The Escapist...
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.
