EA not interested in SP-only games

@Phatmac said:

Fuck Valve too then since they said the exact same thing. Mirror's Edge is amazingso I'm not sad that their probably won't be a sequel so yeah. Let's try not to rag on EA so much.

Better.

@AlianthaBerries: People that like first person platforming are people I can't trust. It looked nice though.

@Phatmac: Interesting how you base who you can trust on an opinion that is only a small part of their view on games and an even smaller portion on who they are as a person. If you don't like something that other people clearly have stated their fondness for.

Just hold your tongue.

@CornBREDX: @FreakAche: I was trying to be tongue in cheek, but looking at my post I conveyed it rather poorly.

That whole vote was a debacle anyway, I'm not even sure if EA are the worst publishers, let alone company. I mean Activision and Capcom are giving them a good run for their money with thei stupid business practices. It's just a depressing read all around.

How is this a surprise to anyone? The last big EA games titles that I can remember that didn't have multiplayer were Dead Space and Mirrors Edge, and those were in 2008. Four years ago. So why has this only become an issue now that they've publicly acknowledged it?

Didn't Mirror's Edge 1 have multiplayer? It was just leaderboard stuff for speedruns through stuff, but it was multiplayer. Or if not, it would be easy to implement something like that in Mirrors Edge 2. Or even some actual co-op multiplayer would work in that style of game. Plus, things change so quickly at EA that someone new could take over tomorrow and decide to make single player experiences their focus.

That's ok. I have little to no interest in EA or any games they make.

Yeah, this probably doesn't mean what you think it does. And just like when Valve said it, people are overreacting.

Because, as it turns out, Portal 2 was a terrible game because of multiplayer, amirite?

Partly, it's still a trend to be worried about, because the most these multiplayer efforts tend to detract from the focused experience we tend to be interested in, by taking development effort away from it. Dead Space 2 seems to be a good example of this - which, while interesting, did not hold interest very long.

On the other hand, if this means more, and better implemented co-op games, then I am all for it. Gaming is a lot more fun when you can share it.

This comment is crazy. Then again, what is there that really emphasizes a deep, singleplayer experience out of EA these days? They have kind of been like this for a while, and just stated it publicly just now.

As long as their games that had great singleplayer content continue to deliver great singleplayer content in their sequels, I have no problem with this.

@ZeForgotten said:

@Willin said:

Guys, I don't mean to blow your mind with something revolutionary but you can play the single player without playing the multiplayer. I just did it with Spec Ops: The Line, it's possible.

I .. what?.. nonsense. Are you serious?!

i believe this man has lost his marbles, commit him to the loony house at once!

I personally wouldn't have a problem with EA's plan if they would stop acquiring developers that specialize in single player content and then try to force multiplayer into their games.

@Demoskinos said:

@Hailinel said:

@Demoskinos said:

Fantastic... that means I can expect some awful tacked on multiplayer feature for Dragon Age III? Fuuuuck that.

Yeah, because if there was ever a problem that hurt Dragon Age II, it was the lack of multiplayer.

Hey, Dragon Age 2 wasn't by far up to what Origins was but I still loved my time with the game. Seeing as they've been polling fans for weeks on the Bioware forums for months about different issues I think Dragon Age 2 was a good learning experience for them and I think they are assuredly taking Dragon Age III seriously.

I don't understand the hate that DA2 gets. My friend and I have discussed it a few times and the only thing that we could decide was bad was the blatant reuse of environments and that cone of cold wasn't as OP as in Origins.

The characters are all well developed, as is the playable character, the voice acting is great, the combat is faster and more exciting than Origins but still strategy driven, the story is fantastic; the prosecution of mages in Kirkwall by the templars, with your own sister or yourself being a mage, the Qunari stuff as well, and all of what you know about what happened in Origins.

Not to mention Hawke's progression from a poor immigrant to Champion of Kirkwall.

Now I just want to play DA2 again :).

With regards to OP: DA3 with CoOp sounds pretty cool as long as time pausing is handled correctly. But GTFO with every game being multiplayer

I wish some executives would see that games doing have to be both: that single player games don't need multiplayer and multiplayer games don't need single player (other than possibly some kind of tutorial section or an ability to play it when servers are down - but nothing more than that story wise is essential).

I wish great single player creators would be able to make their single player experience as amazing as possible without having to worry about multiplayer (even if another team does the multiplayer, usually the single player team must change their story/setting a bit to accommodate the implementation of multiplayer and they something even have to mess with the mechanics of the game such as the types of weapons in the single player and making sure they make sense in multiplayer and are balanced - minor tweaks like these can really mess with a single player experience such as playing a game and finding for no realistic reason that your character can't slash with a machete as fast as they can with a baseball bat so they do around equal damage, which can really take some players out of the world of the game).

I wish multiplayer developers would be able to do whatever they want in their game without even considering how they string all the mechanics, styles and items into a cohesive story/setting. When asked something like "Why is there an automated rifle and a laser whip in the same environment?” they shouldn't have to respond with "That's due to our expansive mythology; you see..." to fit it into the story, rather than just saying "Because it makes the game exciting and enthralling to play."

Some games have fantastic multi player and single player which make for two different but very enjoyable experiences (for instance, Assassin's Creed) but others were clearly designed with one side in mind first and hardly any effort went in to competing with all the other games on the side which they haven't put at the forefront of development. If they realise that early and simply save resources and time by not implementing it, they will not only be more likely to make the side they care about even better but they could end up making other games better under the developer/publisher. If they just saw that they didn't need multiplayer for instance, they could then send the guys that would work on that to another team working on a multiplayer game and vice versa. It’s like the Ubisoft model of teams which specialise in parts, but the flexibility to continue to have teams which continue to have their own identity like EA does.

The general idea across the entire industry that a game needs both to be able to sell it correctly is starting to really annoy me.

I have no problem with this. Dark Souls has innovative online features, and who dosen't love some Gears co op? I say yes to more multi (coop, don't want tacked-on-deathmatch)

well i for one have passed through my online phase of gaming, and i vastly prefer single player games to anything else.

@Willin said:

Guys, I don't mean to blow your mind with something revolutionary but you can play the single player without playing the multiplayer. I just did it with Spec Ops: The Line, it's possible.

BUT THE RESOURCES!!!1!!

@BigDaddy81 said:

I personally wouldn't have a problem with EA's plan if they would stop shutting down servers after 6 months.

Fixed.

I didn't like Mirror's Edge because I've played good platformers before, Anyway it sucks that DA3 will be saddled with multiplayer content though, honestly EA needs to learn how to diversify. Sticking multiplayer in games that don't need it is straight-up bad design, bad design = poorer reviews = less reason for "the core" to go out and buy their games.

Then it's a good thing EA isn't the only publisher out there.

Edit: wait...

Today, all of our games include online applications and digital services that make them live 24/7/365

That snippet doesn't say anything as sinister as the thread title implies. Sounds like they're talking about the always-connected "perks" including stat-tracking and social elements in their games, not just "we aren't going to put out a game without multiplayer."

Most logical thing they have decide recently.

1. Valve has said the same thing. It's okay when it's them, right? Why keep one standard when you can have two?

2. 'Connecting players' does not mean deathmatch. Weren't people freaking out that SSX is a single player experience with leaderboards? Do you think you're going to play Team CTF in SimCity?

3. Mirror's Edge 2 would intensely improve with leaderboards Shadow Complex style. Running tally throughout the campaign of guards you've karated, your longest jump, best time on Stage 4, all immediately compared with your friends times.

4. Co-op Dragon Age could be cool. Instead of immediately being a fucking asshole about any change ever, maybe you should actually take games on their merits. I heard multiplayer was the worst part about Mass Effect 3 and it turned out being pretty cool, and a good way to try out different classes and weapons without having to start an entirely new campaign. I played ME2 six times just because I wanted to see the classes.

@c0l0nelp0c0rn1: Since I don't play multiplayer, I don't give a rat's ass how long they keep their servers up.

Single Playa 4 Life.

@Brodehouse said:

1. Valve has said the same thing. It's okay when it's them, right?

A. Valve doesn't close down their multiplayer servers after a few years.

B. Valve actually supports and expand their games for years after they come out.

C. Try harder next time, comparing EA to Valve is idiot shit.

@bio595 said:

@Demoskinos said:

@Hailinel said:

@Demoskinos said:

Fantastic... that means I can expect some awful tacked on multiplayer feature for Dragon Age III? Fuuuuck that.

Yeah, because if there was ever a problem that hurt Dragon Age II, it was the lack of multiplayer.

Hey, Dragon Age 2 wasn't by far up to what Origins was but I still loved my time with the game. Seeing as they've been polling fans for weeks on the Bioware forums for months about different issues I think Dragon Age 2 was a good learning experience for them and I think they are assuredly taking Dragon Age III seriously.

I don't understand the hate that DA2 gets. My friend and I have discussed it a few times and the only thing that we could decide was bad was the blatant reuse of environments and that cone of cold wasn't as OP as in Origins.

The characters are all well developed, as is the playable character, the voice acting is great, the combat is faster and more exciting than Origins but still strategy driven, the story is fantastic; the prosecution of mages in Kirkwall by the templars, with your own sister or yourself being a mage, the Qunari stuff as well, and all of what you know about what happened in Origins.

Not to mention Hawke's progression from a poor immigrant to Champion of Kirkwall.

Now I just want to play DA2 again :).

With regards to OP: DA3 with CoOp sounds pretty cool as long as time pausing is handled correctly. But GTFO with every game being multiplayer

The reused dungeons were my main issue I mean even games like Skyrim has a limited number of "dank dreary cave" tile sets but even if it is using the same tile set it still reworks all of those peices into another arrangement that makes it a slightly unique dungeon even if you have seen the same basic cave textures in 50 other caves.

@Brodehouse said:

1. Valve has said the same thing. It's okay when it's them, right?

A. Valve doesn't close down their multiplayer servers after a few years.

B. Valve actually supports and expand their games for years after they come out.

C. Try harder next time, comparing EA to Valve is idiot shit.

Whats wrong with singleplayer? I like singleplayer.

@Brodehouse said:

@Kidavenger

@Brodehouse said:

1. Valve has said the same thing. It's okay when it's them, right?

A. Valve doesn't close down their multiplayer servers after a few years.

B. Valve actually supports and expand their games for years after they come out.

C. Try harder next time, comparing EA to Valve is idiot shit.

Actually, comparing one thing to another is the basis for closure and cognition. In this case, EA and Valve are saying the exact same thing, but it's okay for one and not the other. Maybe you should try harder being remotely respectful.

Valve has yet to actually pull the trigger.

EA has shut down servers less than a year after the game came out.

The day Valve does shut servers down, there will be a reckoning. They haven't done that yet.

@BigDaddy81 said:

@c0l0nelp0c0rn1: Since I don't play multiplayer, I don't give a rat's ass how long they keep their servers up.

Single Playa 4 Life.

That doesn't mean that this isn't going to affect you. It just sounds like an awful businessman's way of saying "We want players to pay $60 and still get some of that hot, free-to-play micro-transaction bank. It's a slippery slope that has already affected games like Mass Effect 3.

@c0l0nelp0c0rn1 said:

@BigDaddy81 said:

@c0l0nelp0c0rn1: Since I don't play multiplayer, I don't give a rat's ass how long they keep their servers up.

Single Playa 4 Life.

That doesn't mean that this isn't going to affect you. It just sounds like an awful businessman's way of saying "We want players to pay $60 and still get some of that hot, free-to-play micro-transaction bank. It's a slippery slope that has already affected games like Mass Effect 3.

And Mass Effect 3 was the game that pretty much turned me off of EA. I'd love to say that I will never buy an EA game from now on, but with the way they do business they will probably buy out the developer of a franchise I already enjoy and I will still wind up buying the games until EA's influence has sucked out all the creativity and turned it into another annual, multiplayer focused game.

Like I said earlier, as long as EA stops buying out developers left and right then they can do whatever they want with their current franchises as far as I'm concerned. Bioware was the last straw and it was heartbreaking to watch their fall from grace.

@Phatmac said:

Fuck Valve too then since they said the exact same thing. Mirror's Edge kinda sucks so I'm not sad that their probably won't be a sequel so yeah. Let's try not to rag on EA so much.

I disagree with the premise that EA doesn't deserve to be ragged on - because they always do for being emblematic of everything that is fucking wrong with this industry - but agree with everything else here. And, I mean, let's not forget that EA considers stuff like Dragon Age's Facebook shit or Autolog/Ridernet/whatever them not making single-player content, and I am more than fine with all of those.

Great, well, I'm not interested in EA anymore. Some of the greatest games ever made are single player only. How did they miss that?

@LikeaSsur said:

Great, well, I'm not interested in EA anymore. Some of the greatest games ever made are single player only. How did they miss that?

By masturbating to spreadsheets detailing the sales figures of the various Call of Duty games.

@AssInAss said:

Oh, I didn't know a Mirror's Edge clone was on Steam Greenlight?!

that song is pretty dope! more modern music should sound like SIDs :D

I'm just sick of the "our SP game needs to have MP (Dead Space 2, Bioshock 2 etc.) / our MP game needs to have SP (BF3 etc.)"-philosophy. Newsflash, publishers: no one cares for half-arsed MP / SP modes.

Meh, that is EA's decision to focus on tacking on multiplayer to everything, not anyone else. I'm not going to lie that EA makes a few good games, but if I want a great single-player focused game, there are alternatives to chose from (Rockstar/ Take Two Interactive).

I'm just sick of the "our SP game needs to have MP (Dead Space 2, Bioshock 2 etc.) / our MP game needs to have SP (BF3 etc.)-philosophy. Newsflash, publishers: no one cares for half-arsed MP / SP modes.

I'm a big fan of Mirrors Edge and I would love to play that game co-op\competitive. Just having parkour races would be pretty sweet online.

And a video game company can't be the worse in America with all the banks fucking people over.

@Brodehouse said:

@BigDaddy81 You realize that EA doesn't send sappers and infantry into those companies, those companies are selling themselves to EA, right? For money. Maybe you should be angry that the perfect wonderful developers wanted the money. EA is a villain for paying Popcap a billion fucking dollars, and poor defenseless Popcap just had to close their eyes and take the awful, awful money.

I don't think of EA as some kind of militant entity, conquering and acquiring poor and helpless developers who have no way to defend themselves. I think of them as cool and suave con men, promising freedom and riches the likes of which these developers will never see as long as they are independent. Then once acquired, the studio becomes a shell of its former self and either closes altogether or gets repurposed into a different studio. I'm not saying that the developers bought be EA are selfless and innocent victims of EA's greed, but I understand how hard it would be to resist the temptation of the money and promises of EA in an effort to stay afloat in an extremely competitive market.

There is nothing wrong with getting bought out by a publisher. I actually think there are some developers who would stand to gain a lot by getting purchased (I'm looking at you, Obsidian), but EA embodies the worst of the worst in the way they do business and I would rather they just focus on what they have already rather than acquiring more and more developers. At the end of the day it doesn't matter to me how EA acquires studios, I just want them to stop. That's all I ask.

@Demoskinos said:

@CptBedlam

I'm just sick of the "our SP game needs to have MP (Dead Space 2, Bioshock 2 etc.) / our MP game needs to have SP (BF3 etc.)-philosophy. Newsflash, publishers: no one cares for half-arsed MP / SP modes.

I've been tooting that horn forever. Very few games can make both sides compelling.

It's a waste of resources also. I'm sure extremely few people bought BF3 for its SP or kept their copy of Dead Space 2 because of the MP.

@Ghost_Cat said:

Meh, that is EA's decision to focus on tacking on multiplayer to everything, not anyone else. I'm not going to lie that EA makes a few good games, but if I want a great single-player focused game, there are alternatives to chose from (Rockstar/ Take Two Interactive).

But RDR and GTA IV had some really fun multiplayer and still had a great single player experience.

@BigDaddy81 said:

At the end of the day it doesn't matter to me how EA acquires studios, I just want them to stop. That's all I ask.

I don't care anymore because here's how it goes:

1. Big publisher buys studio full of talented people

2. forces them to produce increasingly streamlined sequels / avatar clothes

3. Talented people become unhappy, leave studio and make another great game for some other publisher who promises them more creative freedom

You just have to wait for step 3. And these days, step 3 is always happening somewhere.

@CptBedlam said:

@BigDaddy81 said:

At the end of the day it doesn't matter to me how EA acquires studios, I just want them to stop. That's all I ask.

I don't care anymore because here's how it goes:

1. Big publisher buys studio full of talented people

2. forces them to produce increasingly streamlined sequels / avatar clothes

3. Talented people become unhappy, leave studio and make another great game for some other publisher who promises them more creative freedom

You just have to wait for step 3. And these days, step 3 is always happening somewhere.

So where's my new Bioware studio? :(

@Oldirtybearon: It'll just take a little longer.

Hey EA, give your developers a fucking break. Bioware has been making some of the best RPGs in recent memory. Let them focus on what they're best at and stop forcing them to do WoW and Gears of War.

@Brodehouse said:

@Oldirtybearon Well, some of the old old guys made Beamdog, the guys who are doing that Baldur's Gate remaster. Of course they also remastered MDK2, which is apparently completely fucking broken. Casey Hudson (director of KOTOR and Mass Effect) is apparently pretty enthusiastic about his job at EA. Drew Karpyshyn (writer of Mass Effect) left the games industry as a whole because he would rather write novels. I haven't heard much from Laidlaw and Gaider (the Dragon Age lead writer and director), but thats probably because they're working on Dragon Age 3. James Ohlen (their lead designer since the original Baldur's Gate) is in charge of TOR. The Doctors are now in charge of entire wings of EA. If Casey Hudson decides he wants to do his own thing and start his own studio, I'm there. I like the guy's work. But if he's happy working at EA, who am I to tell him how badly the corporate overlords are ruining his life? I think this is the main problem, people don't actually know who is makin their games. Which hopefully we change. I hope we can start naming these directors and writers consistently, talk about Casey Hudson and Todd Howard and not just "BioWare" or "Bethesda". This sounds like a case of people not liking a band anymore, except in our industry, we always try to pin it on business. It's not their tastes have changed (of yours have), it's always a guy in a suit bringing everyone down.

I understand your point, but the evidence that Bioware has lost something since the acquisition by EA is now too hard to ignore. Mass Effect 2 was a rock solid game, but also somewhat disappointing when considering how big the original Mass Effect felt. I'm sure if you suss out the quest count and factor in all of the writing, dialogue and what not, ME2 is a "bigger" game, but it felt claustrophobic. It didn't have that same sense of "this is an entire galaxy I'm operating in" that the first title had. Then we have Dragon Age 2, which I liked, but I can definitely see where EA suits put their fingers all over it. And no, I'm not talking about the writing or the combat, I'm referring to the incredible demand of having a huge, expansive RPG sequel ship a year and a half after the first game's launch. A game that took five years to make. DA2 despite being average was a real shell-shock to a lot of people who blindly put their faith in the Bioware brand. The ending sucked for DA2 as well. TBC's on RPGs just suck.

Then there's the Mass Effect 3 thing. They made good on the Extended Cut, at least, but that whole fiasco only served to further sully the studio's reputation as an A-List, sterling developer.

And I'm aware of who Casey Hudson, Mark Laidlaw, Dave Gaider, James Ohlen, and Mac Walters are. Shit, I even know who Chris Priestly is. I'm one of those weird troglodytes who browses the Bioware Social boards and posts occasionally. When I say "I want a new Bioware studio" I mean I want the entire studio--the way it is now--to uproot themselves from EA and go back to doing their own thing without EA's oversight. The teams they have at Bioware are super talented, but I feel that mismanagement and unrealistic expectations from EA is what's crushing Bioware's quality. I mean, it doesn't take much to put together the quality of Bioware's games before EA bought them, and the quality of the titles they've produced while under EA's banner and see that EA is clearly meddling with Bioware in at least some capacity.

I'll leave with this final thought. When I finished the winter of 2009-2010 after playing Dragon Age and ME2 for months, I would've said unequivocally that Bioware was the best studio in the world. I can't say that anymore. And that really fucking sucks.

Dragon age 2 was good but should never have been marketed as a sequel.

Mass effect 3 mp is fun. When things are not half assed the games come out all right

Pretty sure when they say that, simple online links like what autolog acts as in single-player Hot Pursuit would qualify a game. Could be wrong.