Sounds awesome! I can't wait to play tubular EA games with my bros!
I would prefer a game with a good singleplayer rather than a mediocre pair of the two, or just having the multiplayer slapped on at the last minute.
[QUOTE=Ziron;37550908]Sounds awesome! I can't wait to play tubular EA games with my bros![/QUOTE]
REAGANOMICS!
Adding online features of the sake of it. They've already done that many times.
I agree with the developers of Spec Ops: The Line. If you tack on a not-so-good multiplayer component, it takes time that could be used to better the singleplayer component and, really, makes your game look bad.
BECAUSE SINGLEPAYER IS A DEAD GENRE AND IT NEEDS TO BE DEADER
THAT'S WHY YOU'RE MAKING C&C GENERALS 2 AN F2P RIGHT
Bag of badger cunts, thinking they can make games by copping out, selling out, cashing in.
Didn't valve say something just like this? You guys don't need to hate just because its EA.
Maybe they're referring to the Activision approach where you have 2 different teams working on the sides of the games? That worked well with CoD, campaign was great and MP was silly fun.
[quote]"We are very proud of the way EA evolved with consumers. I have not green lit one game to be developed as a single-player experience," Gibeau said[/quote]
ur ruining the industry u fucking ponce
[QUOTE=Amiga OS;37551007]2 years max, that's how long I expect EA to be around for.[/QUOTE]
they're publicly traded so if anything happens they're just gonna get all their senior staff booted off
[QUOTE=BloodFox1222;37550991]Didn't valve say something just like this? You guys don't need to hate just because its EA.[/QUOTE]
Valve said this exact thing.
Valve said this too, but why do we hate EA for it but don't mind Valve for doing it? Partly because of bandwagon and fanboyism
Though i would think that Valve has had a better track record when it comes to adding multiplayer to their games. Not only that but valve also can take the time to produce a solid single player along with a solid multiplayer where as EA has company red tape, share holders and various other things that would force the work time of a game to quicken up. Valve also scarcely releases games and EA is a huge publishing house (as well as their own stuff).
id love an up to date sims game with multiplayer
[QUOTE=Raidyr;37551080]Valve said this exact thing.[/QUOTE]
HL3 co-op/HL3:DM confirmed
To be honest, most singleplayer games I play made me wish there were multiplayer too. It's just unfortunate when publishers force a rushed multiplayer portion for anti-piracy purposes.
[QUOTE=BloodFox1222;37550991]Didn't valve say something just like this? You guys don't need to hate just because its EA.[/QUOTE]
I don't like the fact that Valve is interested in doing this either.
I think people are confusing this article with "Slapped on cod-stlye mp mode" for all EA titles. There are many ways to do online experiences. A lot of them good.
With Valve and their Valve time I don't think any resources and effort that could've gone into the SP are going into their MP instead, which could turn the SP into a short and buggy piece of shit.
Because that's the [b]real[/b] fear here. Nobody is against completely optional Multiplayer components.
EA has a long history of ruining games because of way too tight deadlines and terrible decisions when it comes to dev teams and the franchises they've bought with them. It treats a lot of its employees like shit, and in return they get frustrated and treat customers like shit.
Yager's something of a special case because their MP was done by a different studio and under a completely different direction, but as their Co-Op plans show, Multiplayer in The Line isn't a bad thing inherently. Multiplayer is inherently a giant drain of resources however, and in case of FPS and MMOs has to compare to unbeatable giants. If it can't compete with those, its community will run dry quickly and the Multiplayer becomes unplayable and completely useless. If The Line had just followed through on their initial CoD-clone premise, almost nobody would've bought it (especially with blops2 on the horizon) and we wouldn't even remember it now. It was a wise decision to deliver something CoD&Co can't; it avoids direct competition. Props to 2K for having the balls to publish such a risky title.
I remember hearing the exact same thing about 3-4 years ago, told my friend, he said that ME3 would be horrible because it'd possibly have a TDM multiplayer. :v:
On the Valve side of things, we get multiplayer/co-operative experiences that actually suit the game they go with.
On EA's side, you have unnecessary co-op on a game like Dead Space.
[QUOTE=BloodFox1222;37550991]Didn't valve say something just like this? You guys don't need to hate just because its EA.[/QUOTE]
Generally i don't get involved with and EA bashing because life's to short to give a shit, but i personally trust valve a hell of a lot more than i do EA based on my own experiences and interactions with both.
Fuck. Off.
Focus on either one instead of spreading your efforts too thin on both, unless you're dealing with the rare case where the central game mechanic(s) has extraordinary potential as both a single- and multiplayer experience.
[QUOTE=BloodFox1222;37550991]Didn't valve say something just like this? You guys don't need to hate just because its EA.[/QUOTE]
Actually a lot of Valve games are focused on multiplayer (everything except HL and Portal in fact) so it can't really compare with EA.
[QUOTE=mixshifter;37551904]On the Valve side of things, we get multiplayer/co-operative experiences that actually suit the game they go with.
On EA's side, you have unnecessary co-op on a game like Dead Space.[/QUOTE]
Or a slapped on shitty multiplayer such as mass effect 3s.
It is their marketing!
[QUOTE=Jackald;37552283][img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/10001051/Replace.PNG[/img]
It's like they're trying to be as hated as possible.[/QUOTE]
It's their formulaic way of adding "value" to games with as little effort as possible.
I.E Multiplayer component -> +15$.
And that pretty much ensures I'm not buying any more EA games for the forseeable future. Between origin, them just not being all that good, general disinterest in them, and now all of them having to have a multiplayer component that detracts from the SP that I buy games for....yeah, no thanks EA.
[QUOTE=BloodFox1222;37550991]Didn't valve say something just like this? You guys don't need to hate just because its EA.[/QUOTE]
I don't hate it because it's EA, personally, I hate it because it's a[I] bad idea[/I]! Shoehorning multiplayer into games that are single-player-based like they've been doing recently is a waste of time and resources. Look at Bioshock 2, Dead Space 2, all kinds of games with multiplayer that died off almost immediately because they are [I]single player games.[/I]
[QUOTE=surfur;37551203]Valve said this too, but why do we hate EA for it but don't mind Valve for doing it?[/quote] When Valve does it Valve makes sure the game is good and finished before it goes out. When EA does it the game goes out on release day whether it's ready to launch or not. Erego, Valve gets a free pass here, since the SP doesn't suffer from the MP and vice versa, while EA gets kicked on the balls because an already average at best title ends up complete shit because the dev team was forced to toss in DM/TDM/CTF multiplayer and still make the release deadline.
It's a quality thing, mostly. EA doesn't care about quality, they just want it out the door, whereas Valve uses the "We'll release it when it's ready to be released" method.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
