• EA boss proudly refuses to publish single-player games
    157 replies, posted
Wasn't TOR a Singleplayer game though?
[quote]games are to be thought of as services now[/quote] it's official, said from the man himself
It makes me sad to see that people just toss around video games like buckets of mud. :(
[QUOTE=Sleepy Head;37560794]it's official, said from the man himself[/QUOTE] When I pay for a service that's purely enjoyment I demand a [I]"happy ending"[/I].
No skin off my back I'm not buying anything EA ever again anyways.
I don't even know what kind of thought processes have to be going through this man's head to be thinking of all this bullshit. They think they are going to made mad dosh with all these decisions, but inevitably, they are just digging themselves a massive grave.
Sometimes I really want my games to be single-player only, it just weird if every games must have multi-player in it.It just feels forced.
[QUOTE=Spectre1406;37560831]No single-player games? [/QUOTE] [b]where does it say this[/b]
[QUOTE=Slacker101;37560812]No skin off my back I'm not buying anything EA ever again anyways.[/QUOTE] Bit late to the wagon, but welcome to the clubhouse bro. It's a pity; I want to like the next Dragon Age, but I have so many reasons and convictions not to buy it, even though not buying it contributes towards giving EA an excuse to take a butcher's knife from the draw and brutally terminate its ward. If anything, I want EA to be punished severely for their crimes against the industry, in a court where bribery and shit-eating grins would only dig their grave deeper. Devs can start again under different names and different publishers (sometimes they can start without publishers, though "triple-A" games probably wouldn't be on the cards due to having to self finance, so if anything an abundance of triple-A talent going indie would result in some interesting stuff), but a cancerous growth must be surgically removed, then incinerated, and have the patients treated with chemotherapy.
How can a company be so disregardful of it's fan base, blatantly soulless, money hungry and awful as EA is. Bit still have success? I can even grasp the finest thread of that form of 'logic'.
[QUOTE=thisispain;37560443]i would say a vast majority of people probably won't find Dwarf Fortress engaging[/QUOTE] that learning curve man but once you're over the curve, a land of hippy elf slaughter and castlebuilding awaits you
Somebody should let EA know that just because there isn't a steady population of people playing their game a year or two after release the game was a failure. Even then, you don't need forced multiplayer to achieve that. The thing that confuses me about this is that EA released the Mass Effect games, and they had no multiplayer component until the final game, which many would argue was the worst. I'm all for multiplayer games, but I think this idea that singleplayer games have no place is ridiculous. If I buy a game and only play it for the 10 or so hours it takes to complete the singleplayer component and walk away from it satisfied by an in-depth and meaningful story, that is just as good as playing a multiplayer game a few times a week for a year or so. Either way, if I enjoy the game I'm going to be buying more from that developer.
I think they are just trying to lose customers now maybe it is some experimental new corporate system that they are trying out like how valve does it only EA is really really shit at it
I can sorta see what EA wants to do with this whole "social experience" thing but they are just not doing it right, they should do this with new IP's and less popular games. Not games where everyone is hoping for, like Mirrors Edge 2, C&C Generals 2 and to-come Battlefield 4
[QUOTE=Maloof?;37561027]I think they are just trying to lose customers now maybe it is some experimental new corporate system that they are trying out like how valve does it only EA is really really shit at it[/QUOTE] You guys like playing with friends? Well then we'll ONLY make games that let you play with your friends!!! Isn't it awesome guys??!!! They do shit like this and then when asked why people hate them, they can only come up with "it's cool to hate EA".
[QUOTE=dogmachines;37561041]You guys like playing with friends? Well then we'll ONLY make games that let you play with your friends!!! Isn't it awesome guys??!!! They do shit like this and then when asked why people hate them, they can only come up with "it's cool to hate EA".[/QUOTE] I believe Valve was going to add a multiplayer element to the HL3 campaign in some fashion; but they wouldn't ditch the singleplayer; it's a ridiculous notion
They probably want to do that so they can make an edge on the profits with their shitty 'online pass' system. No online, no online pass money. That said, Counter-strike only has multiplayer, I don't see anyone complain about that
[QUOTE=Cureless;37560953]How can a company be so disregardful of it's fan base, blatantly soulless, money hungry and awful as EA is. Bit still have success? I can even grasp the finest thread of that form of 'logic'.[/QUOTE] Because they're out to make money and they don't care about anything else?
[QUOTE=Aide;37560363]I proudly refuse to waste my money on you anymore, EA. Unless its Mirrors Edge 2.[/QUOTE] Mirrors Edge 2 with death match of course!
[QUOTE=cqbcat;37561084]Mirrors Edge 2 with death match of course![/QUOTE] Mirror's Edge CTF could be done really well if they tried
Jesus christ most of you are totally misunderstanding this. He isn't saying no singleplayer, he's just saying that singleplayer games have to have some kind of online element. That doesn't mean multiplayer, it means something like say, The Sims 3's exchange and story upload stuff. Or online leaderboards. Or even something like Tropico 4's (Yeah, not an EA game but still) [i]option[/i] to upload useless shit status updates to Twitter/Facebook. At least read the article before shitting yourselves.
When EA games finally die because of bad economics so will this guy be found hanging in his warderobe.
[QUOTE=darth-veger;37561038]I can sorta see what EA wants to do with this whole "social experience" thing but they are just not doing it right, they should do this with new IP's and less popular games. Not games where everyone is hoping for, like Mirrors Edge 2, C&C Generals 2 and to-come Battlefield 4[/QUOTE] I was gonna ask why this is even news, but after reading a little it's just the media making a big fuzz about it. From what I read some EA guy at a conference mentioned that all their games should include an online service which some people interpreted to be something like deathmatch for mirrors edge. But they meant things like achievements and cloud saving. (just like on steam for hl2 ep1 and ep2)
[QUOTE=RubberFruit;37561076]They probably want to do that so they can make an edge on the profits with their shitty 'online pass' system. No online, no online pass money. That said, Counter-strike only has multiplayer, I don't see anyone complain about that[/QUOTE] You missed the point. Valve doesn't ensure that every game out the door has some form of multiplayer.
[QUOTE=dogmachines;37561147]You missed the point. Valve doesn't ensure that every game out the door has some form of multiplayer.[/QUOTE] [url=http://kotaku.com/5795355/valve-probably-done-with-single+player-games]Really now?[/url]
[QUOTE=dogmachines;37561147]You missed the point. Valve doesn't ensure that every game out the door has some form of multiplayer.[/QUOTE] Ah, I see your point now, sorry.
[QUOTE=cheesedelux;37561165][url=http://kotaku.com/5795355/valve-probably-done-with-single+player-games]Really now?[/url][/QUOTE] Where Valve plans it, EA uses it as a checkbox and forces it into franchises that have never had it. Besides, "Probably done" isn't the same as saying they want all their games to have online components because singleplayer alone isn't good enough.
[QUOTE=dogmachines;37561188]Where Valve plans it, EA uses it as a checkbox and forces it into franchises that have never had it. Besides, "Probably done" isn't the same as saying they want all their games to have online components because singleplayer alone isn't good enough.[/QUOTE] And again, online component just means stuff like achievements and optional social junk. Full-on multiplayer is as optional as always.
[QUOTE=Cureless;37560953]How can a company be so disregardful of it's fan base, blatantly soulless, money hungry and awful as EA is. Bit still have success? I can even grasp the finest thread of that form of 'logic'.[/QUOTE] cause they have marketed themselves very well to their main target audiences - teens and kids who really don't care for quality and just want shiny-bang-bang-new-madden-cod-lookalike-man-slowly-walking-towards-cover. However, as game audiences get older and demand better quality, deeper storylines and not the same old multiplayer in every game EA will notice a change. We've already seen this with the worst company award and the massive backlash over ME3. EA will have to change eventually or die slowly.
I might actually pick up Dragon Age 3 if it has dungeon-crawling co-op like Two Worlds II, Neverwinter Nights 2, etc. [editline]6th September 2012[/editline] Dude, either Kingdom of Amalur 2 will have online or it's not getting published. Even though they said in the past that they'd happily publish the game.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.