EA doesn't get it

[Jay]

http://www.destructoid.com/ea-boss-proudly-refuses-to-publish-single-player-games-234402.phtml

They are proud of making mediocre games.

With co-op coming to Dead Space 3 and multiplayer rumored for Dragon Age 3, it seems that the idea of solo-oriented experiences is now dead to EA. As is variety, it seems. The inexorable march towards videogames becoming one indistinguishable mass of grey sludge continues.

Coop in Dead Space 3 sounds interesting... but it's clearly not the type of immersion I'm expecting for that type of game.

More importantly... I hope that rumor for DA3 is NOT true... cause... gawd.

 

[Ravenpoe]

Let's face it, everyone assumes DA3 to be a lost cause anyway.

 

[Azurephoenix]

I really want EA to burn... to mother. fucking. burn.

BUUURRRRNNNN!!!!!

 

[bhamv3]

Dead Space 2 had coop, though I'll admit I've never played it. Still, it doesn't fit too badly.

Coop in Mass Effect 3 made me raise my eyebrows a bit, but in the end it worked too.

Coop in Dragon Age sounds weird though. I haven't played DA2, is the combat as pause-intensive as DA1? Because I can't imagine coop working in DA1's combat.

Admittedly it might be cool to have one guy playing Hawke, and the second player controlling the Warden from DA1, as they work together though. That'd be pretty awesome.

 

[AshburnerX]

Dead Space 2 had coop, though I'll admit I've never played it. Still, it doesn't fit too badly.

Dead Space 2 didn't have Co-Op, it had a Humans Vs Necromorph mode thing. No one played it because it was stupid.

As for Dead Space 3 having Co-Op... you CAN do Co-Op in a horror game, but it needs to have a significant amount of action and you need to put in lots of ways to force the team to split up. As much as I hated RE5, it's Co-Op elements were handled pretty well.

 

[bhamv3]

Dead Space 2 didn't have Co-Op, it had a Humans Vs Necromorph mode thing. No one played it because it was stupid.

As for Dead Space 3 having Co-Op... you CAN do Co-Op in a horror game, but it needs to have a significant amount of action and you need to put in lots of ways to force the team to split up. As much as I hated RE5, it's Co-Op elements were handled pretty well.

My mistake, you're right. It was a VS mode and not coop.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

How many separate "EA is evil threads" do we need?

 

[bhamv3]

How many separate "EA is evil threads" do we need?

One for every sin. So, quite a few.

 

[Jay]

How many separate "EA is evil threads" do we need?

I'll tell you once I find out.

 

[SpecialKO]

I think you guys may be taking his comments pretty severely out of context, going by the Kotaku interview on the topic.

He's just saying that games that don't have a plan to add more online content to keep players engaged in the long-term won't get greenlit. That's not even news.

 

[Azurephoenix]

He's just saying that games that don't have a plan to add more online content to keep players engaged in the long-term won't get greenlit. That's not even news.

Online content is NOT necessary to keep people engaged in the long term. Good games with replayability and/or excellent modding support already do that.

How many people do you figure are still playing ME3 multiplayer?

 

[SpecialKO]

Online content is NOT necessary to keep people engaged in the long term.

No, but it's most assuredly a successful method of doing so. And he's quite clear that he's including DLC in his completely unoriginal grand vision that Gabe Newell has already been talking about for years.

How many people do you figure are still playing ME3 multiplayer?

Since they're still making DLC that caters specifically to multiplayer, probably quite a few.

 

[Azurephoenix]

Since they're still making DLC that caters specifically to multiplayer, probably quite a few.

Obviously this is a very small sample size but out of the twenty or so people I know that bought ME3, not a single one has touched the multiplayer component for quite some time. Hell, I played it HARD for awhile... by my estimation I unlocked about 80% of the content (which by the way I never got any of the 3 damn weapons I WANTED above level 1) but it got boring, stale and extremely uninteresting very quickly.

Sadly this has been the case with a lot of tacked on multiplayer lately. Not to mention EA's propensity towards shutting down servers and then what? You're screwed and can't play the game you paid money for. Fuck all this multiplayer shit at the expense of good core gameplay.

*edited for minor grammar errors*

 

[Ravenpoe]

Obviously this is a very small sample size but out of the twenty or so people I know that bought ME3, not a single one has touched the multiplayer component for quite some time. Hell, I played it HARD for awhile... by my estimation I unlocked about 80% of the content (which by the way I never got any of the 3 damn weapons I WANTED above level 1) but it got boring, stale and extremely uninteresting very quickly.

Sadly this has been the case with a lot of tacked on multiplayer lately. Not to mention EA's propensity towards shutting down servers and then what? You're screwed and can't play the game you paid money for. Fuck all this multiplayer shit and the expense of good core gameplay.

Also, origin fucked up for a lot of people and simply stopped working.

 

[SpecialKO]

Sadly this has been the case with a lot of tacked on multiplayer lately.

Which is explicitly what he's talking about avoiding, incidentally.

Not to mention EA's propensity towards shutting down servers and then what? You're screwed and can't play the game you paid money for. Fuck all this multiplayer shit and the expense of good core gameplay.

At least in the case of ME3, I don't believe that was the case. Now that it's all come out, the ending was always going to be as rushed and slapdash because that's what Casey Hudson wanted. And I haven't seen barely anyone who had problems with the game's core play up until that point. The multiplayer may have been kind of tacked on, but it didn't do so at the expense of of the single-player, and hundreds of thousands (and possibly millions) of players played it.

To the extent you would believe me without substantiated info (can't share it without getting in trouble), all the indicators are towards most players (not just the people who comment on Destructroid and Kotaku articles) actually wanting multiplayer and social layers in their games.

Which means that if EA wants to cater to them instead of you and let Bethesda and Valve (who is also jumping into the online social layer stuff) fill your gaming needs...I say let 'em.

 

[Azurephoenix]

Which means that if EA wants to cater to them instead of you and let Bethesda and Valve (who is also jumping into the online social layer stuff) fill your gaming needs...I say let 'em.

If EA would stop buying up franchises and studios I enjoyed and then destroying them I would be inclined to agree with you.

 

[Jay]

Multiplayer is fun on the short term but in the long term it loses its appeal. My favorite games have always been single player games and have finished them multiple times.

ME3 multiplayer was better than expected but in many ways I'll always ask myself, how much did this MP and Kinect take away from developing the game? How much of this took away from the final mission in the game on Earth where all your "assets" would come into play? The ending? The cut corners apparent in the game?

Let's be honest, EA runs its games like a business and clearly don't care about their clients and the only thing keeping them afloat are the excellent IPs they get their hands on with their money. So, I'm not surprised by this announcement and elaboration need not be done... I see where they are coming from and why MP games exist... it's anti-piracy and micro-transactions give them more money.

IMO, they don't fit in my view of what I expect from the gaming industry and are an obvious decease to the livelihood of many companies, particularly those small enough to make good quality games that cater to its fans for years to come... and not simply a roster update with 2 new tweaks year after year for full game value.

 

[SpecialKO]

If EA would stop buying up franchises and studios I enjoyed and then destroying them I would be inclined to agree with you.

I think Valve is more likely to buy a plurality stakeholder's share of EA these days.

Actually, I'd be pretty down with that.

 

[SpecialKO]

ME3 multiplayer was better than expected but in many ways I'll always ask myself, how much did this MP and Kinect take away from developing the game? How much of this took away from the final mission in the game on Earth where all your "assets" would come into play? The ending? The cut corners apparent in the game?

Pretty much not at all. We know from past interviews that Kinect support ended up taking a miniscule part of the budget and that Casey Hudson would have shoehorned in his ending no matter what. I believe you actually posted the links in your ME3 thread.

Let's be honest, EA runs its games like a business and clearly don't care about their clients and the only thing keeping them afloat are the excellent IPs they get their hands on with their money. So, I'm not surprised by this announcement and elaboration need not be done... I see where they are coming from and why MP games exist... it's anti-piracy and micro-transactions give them more money.

And it's what the majority of gamers want. I do focus groups about games all the time, and the moment I even bring up not having multiplayer and online services, everyone around the table gets mad (to be clear, they also get mad about the idea of taking out single-player; even the Battlefield 3 fans). Be upset about that if you want, but it's true. It's not like you're being forced to give money to EA instead of Bethesda or CDProjekt.

IMO, they don't fit in my view of what I expect from the gaming industry and are an obvious decease to the livelihood of many companies

Fair enough. The loss of Bullfrog and Westwood still sting after many years. That said, Command & Conquer Online looks pretty awesome.

not simply a roster update with 2 new tweaks year after year for full game value.

I don't get it either, but if sports gamers are satisfied enough to keep buying each one in record numbers, I find it hard to criticize. Just so long as they continue to not do that with games I actually like.

 

[GasBandit]

I'm all for there being more multiplayer/coop games out there, but it seems to me those two particular games would not benefit from it.

 

[SpecialKO]

I'm all for there being more multiplayer/coop games out there, but it seems to me those two particular games would not benefit from it.

I do have to agree that Dead Space co-op is much less appealing from a Dead Space perspective. I liked RE5 a lot, but while RE4 still had some horror/suspense in its action-horror, RE5 was pretty much all action.

 

[sixpackshaker]

I just wonder if Civ VI will be a first person shooter...

 

[Jay]

It's companies like EA that focus on shitty games they repackage for the next year and buys awesome IPs/Companies and scraps them to make more money.

Meanwhile... games like this get rarer every year.

Those of you who played this game... do you get shivers up your spine when you hear the music? I know I do.

 

[Azurephoenix]

Ahhh... Baldur's Gate 2. That was some epic stuff there... and I love the soundtrack.

 

[HowDroll]

I think you guys may be taking his comments pretty severely out of context, going by the Kotaku interview on the topic.

He's just saying that games that don't have a plan to add more online content to keep players engaged in the long-term won't get greenlit. That's not even news.

You know how to keep players engaged in the long-term? Make a fucking fantastic game.

DA:O is an EXCELLENT example of this. I've beaten the game several times and will probably do so again (and have a damn good time) at some point in the next year. Each time was a completely different experience. Different character, different strategy, different story, different ending.

Fuck multiplayer. Forcing that shit on me is the quickest way to make sure I WON'T play the game again, because I don't feel like grinding for EMS or whatever.

 

[SpecialKO]

The funny thing is, Baldur's Gate 2 had online multiplayer. World didn't explode. Just sayin'.

You know how to keep players engaged in the long-term? Make a fucking fantastic game.

Do you guys actually think that BioWare specifically sat down and said, "you know, DAO was awesome, but I think we need to go out of our way to make something decidedly mediocre and unimpressive, which we shall call Dragon Age 2!"?

They took a gamble on what they thought players wanted, and they ended up really wrong, and paid for it by only selling 2M copies of the game.

Fuck multiplayer. Forcing that shit on me is the quickest way to make sure I WON'T play the game again, because I don't feel like grinding for EMS or whatever.

Serious question, when has anyone here ever been forced to play multiplayer for a predominantly single-player game? ME3 didn't do it, and they were actually trying then.

Not even EA Sports games do that, and multiplayer is the only thing people actually play with those games.

 

[Azurephoenix]

They took a gamble on what they thought players wanted, and they ended up really wrong, and paid for it by only selling 2M copies of the game.

Yeah, they sold a lot but at what cost? I won't even look at let alone buy a Dragon Age 3 game now... the franchise is completely and irrecovably destroyed. I also know I'm not alone in this. Not only that... I won't buy any Bioware products anymore (unless it's a time tested classic) and I'm not buying anymore EA games either. Also... Origin can suck it.

Serious question, when has anyone here ever been forced to play multiplayer for a predominantly single-player game? ME3 didn't do it, and they were actually trying then.

You're actually partially incorrect with ME3. Even though you don't "have" to play it... I'd like to see you get the required 5000 galaxy readiness points for the "best" ending without it. Of course, we all know the ending is bullshit anyways but their intent was to make you play the multiplayer to get the best ending. (It can be done without multiplayer but I believe you basically have to recover every single war asset in the game including all the hidden shit which is tiresome and stupid to retrieve).

 

[GasBandit]

Orcs must Die 2 can get pretty tough solo.

 

[Gared]

I actually really liked this Forbes article in response to Gibeau's original quote and his not-quite-retraction/explanation of his original quote. It does a very good job of explaining why DLC and multiplayer aren't necessarily good things for gaming; especially from a story telling point of view. Especially as it relates to MMOs. Specifically, there were two quotes from the article that I really liked.

In fact, the more social a game is, the less compelling it tends to be from a storytelling perspective. For example, the MMO genre is known to attract many players, but many of the games are incredibly light on story. It's nearly impossible to be immersed in a world where you're supposed to be the "chosen one" only to have 50 other chosen ones hopping around all around you with names like "dicklord007" jumping around in circles shouting obscenities.

This one is amazingly spot on. How many people have queued up for an AV match, only to sit near the gates while 30 people do the "train" emote ad nauseum and every rogue in the place spams Fan of Knives until the gate opens. How is that immersive? What about a supposedly epic match between two generals from opposing armies screams out for the need for 30 people to scream "chuggachuggachuggachugga choo choo!" and 15 people to throw knives all round themselves constantly?

Perhaps social and story can be integrated in a way that works. There are a few examples of it starting to, like PS3's Journey or Portal 2's co-op mode, but for as long as the dicklord007's of the gaming community continue to exist, it's a hard path forward.

 

[SpecialKO]

Yeah, they sold a lot but at what cost? I won't even look at let alone buy a Dragon Age 3 game now... the franchise is completely and irrecovably destroyed.

For you, maybe. For everyone else, we'll see. Seeing as how I don't need to buy the game if it sucks, I'm willing to let them try and convince me.

Not only that... I won't buy any Bioware products anymore (unless it's a time tested classic) and I'm not buying anymore EA games either.

Whatever, it's your money.

Also... Origin can suck it.

That, we can definitely agree on.

You're actually partially incorrect with ME3. Even though you don't "have" to play it... I'd like to see you get the required 5000 galaxy readiness points for the "best" ending without it.

I did it with the free iPhone app that took a whole 3 minutes of my time per day in the launch month. Didn't touch multiplayer till after I beat the game. And with the Extended patch and DLC, supposedly you don't even need that.
EDIT: Incidentally, what client are you using? The reply function does weird things with my fonts when I reply to you.

 

[SpecialKO]

This one is amazingly spot on. How many people have queued up for an AV match, only to sit near the gates while 30 people do the "train" emote ad nauseum and every rogue in the place spams Fan of Knives until the gate opens. How is that immersive? What about a supposedly epic match between two generals from opposing armies screams out for the need for 30 people to scream "chuggachuggachuggachugga choo choo!" and 15 people to throw knives all round themselves constantly?

It's a good quote, but it's very much from the perspective of a guy reading extra things into what someone else is saying.

Here's what Gibeau said in the clarification:

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. I'm not saying deathmatch must come to Mirror's Edge."

"What I'm saying is if you're going do it, do it with an open-world game that's a connected experience where you can actually see other players, you can co-operate, you can compete and it can be social. Everything that we do, we see the telemetry coming in telling us that's the best way to build our business and that's the best way to build these experiences and be differentiated from others. Yeah, I'm not suggesting deathmatch must be in Bejeweled. It's just… You need to have a connected social experience where you're part of a large community"
When I mentioned that a certain sort of player still wants an experience that can't be interrupted through social interaction, he stated that The Sims plays that way. "The new Sim City, you can play single-player," he continued. "Mass Effect 3, you can play single-player. FIFA, Madden…"
"I still passionately believe in single-player games and think we should build them. What I was trying to suggest with my comments was that as we move our company from being a packaged goods, fire-and-forget business to a digital business that has a service component to it. That's business-speak for ‘I want to have a business that's alive and evolves and changes over time

He's explicitly not talking about adding forced multiplayer to everything. He is talking about using DLC to extend play. He is talking about adding social layers to games, whether that's open-world multiplayer, co-op storymodes, sharing achievements, or whatever the heck else someone could come up with.

They're EA, they will inevitably fuck up something, probably a lot of things, while doing this. But everyone running around worried about the dicklords getting all up in their games is being exceptionally premature. EA has literally made a single game where the dicklords had the power to ruin it for everyone, and even the Forbes author agrees that SWTOR is actually a good example of story and multiplayer mostly working together.

 

[Azurephoenix]

For you, maybe. For everyone else, we'll see. Seeing as how I don't need to buy the game if it sucks, I'm willing to let them try and convince me.

Well we will have to wait and see... but when the game is released whoever is wrong will be showered with boos!

I did it with the free iPhone app that took a whole 3 minutes of my time per day in the launch month. Didn't touch multiplayer till after I beat the game. And with the Extended patch and DLC, supposedly you don't even need that.

I shouldn't have to use an external app for a device I may not have to get my galaxy score up. I also shouldn't have to rely on paid DLC or an extended ending that we only got because we bitched so hard about the end sucking (and the extended cut was still pretty much a big middle finger to us because Casey Hudson is the best writer ever).

EDIT: Incidentally, what client are you using? The reply function does weird things with my fonts when I reply to you.

It's probably my compulsive need to change my font to Arial. I suppose I should probably stop that at some point...

 

[SpecialKO]

Well we will have to wait and see... but when the game is released whoever is wrong will be showered with boos!

Acceptable!

Wait, what if it sucks because it just sucks, not because of multiplayer/social/whatsis? Who gets booed then?

I shouldn't have to use an external app for a device I may not have to get my galaxy score up. I also shouldn't have to rely on paid DLC or an extended ending that we only got because we bitched so hard about the end sucking (and the extended cut was still pretty much a big middle finger to us because Casey Hudson is the best writer ever).

That's true, but it's still not an example of forced multiplayer. And I blame Casey Hudson more than EA for that one. Since by all accounts, he just did it that way, despite apparently half the writing staff at BioWare and EA themselves asking if he was quite sure.

 

[Covar]

The funny thing is, Baldur's Gate 2 had online multiplayer. World didn't explode. Just sayin'.

Based on the OP and this statement I can now deduce that Baldur's Gate 2 is a mediocre game.

 

[Azurephoenix]

Acceptable!

Wait, what if it sucks because it just sucks, not because of multiplayer/social/whatsis? Who gets booed then?

Then we can both weep for Bioware and pour one out for them.