Will this effect the quality of future SP?
yes
47.6% (314)
47.6% (314)
no
10% (66)
10% (66)
I want both either way
3.8% (25)
3.8% (25)
whats SP?
1.2% (8)
1.2% (8)
I just hate EA
37% (244)
37% (244)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: EA boss proudly refuses to publish single player games

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Electronic Arts' games label boss Frank Gibeau has revealed that he's not let any solely single-player games pass through his gates, ensuring that absolutely every single title the company publishes has an online component.

"We are very proud of the way EA evolved with consumers," stated the executive. "I have not green lit one game to be developed as a singleplayer experience. Today, all of our games include online applications and digital services that make them live 24/7/365.

"One of our biggest growth opportunities is Play4Free titles that allow customers to play at no cost and make purchases via microtransactions. We see this as a huge opportunity, and one that's powered by our hybrid cloud model."

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.

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

EA sucks big ones anyway, so i really dont care. i did not touch one of their games in a year.

Wow

so you don't want my money? Okay, way to cut to the chase EA. I don't mind achievements and the like, but announcing something like this is incredibly arrogant and proving that you have learned nothing from the past few years of your horrible choices. I'll shift my money to Ubisoft and Borderlands 2, as they seem to be getting the picture a bit better. (starting to at least on Ubisoft's part)

Well considering some of the franchises and developers they control I personally find that to be dissapointing but my primary reaction to this is one of confusion. Why would you announce this? Surely if EA wanted to move away from any soley single player games they should just do it and eventually people would pick up on the change in their approach with time, instead they just directly come out and say that? Surely they must be aware that it will simply add to the general EA hatred already circulating, so wouldn't it be wiser to delay worsening that until people happened to realise they had shifted from soley single player games?

Part of me wants to think this is some elaborate scheme: announce this, judge the reaction then either accept that the negativitiy it caused is negligible (if that is the case) or react to it and claim that they are a company that 'listens to the fans'. But at this point I'm probably just rambling because I can't rack my head around this, anyone has any better idea outside of 'EA are [insert insulting term/phrase here]' feel free to enlighten me.

Here is what I heard:

"remember the single player game known as Dead Space? That's over with, so fuck you and give me money for more online games!"

Wasn't entirely sure if I should vote yes or no here.

EA ignoring singleplayer games can mean less negative influence on certain game genres. EA don't have a stellar track record, but they do have alot of market share.

Less effect, more quality?

Terminate421:
Here is what I heard:

"remember the single player game known as Dead Space? That's over with, so fuck you and give me money for more online games!"

We're EA, and we can do nothing wrong.

Remember all those great singleplayer Bioware RPG titles that still fly off the shelves today because they were highly polished deep stories? We stopped their publishers making them to focus on a single Multiplayer online game.

Remember the Command and Conquer series that were loved for their wacky storylines, great characters, and interesting campaign situations? We're removing the storyline and campaign, and the balance to make it Free2Play. (we already removed the basebuilding mechanics, but that turned out to be the stupidest idea since Eve decided that talking snake looked trustworthy, so it's back in. Our new ideas to completely redesign the series are totally boss though.)

Remember that great World War 2 shooter series Medal of Honor that pretty much remained as the last WW2 FPS when everyone else moved onto a modern Middle Eastern setting with short campaigns and levelling based multiplayer? We gave it a modern middle eastern setting, a short campaign and level based multiplayer.

Hold on, why are our share prices continuing to drop, why isn't anyone buying our games? It must be the consumer's fault. They just don't like change.

"We are very proud of the way EA evolved with consumers," stated the executive. "I have not green lit one game to be developed as a singleplayer experience. Today, all of our games include online applications and digital services that make them live 24/7/365."

So, in essence the quote says that all EA games will have an Online-pass? What's that you say? Why, that does indeed sound exactly like what EVERY OTHER PUBLISHER AND DEVELOPER IS DOING. (Except for Activision funnily enough)

I know that my copies of Space Marine, Darksiders 2 and Saints Row the Third all had online passes, and none of those are EA. So, why are we kicking up shit just because it's EA again? This site is genuinely starting to get ridiculous with the constant bashing of EA and every single thing they do...

Ah, this explains why I haven't had interest in pretty much any EA published game for several years now. Well, there are some exceptions but those would be the SP ones.

I guess I've been unknowingly voting with my wallet.

Ugh. When will CEOs realize that adding multiplayer to a single player game doesn't necessarily add a selling point? I love multiplayer, I barely play singleplayer at all, but /because/ of that, I don't want to play something with tacked on, crappy multiplayer. I also don't like having crappy tacked on singleplayer in what's obviously a multiplayer experience. If you've got a concept that works well with both options (EA's own sports line is a great example of this, as are most first person shooters), go for it. But if you've got something that won't be made better by the extra mode, don't waste time developing it. I can guarantee you won't lose any sales over it, and it might even make you more money in the long run.

That statement just stinks of completely smug ignorance. He boasts of how much EA's customers love it as if they're all asking for multiplayer games only. Of course no part of that statement is true. Fucking clueless cunt with his head up his arse. Although I don't think this is a serious threat to all future single player games I'm sure it has at some point damaged the quality of at least some EA games' single player portions, and I'm sure that it will happen again. The sooner EA goes out of business the better. Fucking cunts.

So Bioware won't have the chance to ever focus completely on a singleplayer story again?
*sigh*

So what does this mean for Bioware then? Does this mean there flat out will be no more single-player focused Bioware games ever again? If so, why the fuck did EA buy Bioware in the first place then?

Scrustle:
snip

I'm giving them untill 2014 to fall apart.

OT: I don't buy EA games anymore, so I will continue not to buy their games.

sorry for two posts in one but It's gonna be only a picture.

Shpongled:
So what does this mean for Bioware then? Does this mean there flat out will be no more single-player focused Bioware games ever again? If so, why the fuck did EA buy Bioware in the first place then?

image

I never understood why in pretty much every friking poll an arbitriary option such as (What is SP?) or (I just hate EA) are included. Those just plain mess with the other serious responses.

Anyways, its pretty obvious than it is going to affect Single Player games, but only for EA. I dont think all the companies are going to follow this.

Besides this is really kind of irrelevant, I mean most games already are pretty much single player with some kind of Multiplayer on it anyways...

"We are very proud of the way EA evolved with consumers"

image
image

Oh, that's the best joke I've heard in a long time EA.

Maeshone:
"We are very proud of the way EA evolved with consumers," stated the executive. "I have not green lit one game to be developed as a singleplayer experience. Today, all of our games include online applications and digital services that make them live 24/7/365."

So, in essence the quote says that all EA games will have an Online-pass? What's that you say? Why, that does indeed sound exactly like what EVERY OTHER PUBLISHER AND DEVELOPER IS DOING. (Except for Activision funnily enough)

I know that my copies of Space Marine, Darksiders 2 and Saints Row the Third all had online passes, and none of those are EA. So, why are we kicking up shit just because it's EA again? This site is genuinely starting to get ridiculous with the constant bashing of EA and every single thing they do...

It's not just online passes. It's the CEO saying that they are no longer publishing single player games.

The fate of singleplayer games is a sensitive topic at this time, with campaigns getting shorter and shorter, multiplayer being tacked onto games unnecessarily, or even replacing a previously singleplayer title, and less and less original singleplayer games getting released.

Other developers recognise gamer's angst, and are coming out to call multiplayer a cancerous growth, and a necessary evil.
Skyrim was heralded as the saviour to singleplayer games, because it proved that a dedicated singleplayer game (albeit from a previously established franchise) could still get the sales needed to not only break even, but top the sales chart and become a success.

The fate of singleplayer is a huge issue, and is being watched carefully by many, many gamers.
For EA to come out and announce they are not publishing pure singleplayer games any more is a very important development in this issue, and not in a good way.

Yes we do tend to bash EA for everything they do, because pretty much every executive decision they make is having a direct or indirect negative effect on gaming culture.

Shpongled:
So what does this mean for Bioware then? Does this mean there flat out will be no more single-player focused Bioware games ever again? If so, why the fuck did EA buy Bioware in the first place then?

Because it was owned by Riccitiello's private equity and he got a big fat cut from the deal.

They bought Pandemic too, despite having no long-term plans for them and just cut them down as soon as their on-going projects were finished, despite good sales.

Hero in a half shell:

Maeshone:
"We are very proud of the way EA evolved with consumers," stated the executive. "I have not green lit one game to be developed as a singleplayer experience. Today, all of our games include online applications and digital services that make them live 24/7/365."

So, in essence the quote says that all EA games will have an Online-pass? What's that you say? Why, that does indeed sound exactly like what EVERY OTHER PUBLISHER AND DEVELOPER IS DOING. (Except for Activision funnily enough)

I know that my copies of Space Marine, Darksiders 2 and Saints Row the Third all had online passes, and none of those are EA. So, why are we kicking up shit just because it's EA again? This site is genuinely starting to get ridiculous with the constant bashing of EA and every single thing they do...

It's not just online passes. It's the CEO saying that they are no longer publishing single player games.

The fate of singleplayer games is a sensitive topic at this time, with campaigns getting shorter and shorter, multiplayer being tacked onto games unnecessarily, or even replacing a previously singleplayer title, and less and less original singleplayer games getting released.

Other developers recognise gamer's angst, and are coming out to call multiplayer a cancerous growth, and a necessary evil.
Skyrim was heralded as the saviour to singleplayer games, because it proved that a dedicated singleplayer game (albeit from a previously established franchise) could still get the sales needed to not only break even, but top the sales chart and become a success.

The fate of singleplayer is a huge issue, and is being watched carefully by many, many gamers.
For EA to come out and announce they are not publishing pure singleplayer games any more is a very important development in this issue, and not in a good way.

Yes we do tend to bash EA for everything they do, because pretty much every executive decision they make is having a direct or indirect negative effect on gaming culture.

Well yeah, multiplayer for multiplayers sake is an incredibly moronic idea. Case in point, Dead Space 2. But if you actually read the quote at least I find nothing that says "all games must have multiplayer". 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.

As for your point about everthing EA doing having a negative effect on gaming culture, I respectfully disagree. Without EA, I wouldn't have several of my favourite games lately. They published Mirrors Edge, Dead Space, Brütal Legend and the new Syndicate (yes, I liked it, no, I never played the original, a good game is a good game). Sure, some of the stuff they do is incredibly retarded (Dante's Inferno and Dead Space 2 marketing says hi!), but overall, I'm actually rather neutral to EA. As long as they make things I find worth buying, I'll buy it. And that last sentence is probably gonna get me ostracised on The Escapist...

Hero in a half shell:

Maeshone:
"We are very proud of the way EA evolved with consumers," stated the executive. "I have not green lit one game to be developed as a singleplayer experience. Today, all of our games include online applications and digital services that make them live 24/7/365."

So, in essence the quote says that all EA games will have an Online-pass? What's that you say? Why, that does indeed sound exactly like what EVERY OTHER PUBLISHER AND DEVELOPER IS DOING. (Except for Activision funnily enough)

I know that my copies of Space Marine, Darksiders 2 and Saints Row the Third all had online passes, and none of those are EA. So, why are we kicking up shit just because it's EA again? This site is genuinely starting to get ridiculous with the constant bashing of EA and every single thing they do...

It's not just online passes. It's the CEO saying that they are no longer publishing single player games.

The fate of singleplayer games is a sensitive topic at this time, with campaigns getting shorter and shorter, multiplayer being tacked onto games unnecessarily, or even replacing a previously singleplayer title, and less and less original singleplayer games getting released.

Other developers recognise gamer's angst, and are coming out to call multiplayer a cancerous growth, and a necessary evil.
Skyrim was heralded as the saviour to singleplayer games, because it proved that a dedicated singleplayer game (albeit from a previously established franchise) could still get the sales needed to not only break even, but top the sales chart and become a success.

The fate of singleplayer is a huge issue, and is being watched carefully by many, many gamers.
For EA to come out and announce they are not publishing pure singleplayer games any more is a very important development in this issue, and not in a good way.

Yes we do tend to bash EA for everything they do, because pretty much every executive decision they make is having a direct or indirect negative effect on gaming culture.

Pretty much this to anyone thinking this is just another 'waahhhhh, I hate EA' thread'.

Also, I shudder to think what this means for DA3...

aguspal:
I never understood why in pretty much every friking poll an arbitriary option such as (What is SP?) or (I just hate EA) are included. Those just plain mess with the other serious responses.

Anyways, its pretty obvious than it is going to affect Single Player games, but only for EA. I dont think all the companies are going to follow this.

Besides this is really kind of irrelevant, I mean most games already are pretty much single player with some kind of Multiplayer on it anyways...

Well I added it since some people really don't take this topic seriously. I tried to have poll options that tried to reflect what people would want to say. Considering that 38% of people voted what you call arbitrary options, I believe that it was beneficial. Hope that helps.

EA really is becoming indicative of one of the greatest problems facing American industries: management/leadership considers itself infallible. The confirmation bias is nothing short of mind-blowing.

There's no market data to prove that single-player doesn't sell anymore. But there's plenty of data that shows consumers hate online pass codes, DRM, mandatory internet connections for literally everything, etc. It still boggles my mind that when I reinstalled Mass Effect 1, I had to pirate Bring Down the Sky because even though it was free, they put copy protection on it and don't support the keys anymore. But I'm getting off on a tangent.

I briefly thought that the hate for EA was just cyclical. People would be back to complaining about Activision or Ubisoft for their shoddy business models within a couple of months. But I was wrong. EA really are completely out of touch with their consumers and have gone back on every promise they made. And as irritating as it was to listen to the more immature people in the Retake Mass Effect movement, at least it got EA to briefly sit up and realize that they screwed up, even if they tried to avoid admitting it in the press. I think Jim Sterling was right. It's time to stop threatening to boycott and start making life difficult for EA's management. After all, any problem a business has is ultimately management's fault and it's time they were reminded of that.

Hero in a half shell:

Terminate421:
Here is what I heard:

"remember the single player game known as Dead Space? That's over with, so fuck you and give me money for more online games!"

We're EA, and we can do nothing wrong.

Remember all those great singleplayer Bioware RPG titles that still fly off the shelves today because they were highly polished deep stories? We stopped their publishers making them to focus on a single Multiplayer online game.

Remember the Command and Conquer series that were loved for their wacky storylines, great characters, and interesting campaign situations? We're removing the storyline and campaign, and the balance to make it Free2Play. (we already removed the basebuilding mechanics, but that turned out to be the stupidest idea since Eve decided that talking snake looked trustworthy, so it's back in. Our new ideas to completely redesign the series are totally boss though.)

Remember that great World War 2 shooter series Medal of Honor that pretty much remained as the last WW2 FPS when everyone else moved onto a modern Middle Eastern setting with short campaigns and levelling based multiplayer? We gave it a modern middle eastern setting, a short campaign and level based multiplayer.

Hold on, why are our share prices continuing to drop, why isn't anyone buying our games? It must be the consumer's fault. They just don't like change.

You forgot the:

"Remember how in Dead Space the entire game was meant to "feel" like the player was stranded on some ship/station using in-game mechanics that seem legitimate and tied to the universe? Well, lets add universal ammo, actual iron sight icons that don't come out of the gun in a cool way but are more "heads up display", this way we can get ALL OF THE PEOPLE who play call of duty to play it!"

Maeshone:

As for your point about everthing EA doing having a negative effect on gaming culture, I respectfully disagree. Without EA, I wouldn't have several of my favourite games lately. They published Mirrors Edge, Dead Space, Brütal Legend and the new Syndicate (yes, I liked it, no, I never played the original, a good game is a good game). Sure, some of the stuff they do is incredibly retarded (Dante's Inferno and Dead Space 2 marketing says hi!), but overall, I'm actually rather neutral to EA. As long as they make things I find worth buying, I'll buy it. And that last sentence is probably gonna get me ostracised on The Escapist...

Don't get me wrong, EA do make some great games, but their corporate decisions are atrocious.

If you look at the games they release, it's generally the new IPs that are the best, or a newly aquired IP from a freshly aquired company. Then after the first or second golden egg, EA's corporate division stick their fingers up the golden gooses' ass and decide they can wring out a few extra nuggets by fiddling around and changing it's innards to resemble the more successful competition. Note that it's not the developers, but the suits and shareholders that do this. It's not the people passionate about making good games, it's the people passionate about making good money that tell them how to do their job, and they don't bother to understand why a certain game is selling, they just know that it is, and decide that if they copy it's selling point they can sell more games too.

Multiplayer sells well, lets put multiplayer in every game!
Steam is doing well, let's make our own version, and we can harvest user data for marketing!
COD is selling well, let's give all our games more First Person Shooter elements!
Real Time Strategy competition gaming made Starcraft 2 successful, let's turn our RTS series into an e-sports contender by focusing solely on the multiplayer!

It's not long before most series crash and burn because of this, and back in about 2009 EA admitted they were treating their newly acquired companies all wrong, and said they'd change, then they went out and bought Pandemic and Bioware...

What a complete and utter moron. I think Bethesda would like to have a word with that prick.
He unknowingly admitted that he's more than willing to sacrifice the quality of the game by adding unnecessary online component to it.

So this is why Mass Effect 3 is filled with bugs and has a shitty ending. They forced Bioware to implement a shitty multiplayer. Fuck you EA. I said it before and now I'm definitely sure that I will never buy another EA game.

This also means that Dragon Age 3 will have a multiplayer mode. Another reason to enforce my decision.

I feel this is probably a really bad thing. Not every game needs both a single player and multiplayer, and forcing multiplayer for the sake of multiplayer into a game that's main focus is single player can only hurt the game. Same can go for a multiplayer focused game getting a subpar single player just for the point of having a single player mode.

The result I'm hoping for in 5-10 years.

CEO: make a single player game!
Dev: Yes sir!
CEO: Add a retarded multiplayer component!
Dev: Umm no. Remember EA? Remember their "no singleplayer games" speech?
CEO: Yes
Dev: Well they went bust. We should not try to emulate EA.
CEO: Oh, actually you're right there. We'll just focus on the product that our customers want. God I feel dirty saying that.

It's an argument that even CEOs and shareholders can understand.

Maeshone:
and Dead Space 2 marketing says hi!

Is it wrong to say I actually LIKED that marketing.

YES it was immature
Yes it was immature
YES it was immature
YES it wasn't perfect

BUT it was pretty funny. If I were to describe it, I would call it a jackass stunt. But like the movies its not meant to be mature as in sophisticated. I mean mature as in immature maturity. (Childishly Savage-like)

Sin it to win it? No. Your mom hates this? HA! Actually funny.

Hero in a half shell:
Don't get me wrong, EA do make some great games, but their corporate decisions are atrocious.

If you look at the games they release, it's generally the new IPs that are the best, or a newly aquired IP from a freshly aquired company. Then after the first or second golden egg, EA's corporate division stick their fingers up the golden gooses' ass and decide they can wring out a few extra nuggets by fiddling around and changing it's innards to resemble the more successful competition. Note that it's not the developers, but the suits and shareholders that do this. It's not the people passionate about making good games, it's the people passionate about making good money that tell them how to do their job, and they don't bother to understand why a certain game is selling, they just know that it is, and decide that if they copy it's selling point they can sell more games too.

Multiplayer sells well, lets put multiplayer in every game!
Steam is doing well, let's make our own version, and we can harvest user data for marketing!
COD is selling well, let's give all our games more First Person Shooter elements!
Real Time Strategy competition gaming made Starcraft 2 successful, let's turn our RTS series into an e-sports contender by focusing solely on the multiplayer!

It's not long before most series crash and burn because of this, and back in about 2009 EA admitted they were treating their newly acquired companies all wrong, and said they'd change, then they went out and bought Pandemic and Bioware...

The thing I'm not convinced about is that all these ideas come from the suits/executives. Multiplayer for instance. For Dead Space 2, yeah, maybe the EA executives had a hand in that one (that was an incredibly shitty multiplayer), but for ME3 for example? Just before ME3 EA released Kingdoms of Amalur, a game that didn't have any multiplayer at all, so obviously the ME3 team could have gone with simply putting an online pass on their game, yet they didn't. I honestly think that was because they wanted to make a multiplayer component, and according to an interview somewhere, they had wanted to incorporate multiplayer since ME2, but couldn't get it right.

Bear in mind, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm simply saying that, in my opinion, I tend to take anything said about EA very lightly, since everywhere I go I seem to run into a very vocal group of people that keep shouting that anything that changes in a game is all the fault of *insert publisher here, most commonly EA*, and it's making me feel like the complainers are kind of like the boy who cried wolf.

Terminate421:

Maeshone:
and Dead Space 2 marketing says hi!

Is it wrong to say I actually LIKED that marketing.

YES it was immature
Yes it was immature
YES it was immature
YES it wasn't perfect

BUT it was pretty funny. If I were to describe it, I would call it a jackass stunt. But like the movies its not meant to be mature as in sophisticated. I mean mature as in immature maturity. (Childishly Savage-like)

Sin it to win it? No. Your mom hates this? HA! Actually funny.

Not at all. I found it rather amusing too, but it was obviously aimed at an age group that should not be playing a game rated 18 and above which is what makes it very stupid when the gaming community has been fighting a battle against people like Jack Thompson about games with adult themes and images aren't meant for kids. EA kind of shot the entire gaming community in the foot with that one.

I love how EA thinks everybody loves them, I guess its because you keep GIVING THEM MONEY which rewards them for not caring about your customer satisfaction for Christ sake.
When I saw people saying "Aww why does ME3 have to be on Origin only with DRM online activation and day one DLC oh well ill buy it anyway because I have no self control" it made me laugh again. Laugh, laugh with me! AHAHAHAA

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/critical-miss/9556-Show-Me-Your-Journo-Face

The day that Ubisoft starts taking my money before you do is the day that something went horrible, HORRIBLY wrong.

Sure EA, do what you want. We won't miss you.

But seriously, whoever is driving this crazy train should be in the back car instead.

Shpongled:
So what does this mean for Bioware then? Does this mean there flat out will be no more single-player focused Bioware games ever again? If so, why the fuck did EA buy Bioware in the first place then?

Hm... they could always make a co-op RPG instead. I got no problem with that.

Get out of the way, we got accountants at the wheel!

I will save my marshmallows to roast them over their burning wreckage and charred corpses.

EA is piratically the Uwe Boll of gaming. Whenever it does it's little song and dance I just give it a passing glance and move on.

GAunderrated:

aguspal:
I never understood why in pretty much every friking poll an arbitriary option such as (What is SP?) or (I just hate EA) are included. Those just plain mess with the other serious responses.

Anyways, its pretty obvious than it is going to affect Single Player games, but only for EA. I dont think all the companies are going to follow this.

Besides this is really kind of irrelevant, I mean most games already are pretty much single player with some kind of Multiplayer on it anyways...

Well I added it since some people really don't take this topic seriously. I tried to have poll options that tried to reflect what people would want to say. Considering that 38% of people voted what you call arbitrary options, I believe that it was beneficial. Hope that helps.

Yes, I understand what you are trying to say. But What I meant is that, the people who voted for those options may have voted on those for the sake of it without thinking about the other options (particulary the hate on EA one. I bet more than a few just saw the poll and voted on that randombly because "hey, lets hate EA!", instead of actually trying to think about the thread´s subject) and thus, therefore some of those people may have voted on one of the other options, so it isnt really reflecting what the people in general wants to say...

Oh well, either wat its just a little detail, I didnt meant to come off as a jerk, sorry.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked