EA Does it again!

[Guest]

EA, the equivalent of cancer for the gaming industry, has yet again reminded the world why they are hated so much. Check out this article to see what I'm talking about.

 

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."

 

So now any developer under EA's strangle-hold will be forced to add a multiplayer mode of some kind for ANY GAME. So for those anticipating DA: 3 or Mirrors Edge 2, get ready for a shit multiplayer mode! And this will of course take time from the development of their singleplayer modes meaning worse singleplayer! Yeah!

 

So, what are your thoughts?

[deathparade]

Never buy EA crap anyway i know they are shitty and everything from them shouldn't be bought!

 

GIVE BACK WW BITCHES

[srayesmanll]

It's interesting to watch someone like Frank Gibeau who has their head so far up their own ass that they can see their own dental work ... What a stupid jackhole that man is...

 

I'm one of the few people who liked both DA:O and DA2, although in my opinion DA2 should have been just been called "Kirkwall". Adding a multi-player element to the game isn't a bad idea (it's an rpg, kind of a natural prgression for an rpg), IF IT'S DONE CORRECTLY, of course. Which they don't (unless it's Madden 4987).

 

My question to this douche-nozzle would be "So you never would have published Assassins Creed if you had the chance? The Witcher 1/2? FO, FO2, FO3, FONV, Elder Scrolls? Just because they aren't multi-player?" Yep, douche-nozzle.

[Ark of Truth]

EA ended with the release of Command and Conquer 4.

[Guest]

As added info, this isn't an official new policy by EA, it's just that Franky won't let any game without some sort of online component (a fancy way of disguising multiplayer) to be released.

[deathparade]

With the EA Command and Conquers they don't even let Frank Klepacki make the music anymore... shame shame shame!

 

I just hope everyone abandones the shit call Origin quickly!

[Kamen Rider Kuuga]

I can sit here all day and rail against them, but the simple fact is that most people will just go alone with this because they have to have their annual sports game and whatever shitty other games they pump out. So instead, I'll just sit back and wait for the game market to crash and burn again with a stockpile of old games.

 

And some people might wonder why I don't own a 360 or a PS3.

[gregathit]

Well, I hope ea and console gamers get along fine because pc gamers just won't stand for this. After the horrible outing of DA2 and more recently with ME3 you would "think" they have realized their mistake. Clearly not.

 

Perhaps they need to just stick to making sports game......

[Kamen Rider Kuuga]

PC games are the most in danger because they seem to be going ever further into the realm of digital only, which is an even worse idea than trying to shove multiplayer into everything.

[thesapien]

Seems like much ado about nothing.

 

I just played ME3 without ever touching multi-player. What do I care if they tack online components on for others who enjoy that? Without EA, BioWare would had just released the same single player experience. With EA, a bigger budget allowed for another department to work on multi player. So?

 

Also, the actual quotes don't sound like there can be no exceptions.

 

If they do DA3 like ME3, I'm okay with it. As long as bigger budgets and more departments are used to make the bigger games, as opposed to forcing the single player devs to just work overtime, it's kewl with me.

 

On the bright side to everyone who disagrees with me, if this all really spells out bad news, then the good news is that it will also mean the downfall of EA.

[ElvenScoundrel]

As a mostly console gamer, THIS pisses me off. If the game was intended to be Single player from the start, don't force devs to shove something they clearly had no intention of implementing from the get-go. I don't mind single player games without multiplayer because I bought it FOR the single player.

 

I don't think console gaming is the culprit here, as consoles have enough multiplayer-focused games for those that like that, I think it's simply some stupid mentality that dude has. I never understood the whole 'blame it on consoles' mentality, anyways.

[srayesmanll]

Seems like much ado about nothing.

 

I just played ME3 without ever touching multi-player. What do I care if they tack online components on for others who enjoy that? Without EA' date=' BioWare would had just released the same single player experience. With EA, a bigger budget allowed for another department to work on multi player. So?

 

Also, the actual quotes don't sound like there can be no exceptions.

 

If they do DA3 like ME3, I'm okay with it. As long as bigger budgets and more departments are used to make the bigger games, as opposed to forcing the single player devs to just work overtime, it's kewl with me.

 

On the bright side to everyone who disagrees with me, if this all really spells out bad news, then the good news is that it will also mean the downfall of EA.

[/quote']

 

It's not the fact that multi-player was added to games that were traditionally single player (like Mass Effect). If done right, it can enhance the game (I personally think the multi-player component was fine in ME3). If he just said that he thought all games should have a m/p component, then I would attribute it to a brain fart. But this man is stating that he is proud that he has NOT geenlit ANY single-player games. So if someone approached him with the next morrowwind, baldur's gate, dragon age:origins, etc, he'd tell them to take a flying fuck because there was no m/p component. Or he would force them to add a m/p component just because HE wants it to have it, regardless of whether it's logical to be in the game. Take Dead Space. That game is about fear. So now you take a squad of your friends in to wipe out the bad guys. So now the game has gone from a fear-based game to Halo. It loses something essential with a m/p component. And it's not just the m/p, he has come right out and said that he basically want's to nickel and dime players with microtransactions. He has said this on multiple occasions. Also, do you think he'd allow/support modding the way Bethesda has? Hell no. He's going to stop that if he can, or find a way to charge everyone for it. Basically what I'm saying is that he has a vision, which is fine, except that his "vision" is hampered by self-imposed blinders.

[TheoryoftheDead]

I really don't care about EA anymore - it feels like it should be common knowledge that they're a bunch of asshats turning everything they touch to dust by now. Last game I played by them were Dragon Age 2, and that was probably the worst sequel I've yet to play - needless to say, been avoiding them ever since.

[windpl]

Seems like much ado about nothing.

 

I just played ME3 without ever touching multi-player. What do I care if they tack online components on for others who enjoy that? Without EA' date=' BioWare would had just released the same single player experience. With EA, a bigger budget allowed for another department to work on multi player. So?

 

Also, the actual quotes don't sound like there can be no exceptions.

 

If they do DA3 like ME3, I'm okay with it. As long as bigger budgets and more departments are used to make the bigger games, as opposed to forcing the single player devs to just work overtime, it's kewl with me.

 

On the bright side to everyone who disagrees with me, if this all really spells out bad news, then the good news is that it will also mean the downfall of EA.

[/quote']

 

Please what about knights of old republic? It supposed to be singleplayer game but guys at EA had better idea.

 

Even they dumped BF3, it is still good but I'm missing futures from bf2 and 200 man battles. Even it had bots integrated.

[thesapien]

I don't think console gaming is the culprit here' date=' as consoles have enough multiplayer-focused games for those that like that, I think it's simply some stupid mentality that dude has. I never understood the whole 'blame it on consoles' mentality, anyways.

[/quote']

 

Agreed, and glad to see there's not a bunch of console bashing here! And I don't even own a console.

 

[me jabbering]

Please what about knights of old republic? It supposed to be singleplayer game but guys at EA had better idea.

 

I didn't know that. Star Wars was ruined for me anyways tho after the last 3 films. I just want it to go away now.

 

 

It's not the fact that multi-player was added to games that were traditionally single player (like Mass Effect). If done right' date=' it can enhance the game (I personally think the multi-player component was fine in ME3). If he just said that he thought all games should have a m/p component, then I would attribute it to a brain fart. But this man is stating that he is proud that he has NOT geenlit ANY single-player games. So if someone approached him with the next morrowwind, baldur's gate, dragon age:origins, etc, he'd tell them to take a flying fuck because there was no m/p component. Or he would force them to add a m/p component just because HE wants it to have it, regardless of whether it's logical to be in the game. Take Dead Space. That game is about fear. So now you take a squad of your friends in to wipe out the bad guys. So now the game has gone from a fear-based game to Halo. It loses something essential with a m/p component. And it's not just the m/p, he has come right out and said that he basically want's to nickel and dime players with microtransactions. He has said this on multiple occasions. Also, do you think he'd allow/support modding the way Bethesda has? Hell no. He's going to stop that if he can, or find a way to charge everyone for it. Basically what I'm saying is that he has a vision, which is fine, except that his "vision" is hampered by self-imposed blinders.

[/quote']

 

I guess what I meant was that it could all be true and our misgivings match things behind the scenes. But we're speculating when thinking that. We're taking a biased view and making a strong interpretation of what he actually said.

 

I would go further to say multi-player for ME3 breaks the overall theme of ME, too. The single players story with dialogue choices, character dev, pause function for combat, squad based commands, etc is all gone. That's no longer ME. But so long as BioWare basically outsources the dev of multi-player using EA's budget and other players enjoy it, I'm fine with it. I don't mind nickel and dime-ing the multi-player market to help pay for the multi-player budgeting of the game. That way, it's made even more separate from my own single player gaming. Then it also becomes more like an optional thing, something I can later opt in if I end up wanting to give it try.

 

I'm also sorry to the OP for my original attitude while trying to present another side. I still do appreciate the heads up and this lively thread. I'm just jealous when everyone jumps in on a political conspiracy involving gaming, taking the wickedly fun side and making it all juicy, but not in my non-gaming threads.

[tomfoolery]

Someone should probably tell Bethesda that single-player only games don't sell. I bet they feel mighty silly having their games be smashing successes all the time.

[Kamen Rider Kuuga]

Doesn't matter; even if they're making it themselves, Bethesda ius still involved in the Elder Scrolls MMO.

 

I hope it crashes and burns, Final Fantasy XIV style.

[thesapien]

I thought Beth recently started some online something or other to also try tapping that?

[gregathit]

Seems like much ado about nothing.

 

I just played ME3 without ever touching multi-player. What do I care if they tack online components on for others who enjoy that? Without EA' date=' BioWare would had just released the same single player experience. With EA, a bigger budget allowed for another department to work on multi player. So?

 

If they do DA3 like ME3, I'm okay with it. As long as bigger budgets and more departments are used to make the bigger games, as opposed to forcing the single player devs to just work overtime, it's kewl with me.

[/quote']

 

Regardless of whether another department or even entirely separate company work on it, it still wastes both time and money. ME3 having multiplayer does impact the single player experience because someone from bioware (multiple someones is probably more accurate) had to sit down and write all the tie in coding. Then to make it worse, you actually had to play multiplayer to "get the best ending" which caused a bunch of rage as they had promised that the two were NOT tied together in that fashion. Thankfully, the EC and other patches made this particular problem go away.

 

I see no logical way to tie any kind of multiplayer to DA3 and any attempt to do so will only serve to siphon money away from the single player experience. This of course, they can't afford after the poor showing they had with DA2. I "could" see a coop mode but not a true multiplayer.

 

It would have made more sense to have multiplayer for DA1 where there was a full on blight going on.

 

Some games are really meant to be single player only and to add multiplayer means cutting the budget of the single player experience.

 

As to the thought process that being under EA means a bigger budget.....I don't think that is accurate at all. Perhaps they had a bigger "marketing budget" but certainly not a bigger development one. They did just fine making ME and ME2 and ME3 doesn't offer any more wiz bang in the graphics department than the other two. If anything steps were taken to force you into smaller, narrower, playable corridors and then slap in 2D backgrounds. Plus under EA they had pressure to get the product out the door.

 

Now if a game lends itself to multiplayer or even MMO, I am fine with that. Just don't force a square peg in a round hole.

 

Agree or disagree but I think blanket statements like the one that this ass wipe from ea makes are ridiculous and show just how out of touch they are with pc gamers.

[ElvenScoundrel]

The reason no one's paying for PC exclusivity is because PC per se is not one single console, but a huge range of brands that make 'em. And those brands don't make PCs to play on, they just make PCs.

 

I like exclusivity, myself, kinda. What I fucking hate is when they make a deal to release a game on that console first, making others wait months 'fore they can play it too. See: Dawnguard, Hearthfire.

 

I love consoles. I can play comfortably in my room, with a handy controller, my PS3 is way cheaper than this laptop, and all the other benefits draw me to play on consoles. While PC games might look better or run better, I have the bonus of comfort with consoles, which PCs can't provide.

 

The last game I bought from EA was Battlefield 3, and I bought it used, 'cause I refuse to give 'em or Activision money. Bobby Kotick's a huge dick that doesn't deserve to be in the videogame industry.

[The DarkSlayer]

I love consoles. I can play comfortably in my room' date=' with a handy controller, my PS3 is way cheaper than this laptop, and all the other benefits draw me to play on consoles. While PC games might look better or run better, I have the bonus of comfort with consoles, which PCs can't provide.

[/quote']

What do you mean when you say "comfort". I have my PC in my room...Do you stand up when playing pc games... jk lol

 

Anyways, can't remember the last time I played an EA game, so it doesn't really affect me that much

[HentaiGnome]

I won't deny that I've played (and enjoyed) EA games in the past, nor will I be a hypocrite and claim to boycott future EA titles. But I have to say that this EA guy is an idiot. Like what everyone else here has said, forcing game devs to implement an online multiplayer feature is a stupid "rule" especially if the game itself does not need it to be considered good.

 

I love consoles. I can play comfortably in my room' date=' with a handy controller, my PS3 is way cheaper than this laptop, and all the other benefits draw me to play on consoles. While PC games might look better or run better, I have the bonus of comfort with consoles, which PCs can't provide.

[/quote']

 

I guess I'm one of the fortunate ones. All my gaming consoles (PS3, Xbox 360, Wii) and my gaming PC rig are all in my room near my bed. I have a 42" LED LCD in which my gaming PC is hooked up to via HDMI. Considering most modern PC games support Xbox 360 gamepads (which I have one connected), then I can treat a PC game as if I were playing a console game but with the added benefit of better visuals and performance. And of course, the "comfort" of being able to lie on my bed while gaming.

[windpl]

I wonder where all that "moneys" go in EA game funding. Comparing DA2 or ME3 to Witcher 2, EA games look like crap. Only BF3 stand out.

[Kamen Rider Kuuga]

Hookers and blow.

[Guest]

Just recently found this article. Damn EA, you really hate your consumers don't you?