EA boss proudly refuses to publish single-player only games

Mimble wrote:

I'm not really sure what he's proud of here.

Saying, "I have not green lit one game to be developed as a singleplayer experience." says - to me at least - "I don't want to innovate or give players any sort of choice or variety when it comes to EA games." I think this shows an appalling lack of creativity and forward-thinking.

Microtransactions are great for nickel and diming players to death for content (content which should probably have just been in the game to begin with), but I wouldn't be proud of that either.

I feel like I'm missing something here.

Nope, not missing a thing that I can tell. He's basically proud of being counter-innovative and wringing profit out of the customer base at the maximum rate the market will bear.

The issue with that, however, is as was pointed out with the stock price, wringing out maximum profit in the manner they're doing is very short-sighted, and results in poor value over the long term.

And, I will repeat for the benefit of those who may have missed it in other threads: EA has the Sidam touch -- anything they're involved with turns to sh*t.

Malor wrote:

And, I will repeat for the benefit of those who may have missed it in other threads: EA has the Sidam touch -- anything they're involved with turns to sh*t.

And yet this thread is the one that makes you stop buying from them.

Just like all the other EA threads.

Mimble wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:
one that’s powered by our hybrid cloud model.

What exactly is a "hybrid cloud model"?

It's technological fancy talk for sounding technologically fancy. That's my take on it anyway.

Not technological, pure marketing-speak ;p

Bioshock 2 had tacked-on multiplayer. It didn't hurt the single-player experience. I recently picked up Rage on the cheap. Sure, it has multiplayer, but it's pretty dumb multiplayer, but it doesn't impact my single-player game. Mass Effect 3's multiplayer has been great, I've gotten months of fun out of it. So, sometimes it works throwing on a multiplayer mode, sometimes it doesn't. That being said, last I checked, Skyrim sold huge piles of units. There is clearly still a market for single-player games, and, if EA doesn't make them, someone will. Not really worried about it.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Bioshock 2 had tacked-on multiplayer. It didn't hurt the single-player experience. I recently picked up Rage on the cheap. Sure, it has multiplayer, but it's pretty dumb multiplayer, but it doesn't impact my single-player game. Mass Effect 3's multiplayer has been great, I've gotten months of fun out of it. So, sometimes it works throwing on a multiplayer mode, sometimes it doesn't. That being said, last I checked, Skyrim sold huge piles of units. There is clearly still a market for single-player games, and, if EA doesn't make them, someone will. Not really worried about it.

The Rage multiplayer was actually really fun. Syndicate had some of the best co-op I have ever played. Apparently, ME3's MP is fantastic.

Maybe we should all take a deep breath? Sometimes things are actually fun, even when we don't expect them.

SallyNasty wrote:

Maybe we should all take a deep breath? Sometimes things are actually fun, even when we don't expect them.

GET OUT OF THIS THREAD!

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Bioshock 2 had tacked-on multiplayer. It didn't hurt the single-player experience. I recently picked up Rage on the cheap. Sure, it has multiplayer, but it's pretty dumb multiplayer, but it doesn't impact my single-player game. Mass Effect 3's multiplayer has been great, I've gotten months of fun out of it. So, sometimes it works throwing on a multiplayer mode, sometimes it doesn't. That being said, last I checked, Skyrim sold huge piles of units. There is clearly still a market for single-player games, and, if EA doesn't make them, someone will. Not really worried about it.

The problem I have with this is that without insider knowledge, you can't know that. You can't peer into the alternate reality where a game didn't have a multiplayer side and see if the singleplayer was the same.

I liked the multiplayer in ME3, but couldn't really find a reason to drop the disc into my Xbox after I beat the game. Even with DLC like Leviathan and the remastered ending, I've pretty much shut the book on that one. Especially after playing through the last 3 hours of content twice to see what was changed in the "Directors Cut" ending.

With that being said, I did like the Datapad iOS app, which I used to level up my Galactic Readiness, as crazy as that whole system was...

Scratched wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Bioshock 2 had tacked-on multiplayer. It didn't hurt the single-player experience. I recently picked up Rage on the cheap. Sure, it has multiplayer, but it's pretty dumb multiplayer, but it doesn't impact my single-player game. Mass Effect 3's multiplayer has been great, I've gotten months of fun out of it. So, sometimes it works throwing on a multiplayer mode, sometimes it doesn't. That being said, last I checked, Skyrim sold huge piles of units. There is clearly still a market for single-player games, and, if EA doesn't make them, someone will. Not really worried about it.

The problem I have with this is that without insider knowledge, you can't know that. You can't peer into the alternate reality where a game didn't have a multiplayer side and see if the singleplayer was the same.

You're right, but I have vision into a reasonably optimistic reality (this one) where I see no reason to think I would know one way or another. This is assuming the multiplayer made it worse, and, since we can't view an alternate gaming dimension, you can't tell otherwise. Unless you have evidence these games suffered because of the multiplayer aspect, you're talking out of your proverbial hat.

I would love a feature where my friends could control other party members in Dragon Age 3! I think it would work best as an in-combat only kind of thing, but overall I think that would be so cool. It's not like Bioware doesn't have some experience with multiplayer story games, after The Old Republic, right? I could see it working out pretty well if you were gaming with like-minded people and during the story bits all players could put their character's spin on the conversation.

SimCity has been in need of multiplayer for a long, long time. With no other players, you could just put all of your high-polluting industrial zones around the edge of the map, and not have to deal with the damage you dealt - that becomes an interesting gameplay decision with another player running the town next door. Having lots and lots of players sharing the world would make the need to attract population to your city for the schools, jobs or quality of life over the neighboring towns is another feature that frankly should have been in all of the SimCity games, but only really became possible in the last few years. I could see them using a Spore-like feature, where everyone's cities share a planet - at least in one mode.

Scratched wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Bioshock 2 had tacked-on multiplayer. It didn't hurt the single-player experience. I recently picked up Rage on the cheap. Sure, it has multiplayer, but it's pretty dumb multiplayer, but it doesn't impact my single-player game. Mass Effect 3's multiplayer has been great, I've gotten months of fun out of it. So, sometimes it works throwing on a multiplayer mode, sometimes it doesn't. That being said, last I checked, Skyrim sold huge piles of units. There is clearly still a market for single-player games, and, if EA doesn't make them, someone will. Not really worried about it.

The problem I have with this is that without insider knowledge, you can't know that. You can't peer into the alternate reality where a game didn't have a multiplayer side and see if the singleplayer was the same.

I'll keep this in mind the next time someone claims the single player portion of a game suffered because resources were spent on the multiplayer.

I am amazed - staggered even - the near-daily display of asinine policies and decisions by corporate bosses and people who are supposed to be intelligent at the very least... why must multiplayer and online be a must? Wow. Evolved with the customers? multiplayer in single player franchises won't necessarily make new converts out of those who weren't interested in the first, and by diverting resources to tacked on multiplayer companies may very well alienate those who were interested from the get-go.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

I'm curious about what he means when he says he hasn't greenlit one title. He's been president of EA's games division since 2007. Since then, EA has published, among other things:

  • All three Mass Effect games
  • Both Crysis games
  • The Army of Two games
  • The Dead Space series
  • Mirror's Edge
  • Both Dragon Age games
  • Dante's Inferno

Those are just the games that jumped out to me as having strong single-player components. Yes, some of them have competitive or cooperative multiplayer, and all of them have DLC, but it's not like EA has stopped publishing strong single-player experiences under Gibeau's tenure. They've just stopped publishing single-player only experiences.

My guess is that when he brags that all of their games are connected "24/7/365" that he's talking about things like DLC, multiplayer, leaderboards, etc., etc. Hell, even their Wii games have been heavily plugged-in with DLC and other online components. In that sense, EA isn't any different than most any other major publisher these days, even the darling ones that get free passes.

About half of those have multiplayer components. So they aren't solely SP. ME3, Crysis 2, Army of Two, Deadspace 2, Mirror's Edge (score chase)...

And the ME3 multiplayer was surprisingly good. I thought going in it would be stupid.

Only part I didn't like of that one was the tie in to the SP story, but that wasn't that bad.

nel e nel wrote:
Scratched wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Bioshock 2 had tacked-on multiplayer. It didn't hurt the single-player experience. I recently picked up Rage on the cheap. Sure, it has multiplayer, but it's pretty dumb multiplayer, but it doesn't impact my single-player game. Mass Effect 3's multiplayer has been great, I've gotten months of fun out of it. So, sometimes it works throwing on a multiplayer mode, sometimes it doesn't. That being said, last I checked, Skyrim sold huge piles of units. There is clearly still a market for single-player games, and, if EA doesn't make them, someone will. Not really worried about it.

The problem I have with this is that without insider knowledge, you can't know that. You can't peer into the alternate reality where a game didn't have a multiplayer side and see if the singleplayer was the same.

I'll keep this in mind the next time someone claims the single player portion of a game suffered because resources were spent on the multiplayer.

True enough, it applies to everything where someone says "If they did A, then B" where you wouldn't have the knowledge to say it with certainty. What it doesn't prevent you doing is making guesses and theories and presenting them as such.

This just gives you another peek at the mindset of those who make decisions at EA. I just wonder how long its going to be before the business world builds up an established core group of leaders who actually understand how to make money AND take care of their customer base.

There's a Kotaku article up where Gibeau claims his comments were part of promotional material for a conference on cloud gaming and were taken completely out of context.

"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."
Atras wrote:

I would love a feature where my friends could control other party members in Dragon Age 3! I think it would work best as an in-combat only kind of thing, but overall I think that would be so cool.

Like Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale. That's the first thing that popped into my head and it would be freaking awesome. EA execs may be dicks, but they largely make games I like so I'll take each game on its merits as they come.

Scratched wrote:
nel e nel wrote:
Scratched wrote:

The problem I have with this is that without insider knowledge, you can't know that. You can't peer into the alternate reality where a game didn't have a multiplayer side and see if the singleplayer was the same.

I'll keep this in mind the next time someone claims the single player portion of a game suffered because resources were spent on the multiplayer.

True enough, it applies to everything where someone says "If they did A, then B" where you wouldn't have the knowledge to say it with certainty. What it doesn't prevent you doing is making guesses and theories and presenting them as such.

I make such statements with the intimate knowledge of how software development works.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Scratched wrote:
nel e nel wrote:
Scratched wrote:

The problem I have with this is that without insider knowledge, you can't know that. You can't peer into the alternate reality where a game didn't have a multiplayer side and see if the singleplayer was the same.

I'll keep this in mind the next time someone claims the single player portion of a game suffered because resources were spent on the multiplayer.

True enough, it applies to everything where someone says "If they did A, then B" where you wouldn't have the knowledge to say it with certainty. What it doesn't prevent you doing is making guesses and theories and presenting them as such.

I make such statements with the intimate knowledge of how software development works.

How intimate? We talking first base or what?

Over the bra, under the blouse, shoes off.

kuddles wrote:

There's a Kotaku article up where Gibeau claims his comments were part of promotional material for a conference on cloud gaming and were taken completely out of context.

"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."

This is what I assumed he meant in his original quote but I didn't want to say anything until something like this popped up.

Think of Dragon Age: Origins. That had an online social network where you could see your friends' screenshots, see their achievements, and generally let you show off how your playthrough was different from everyone else's. As I recall when they were hyping it before the game came out, the idea was that most players aren't going to play it 8-12 times to see all the different combinations, so why not give them a way to see how other people playing and generally make players feel like a bigger part of the community.

There's always the danger of games getting a MP mode shoehorned in (see Spec Ops: The Line or Dead Space 2) but there are other online capabilities that are cool to have and improve the experience while not harming the single player. I'm thinking of Mirror's Edge's time trials where you can race against your friends' ghosts, or Need for Speed's AutoLog feature. Burnout Paradise showed you your friends' times on roads. Imagine something like Dante's Inferno 2 (ugh) where you see how quickly your friends took down each boss, what their max combo count was, how much health they lost, etc, and then lets you attempt those bosses again to compete against your friends. That stuff would be way more interesting in Diablo 3 than the Auction House.

The original quote came from an interview about cloud computing and how game companies are embracing it, and that means so much more than crappy multiplayer modes. People jumped over that one quote (and it was poorly phrased) and freaked out a bit.

This seems like the most appropriate thread to put this, without creating a new one.

EA including microtransactions in all games

You can expect to see more microtransactions like those found in Dead Space 3. According to Electronic Arts CFO Blake Jorgensen, the company has decided to build some aspect of small convenience payments into all of its games going forward.

"The next and much bigger piece is microtransactions within games. We're building into all of our games the ability to pay for things along the way, either to get to a higher level, to buy a new character, to buy a truck, a gun, whatever it might be, and consumers are enjoying and embracing that way of the business."

"So The Simpsons [Tapped Out], for example, is a free-to-play game, leverages, obviously, The Simpsons TV show, and you pay all along the way. Last quarter, we did over $25 million in Simpsons business alone. So there's an opportunity there, probably smaller opportunity on a per title basis than something like a FIFA or a Battlefield."

So because a lot of people are willing to pay microtransactions in a F2P game, surely a lot of people are willing to do the same in a $60 game?

If you have more money than you know what to do with and want to have all of the things in your game without earning them, EA has you covered I guess.

It is not just free to play ones. Borderlands, Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, and Elder Scrolls also raked it in with small transaction expansion content. The season pass is here to stay. With many titles, there is 60 bucks and essentially subscription fees.

That is the direction of the big budget game. That is why I am waiting for steam sales on these games. That is also why I get much more excited for games like Mount and Blade 2.

MeatMan wrote:

So because a lot of people are willing to pay microtransactions in a F2P game, surely a lot of people are willing to do the same in a $60 game?

I'd assume the Dead Space 3 experiment is working out pretty well for them.

Also, this:

IMAGE(http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/i-2FfN75b/0/950x10000/i-2FfN75b-950x10000.jpg)

Here we go again...

It's all TheGameGuru's fault. See GWJCC #332.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Here we go again...

Maybe we should just link this conversation to the Dead Space 3 thread?

KingGorilla wrote:

It is not just free to play ones. Borderlands, Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, and Elder Scrolls also raked it in with small transaction expansion content. The season pass is here to stay. With many titles, there is 60 bucks and essentially subscription fees.

That is the direction of the big budget game. That is why I am waiting for steam sales on these games. That is also why I get much more excited for games like Mount and Blade 2.

That's pretty much where I'm going. If you want to have it both ways, fine, I'll just wait until the purchasing options are more desirable to me. This just saps my enthusiasm for a game, although unrelated EA haven't released/announced anything that really grabs me recently.

I will just say that I had a hard time even finding the micro-transactions in dead space 3. They were so inocuous and missable, that if every game had that kind of micro-transaction there would be no cause for comment.