EA - We Don't Ship a Game at EA That is Offline

Killa|3yte

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
2,266
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/08/26/ea-we-dont-ship-a-game-at-ea-that-is-offline

I for one find myself gravitating towards single player experiences more and more, so this quote was a bit of a let-down for me. Considering what I spend on hardware and software, I wouldn't call myself a casual gamer. That said, I don't even play much BF3 anymore just because I can't keep up with these 14-year-olds playing 6+ hrs/day. Even if I did have the time, I find that competitive gaming wears me out after 60-90 minutes.

This is why I have been into games like Skyrim, Far Cry 3, Tomb Raider, Dead Space, etc. These games are all about delivering a single player experience. Does anyone even play FC3 or TR multiplayer? I feel like all that effort was wasted and would have been much better invested into the single player. Good on Skyrim for recognizing and understanding what the gameplay was all about by foregoing multiplayer altogether.

Anyone else? I can't be the only one who is worn out by multiplayer.
 

boss99

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
2,609
I don't really do multiplayer, at least not competitive. I do co-op over the internet and locally, but that's the only time. Otherwise, I much prefer single player campaigns.
 

wonderfield

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
7,396
I've always seen gaming as a primarily single-player experience. The format enables people to go through experiences together, unlike movies and books, but I've never believed that going through an experience with other people is universally the right thing. It sometimes is; it sometimes isn't. It's almost always fun playing around people, but playing with people tends to add a lot of obstructions in terms of how quickly you want to move through whatever type of experience you're engaging in.

I've gotten pretty heavily into (primarily) multiplayer-only games, though. Quake III; Left 4 Dead; DayZ; some Counter-Strike here and there. They're built entirely around multiplayer, and though they tend to lack a lot of substance, they can be fun to roll through. Multiplayer tack-ons, on the other hand, very rarely deliver anything compelling.

I honestly had no idea Tomb Raider had a multiplayer component. I can't even really imagine what kind of mechanics that's built around, but it seems like it's bound to be just something shoehorned in there to satisfy a feature checkbox.
 

LeninGHOLA

Vladimir Hayt
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
18,416
I buy MP focused games due to their budget being applied solely to making an enjoyable MP experience, and the same is true with SP and the SP experience. Some do both decently, but I'm almost always going to focus on the element the game does best.
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,554
Which sucks. Because with a recent lightning storm knocking out internet, I wanted to play a single player game of Sim City. Couldn't do it. :( I don't like this always connected BS. Most of the time, I am connected. But, those rare times when I'm not - I like to do other things with my PC. Like play games. If I can't, then I question my purchase. Online games? Multiplayer? Sure. Par for the course. Single player games? I'd like to play when I can't do anything else.
 

LeninGHOLA

Vladimir Hayt
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
18,416
Aren't they even trying to shoe-horn MP into the newest Dragon Age? :(

Yes. I didn't like it in ME3, but at least being an action oriented shooter it somewhat fit.

Dragon Age could use co-op, I mean the Infinity Engine games had that, as did all of the NWN games... but it isn't really needed. PvP would be way out of place.
 

htpc_user

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
1,425
I pretty much just play multiplayer games now. I can count the number of games that I have finished/beaten on one hand...I'm 38 and have played games since the Atari 2600 (although after the NES I didn't play anything until the PS1 came along). Multiplayer games are easy to jump in for a few minutes and then get out. And I don't feel like I've wasted my money since either A.) I don't play all the way to the end or B.) I play it through one time and then never touch it again. Once I have finished a game I will not replay back through it (and oddly enough I refuse to sell a game that I'm done with). For me, the replayability of a multiplayer game is just much higher. Just look at TF2; I've owned it for years, and I still consider it my favorite game.
 

djoye

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 31, 2004
Messages
2,973
I have so many games that I'm trying to finish that I'll play one to finish it and move on and I won't try the multiplayer component if it exists. I played Team Fortress 2 long enough that I'm not yet ready to get hooked on another online game.
 

LordVampyre

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
1,239
shoot, I havent played multiplayer in years. Dont have the hands, patience or willingness to listen to foul mouth little kids. Its a pity too, I use to do a good 4 to 10hrs a day online and on dialup. I do miss it.. I miss the people I use to play with. But as I have gotten older and my body goes to blazes and I cant even see the screen sometimes.. guess Ill stick with single player.
 

Godmachine

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
10,472
"Hi , my name is Peter Moore and I'm a dumb son of a bitch. Check out my Halo 2 tattoo. Yea , that's all that needs to be said."
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,749
Yes. I didn't like it in ME3, but at least being an action oriented shooter it somewhat fit.

Dragon Age could use co-op, I mean the Infinity Engine games had that, as did all of the NWN games... but it isn't really needed. PvP would be way out of place.

I enjoyed ME3's multiplayer. Well, enjoyed it when I was with a group of friends. Not to much when playing with randoms. The randomness of the unlocks was kind of fun. I liked never knowing what I would get from a set. Though, I'm the type of person that will get obsessed with games like Magic or Yu-Gi-Oh and buy packs or boxes instead of individual cards because it's "more fun" to find things randomly. It's a good thing I didn't enjoy playing with randoms or EA would have probably gotten a bit of money from me.

If they do co-op I hope it's a lot more in-depth than what BG1 and 2 had. I'd want the other person I'm playing with to have an active role in the story and not just be there controlling NPCs.
 

drako

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 11, 2002
Messages
2,071
shoot, I havent played multiplayer in years. Dont have the hands, patience or willingness to listen to foul mouth little kids. Its a pity too, I use to do a good 4 to 10hrs a day online and on dialup. I do miss it.. I miss the people I use to play with. But as I have gotten older and my body goes to blazes and I cant even see the screen sometimes.. guess Ill stick with single player.
Pretty much the boat I'm in as well.

From 2000-2004, I spent entirely too much of my life playing Team Fortress, Counter-Strike, Day of Defeat, and Soldier of Fortune 2. I got burnt out on multiplayer gaming and still haven't gotten the itch to go back. I still love singleplayer games though and will gladly buy anything that has a great story.
 

Hornet

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
6,625
I thought The Sims 4 will be single player, unless that changed recently :confused:

Anyway I'm still pissed off about them turning C&C into a F2P game.
 

wonderfield

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
7,396
The Sims games have online components to them. Not multiplayer, specifically, but EA tries to wrap an online experience around them.

It's pointless and it's just an annoyance, but they still try.
 

Plague_Injected

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
6,621
EA is making everything online so it can psychologically bludgeon its customers into the microtransactions it is forcing into every game from now on. It isn't because gamers are asking for this, like Peter Moore is shitting on about.


Anyway I'm still pissed off about them turning C&C into a F2P game.

At least that F2P game won't have a $60+ entry fee.
 
Last edited:

MorgothPl

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
3,020
I'm in same boat regarding online gaming. Don't have time and fitness for competitive raiding. Can't afford 6 straight hours on clearing content, when I've to get up early in the morning for work. Can do dungeon or two, maybe short casual raiding episode, but hardcore hardmode raiding is off the charts.

On the topic, won't the online components actually harm sales? I know that US, Japan and some other Asian countries are always connected to the net, but lets talk Eastern Europe, South America, Africa - out there the "internetization" is not 100% and people, even if they have net, it's not very fast.And by making games mandatory online, they will either make piracy level rise or people won't just buy stuff.
 

Plague_Injected

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
6,621
I'm in same boat regarding online gaming. Don't have time and fitness for competitive raiding. Can't afford 6 straight hours on clearing content, when I've to get up early in the morning for work. Can do dungeon or two, maybe short casual raiding episode, but hardcore hardmode raiding is off the charts.

On the topic, won't the online components actually harm sales? I know that US, Japan and some other Asian countries are always connected to the net, but lets talk Eastern Europe, South America, Africa - out there the "internetization" is not 100% and people, even if they have net, it's not very fast.And by making games mandatory online, they will either make piracy level rise or people won't just buy stuff.

EA probably thinks it's worth losing the small base of customers in those areas to keep the "big 3" (US, Europe & Asia) paying well after they have already paid their $60 entry fee.
 

Master_Pain

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
4,724
On the topic, won't the online components actually harm sales? I know that US, Japan and some other Asian countries are always connected to the net, but lets talk Eastern Europe, South America, Africa - out there the "internetization" is not 100% and people, even if they have net, it's not very fast.And by making games mandatory online, they will either make piracy level rise or people won't just buy stuff.

Third world countries don't spend $60USD on games, they are poor and generally only buy games for less than $20USD. That's why they are third world, that's why they don't have a good online infrastructure. EA doesn't give two shits about them.
 

XvMMvX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
1,665
Wow... I am the exact opposite of many on this thread.

Single player games just do not do it for me anymore. The predetermined experience is just not rewarding, no one to guage your accomplishments against. The only PvE that I still enjoy is some looting in D3 and have even looked into World of Warcraft (haven't touched it yet for fear of getting sucked in).

Torchlight 2 looks like I might give it a shot. Also the art of the 2d side scroller or SHUMPS is lost nowdays.

Other than that I have a hard time playing anything single player. The "little kids screaming into the mic" is such an overblown issue by some on here it is laughable.

When I have time to play I want to test my skills against real people, not an AI that can be tweaked to be unbeatable or laughably easy. Making things annoying for the sake of difficult is also stupid, an example is how much people rage over respecting in a game like Diablo 2.
 

drako

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 11, 2002
Messages
2,071
Wow... I am the exact opposite of many on this thread.

Single player games just do not do it for me anymore. The predetermined experience is just not rewarding, no one to guage your accomplishments against.
Well, that's probably what it comes down to. It depends on whether you game to demonstrate and exercise skill, or game to get an experience. In the former case, you are typically going to get a better test of skill against other people. But in the latter case, the experience (storytelling, immersion, etc) is often better offline.
 

LeninGHOLA

Vladimir Hayt
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
18,416
Wow... I am the exact opposite of many on this thread.

Single player games just do not do it for me anymore. The predetermined experience is just not rewarding, no one to guage your accomplishments against.


This is exactly why I can't get into movies/shows/books. Nobody to compete with.
 

wonderfield

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
7,396
I only play Arm Wrestling Simulator 2013 and Hey, How Much Money Do You Have? these days. Otherwise, I just can't feel good about myself.
 

TwistedAegis

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
8,958
Ironically CoD does pretty decent SP! Anyone remember what a revelation CoD 1 SP was?

I only play CoD for the SP; the problem is their prices come down so slowly I haven't gotten any of them since BO2. Not worth full price for the short SP campaigns.

Well, that's probably what it comes down to. It depends on whether you game to demonstrate and exercise skill, or game to get an experience. In the former case, you are typically going to get a better test of skill against other people. But in the latter case, the experience (storytelling, immersion, etc) is often better offline.

Exactly. As a kid/teen I found more fulfillment in the competition aspect of gaming. Now I'm looking for storytelling and immersion. I do my crushing in the corporate world now. ;) :rolleyes:
 

Koolthulu

Gawd
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
773
Anyone else? I can't be the only one who is worn out by multiplayer.

I have no interest in MP outside of MMORPGs, and even in those I find myself doing more and more stuff solo.

Well at least this means I no longer have to worry about supporting EA.
 

pcjunkie

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
2,602
The only online game I played was Diablo 3 and only because Blizzard forced you to play online for the single player campaign.
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,554
Ironically CoD does pretty decent SP! Anyone remember what a revelation CoD 1 SP was?

Yes, the first CoD was amazing for single player. After that, though, it was disappointing.

Battlefield series was always MP for me. I tried the SP campaign, and it sucked. That game is strictly MP for me, and it's not that often. I prefer SP games. Not that I have much time lately, anyway....
 

wonderfield

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
7,396
Well at least this means I no longer have to worry about supporting EA.
They aren't saying they aren't doing single player stuff. They're just saying that they're going to tie in online components to everything they ship.
 

DonutThief

n00b
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
18
No you're not the only one who is worn out by MP. The stressful "dog-eat-dog" GO-GO-GO piss contest that most MP games are (where even brushing your teeth or taking a shit too slow is "proof" you suck and need to kill yourself) would wear out pretty much anyone.

To me it just defeats the purpose of a game to be constantly rushing around from place to place trying to do everything better/faster/stronger/whatever than everyone else, why even bother having a story or lore or sounds or music or graphics at all? Just make a box with some objectives you can run around in..

Dont have the hands, patience or willingness to listen to foul mouth little kids.
Exactly.. The worst part of MP is the other players. Most are downright obnoxious, I feel bad for people who pay to play with that.. (MMOs) On the rare occasions I do play MP it is LAN/coop with people I know.
 

Killa|3yte

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
2,266
This is exactly why I can't get into movies/shows/books. Nobody to compete with.

Like others in this thread, I've found that I it's hard to be competitive with people with so much more time than me. I personally can't maintain l33t skillz and also take care of job/spouse/mortgage.
 

LeninGHOLA

Vladimir Hayt
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
18,416
Like others in this thread, I've found that I it's hard to be competitive with people with so much more time than me. I personally can't maintain l33t skillz and also take care of job/spouse/mortgage.

You can compete within your skill range. This is why properly done ranking systems help keep people interested, even if they only have a couple hours a week.
 

TwistedAegis

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
8,958
"EA - We say stupid things we will likely later retract"

I wish they would unfortunately, this is a stupid one that doesn't seem to be going away. I don't mind MP at all, but it doesn't make sense to shoehorn it into every damn game that doesn't need it. It takes valuable time away from the core SP experience. ME3, DA3 are perfect examples of games that did/do not need MP, and any time coding it and making assets for it actually detracts from time that could be spent on the main game.
 

RealityCrunch

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,393
This is exactly why I can't get into movies/shows/books. Nobody to compete with.

With books I just compete with my SO. See who can finish first and get a better understanding. "Hah, I read your face off, %^&$%! Bow down to my speed-reading and grasp of literary and philosophical concepts!" /victory dance :p
 

Killa|3yte

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
2,266
You can compete within your skill range. This is why properly done ranking systems help keep people interested, even if they only have a couple hours a week.

I would really like this. But I've yet to see a well-done ranking system that really keeps similarly skilled players together. Are you aware of any such games? A lot of players aren't interested in competing in their own skill range. "newbie" servers are regularly populated by pros who enjoy being top-of-the-leaderboard. (Hey, who doesn't?)

In a lot of ways, I think persistent stats such as Battlelog (as cool as it is) defeats a lot of the fun. I really enjoyed CoD 1 where your stats extended as far as the round at hand and were reset for the next one. No one knew how good anyone else was, they just PLAYED the game. CoD 1 is the most fun I can ever recall having with an MP FPS.

With systems such as Battlelog, the actual gameplay is subservient to the RPG-esque stat system which must be carefully maintained, and even padded in most cases. It would be interesting to see how many people would just turn their stats off completely if such an option were given. I know I would.
 

kbrickley

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
7,514
If they don't maintain some form of single player campaign or PvE functionality then it just simplifies my world as I will have more money to spend on the game publishers or developers who do offer those items ... or I might actually have to play my Steam Backlog ... THE HORROR :D

Always on doesn't bother me as long as their servers are reliably up ... but the single player campaigns or some complete form of single player experience are musts for me ;)
 
Top