Cos they've made a statement that just shows they are ten times the gay!!!

 

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Games-Multiplayer-Singleplayer-EA-PC,news-5071.html

EA: Single-Player A Thing of the Past

 

 

 

By Kevin Parrish, published on November 9, 2009 at 3:00 PM

Source: Tom's Guide US

 

EA predicts that single-player campaigns are on the way out.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Electronic-Arts-logo,4-7-2743-1.jpg

 

"Single-player games are no longer the future," said an EA spokesperson. "Multiplayer games are becoming increasingly exciting...Online functionality is a key way of extending the player experience."

 

The comment was made during an EA Winter Games Showcase last week held in London, displaying working segments of Left 4 Dead 2, Mass Effect 2, and Command & Conquer 4. Skate 3 also made an appearance, and EA said that the fourth installment will include extensive multiplayer and co-op play options.

 

Granted multiplayer is an exciting feature, it's hard to believe it will replace the single-player story. Then again, EA believes that players are "increasingly" focusing on multiplayer experiences, and if that is actually the case, the single hero that saves the day may indeed be a thing of the past.

 

 

stupid EA!

Sometimes you just got to wonder at those in charge? I mean honestly yes its great to play people cose they dotn have "hacks" or arent somewhat predictable or rountinely i.e. in RTS last till resources are gone and computer loses its brain.

But having singleplayer the ability to play on your own and not have to have friends is what makes games awsome, multiplayer is for the gathering of like minded indiviuals to do something together

Itll be interesting to see what happens in the future of games, with IWs choice on MW2 and now EA makes a statement like that. Maybe what they are really trying to say is that they cant come up with any original ideas for SP or something like lol.

Maybe what they are really trying to say is that they cant come up with any original ideas for SP or something like lol.

that would be my bet, then they just have to focus on eye candy and getting the game right before its released rather than sending out a borked game and releaseing patches . . . but they'll still do that anyway because, well it IS EA after all.

 

SP imo is great fun, while the tactics of the AI cant compete with playing against a real person you still get a stack of fun out of it.

Well, who goes to buy Battlefield 2 for the singleplayer experience? Battlefield has always been about the multiplayer - However, removing singleplayer games might be a different way of saying that game campaigns won't be solely for one person but all co-op etc.

I cant see this happenin. There is just some games that need to be Single player i.e Assassins Creed. Those sort games cant really be multiplayer can they?

Edited November 10, 200915 yr by andreawolford

i agree with EA tbh, humans are competitive by nature, and we get far more satisfaction competing with others than we do with ai, thus multiplayer games are more fun than singleplayer. sure there are some great singleplayer games out there, but their replayability is limited by predictable ai. multiplayer on the other hand can give you 1000s of hours of replayability and usually you only stop playing the game because a better game of similar style is released.

 

obviously ai still has a place in multiplayer gaming as there are always roles in say rpgs where no human would want to play them, ie the monster that guards a cave.

Well, who goes to buy Battlefield 2 for the singleplayer experience? Battlefield has always been about the multiplayer - However, removing singleplayer games might be a different way of saying that game campaigns won't be solely for one person but all co-op etc.

 

True (i mean in 16p theres no jets its mainly inf = rage (for me anyway))

 

Hopefully though with co-op you can still go it solo but maybe with AI to play the co-op parts who knows. That said if they are going to implement co-op in to SP then it would be nice if that means that SP and co-op are the same i.e. no skipped levels or removed cutscenes

One issue of making it all MP though would be that those of us without internetz or free time to LAN would suffer a lil bit from this cose then we cant really play it. :wacko:

for FPSs multi adds a whole new dimension to the gameplay, yeah BF2 single player is pretty lame, but lets face it it is pretty much an after thought, theres no story in it at all and is pretty much the same as multi but with bots. RTSs tho are a different ball game all together, same with RPGs.

story driven co-op games to x amount of players will be a great future imo.. im currently playing uncharted 2 on ps3 and the single player experience is amazing but if i could share it with a friend or what ever would make it a whole lot better.

 

Online functionality is a key way of extending the player experience

i dunno if anyone else here played the RE:outbreak series but if that was implemented properly it would of been awesome.

 

end of the day though if a company makes a good game it doesnt matter if its sp or mp.

 

but i am allways looking for the next great multiplayer game

i'm the opposite tbh, i'm always on the lookout for a great sp game. i do like mp, but for the time i have to dedicate to games ie. not much, playing an mp game takes up more time than i can allocate (unless its pub games of BF2/PR etal) which is why i dont play mp of any rts anymore. would always find i'd get to the stage when playing an opponent when after blunting their attacks be able to start matching to their doom and there would be some interuption which means i'd have to leave the game . . . great for my opponent as they notch up a win whereas i notch up (another) lose (my Supreme Commander stats are seriously borked like this, same with C&C Generals and CoH). in sp, at least you have a 'Save' option to fall back on.

However, removing singleplayer games might be a different way of saying that game campaigns won't be solely for one person but all co-op etc.

What he said. I don;t think they are looking at removing the campaigns from games but they are looking at making coop campaigns the standard which is a very good thing IMHO. Obviously it would not work well for every game but IMHO coop campaign is always at least twice as good as going it alone.

My wet dream of a game:

 

300 a side, Operation FP 2 graphics with same deviation, set in modelled NW France after D Day. Massive Company of Heros style map with capture points. Day long campaigns.

 

PR squad mechanics and historical array of vehicles. Campaign starts at the beaches!

Edited November 10, 200915 yr by The Product

My wet dream of a game:

 

300 a side, Operation FP 2 graphics with same deviation, set in modelled NW France after D Day. Massive Company of Heros style map with capture points. Day long campaigns.

 

PR squad mechanics and historical array of vehicles. Campaign starts at the beaches!

 

Battlefield Europe (World War 2 online) ? bit outdated by now but still, apparently its not bad

Multiplayer is the winner these days, if you cant play a game over and over again it aint worth buying.

 

Multiplayer is the best way of achieving this.

 

im in full support of the decision, too many games have been released with terrible MP and a SP not just wasnt needed or wasnt that interesting.

 

besides EA hasent really ever been one for good singleplayer/story lines really.

I agree. I do love a good single player campaign but multiplayer is really what does it for me. Co-op multi being the preferred.

AI takes talented coding, many many hours of testing, per map coding, per situation coding. EA and the developers they consume want to reduce costs by not paying AI programmers and for the subsequent testing (they get away with shoddily-tested games as it is now).

 

So, they put the word out there, hoping to push the industry and the consumer into thinking that is the norm. Other developers will push back and release great games with great AI.

 

Lesson is; Don't buy EA products, people.

do you know if they making another footy game ?

Single/MP games are on the way out.

 

Solely SP and MP games are here to stay tbh.

So, they put the word out there, hoping to push the industry and the consumer into thinking that is the norm.

 

why bother? currently if i see an EA game that is soley multiplayer i don't go "oh i'm not going to play that because it doesn't have singleplayer which is the norm!", lol.

Electronic Assholes is a half-ass video game company aimed at Zerg rushing mother****ing games to retards Founded in 1982 by Trip "On Acid" Hopkins, ass raping the **** out of games through history, most notably Shaq-Fu, Catwoman, and Def Jam: Vendetta. EA is like Scientology for games. EA IS THE CANCER KILLING VIDEO GAMES.

 

 

Currently, Electronic Arts has become one of the fattest in the industry, primarily by ass-raping and eating companies such as BioWare, Westwood, Bullfrog and Pandemic Studios, and then **** staining them with the EA brand.

 

However, Electronic Arts has made a name for itself in the "re-releasing the same game every ****ing year and still getting people to buy it" market as well, so that when there are no ****tards left, Larry Probst John Riccitiello the ****tard CEO can still wipe his ass with 100 dollar bills. Popular cashcows include:

 

Madden '##

Tiger Woods' Pro Golf ##

NBA Live '##

FIFA '##

NHL '08

Jamaican Bobsled Team '##

Nascar '##

Arena Football'##

Rushed unfinished glitchy mess '##

Cricket '##

Basement Dweller '08 out of 10,000

MVP Baseball '08

MVP NCAA Baseball '08

Same Game as last year, except with slightly different roster '##

NCAA Football '08

NCAA March Madness '08

Canceled sequel to a game people actually did want released - LOL CANCELED!

Furry Hunters '08

Power Level 9,000

Command & Conqueer

 

The adventures of a Chinky chick who jumps around on rooftops

Big name "Flavor of the month" movie/TV license

 

You get the idea.

cont...

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Ea

Edited November 11, 200915 yr by seo iphone

Single/MP games are on the way out.

 

Solely SP and MP games are here to stay tbh.

 

Sounds good but....

Single player = lots of piracy = no profit

Multiplayer = less piracy = profit

 

Companys want profit soo....

 

No more single player games.. No more interactive stories... noo

why bother? currently if i see an EA game that is soley multiplayer i don't go "oh i'm not going to play that because it doesn't have singleplayer which is the norm!", lol.

Maybe you won't. But maybe you missed the point a tad.

 

If you put the word out enough about MP only ie. It's the way of the future, SP is so 1980's, the average consumer won't be bummed that all games are now missing the SP and will continue to pay full price for effectively half to 2/3rds of the game.

 

What I was saying, SP takes time and money to do properly. Focus on MP only, let the players worry about the intelligence side of things (as opposed to AI), and save huge amounts on development costs.

 

Plus, MP has more re-playability than SP does. But the old way was to provide both services for the US$50, hype that old way out of existence and profit.

Focus on MP only, let the players worry about the intelligence side of things (as opposed to AI), and save huge amounts on development costs.

 

well hopefully the resources saved will be put into further improving the MP side. the battlefield series has always been MP only and the MP is way above the competion imo so i'd say it all balances out, and if MP has higher replayability than SP i'd rather a game that invested in MP over SP.