Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Single-Player Game Model 'Finished,' Says EA Exec

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the sorry-about-your-luck dept.

Businesses 439

Frank Gibeau, label president for EA Games, recently spoke with Develop about the publisher's long term development strategy. Gibeau thinks developing major games without multiplayer modes is a passing fad: "...it’s not only about multiplayer, it’s about being connected. I firmly believe that the way the products we have are going, they need to be connected online. ... I volunteer you to speak to EA’s studio heads; they’ll tell you the same thing. They’re very comfortable moving the discussion towards how we make connected gameplay – be it co-operative or multiplayer or online services – as opposed to fire-and-forget, packaged goods only, single-player, 25-hours-and you’re out. I think that model is finished. Online is where the innovation and the action [are] at."

cancel ×

439 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Piracy (5, Insightful)

Americium (1343605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511910)

It's also the only way to combat piracy that works. You need the legit game to play with your friends that use legit copies.

Re:Piracy (5, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511976)

Well, kind of works.

Seeing as multiplayer is shit and not worth playing for around 95% of games that come out, I don't think it's particularly effective.

Look at Assassins Creed, AC2 was fucking superb because they concentrated entirely on single player. This year they released Brotherhood with multiplayer and whilst it was still good, it wasn't a touch on AC2.

If anything AC2 was proof that focussing on single player can lead to a far superior experience, even if it means sacrificing a multiplayer mode, which will be dead in the water within a few weeks, or couple of months after release anyway.

It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact companies tie achievements to their shitty multiplayer modes no one plays either, because it basically means if you are a completionist and like collecting achievements and don't get them on release week then they'll be permanently unobtainable a few weeks later.

I'd rather games which are primarily single player stay that way and focus on that, rather than cut single player features/quality in favour of a waste of space multiplayer mode.

Re:Piracy (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34511996)

in another related news, gamers say that EA as publisher has finished.

if player want 'quickies' they expect to pay 10$ for them, not 60$.

Re:Piracy (5, Informative)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512378)

in another related news, gamers say that EA as publisher has finished.

Indeed. I want to play games with a good single-player experience. I find MMORPGs and on-line FPS shoot-outs to be the things lacking in action and innovation. They become monotonous very quickly with each new game, and then you have all the issues with bots, connection problems, etc.

Total games played with some regularity in our household in, say, the past 6 months:

Single player only: 4

Social (single player, but comparing scores with others via Facebook etc.): 2

Full multiplayer: 0

Every one of those was legal, but none was a recent, high-cost, AAA title.

Good single player games used to have some replay value by virtue of non-linear storylines, different playing styles, taking different characters with you or making different alliances, etc. And they used to last more than 10 hours. And they used to ship at least reasonably bug-free.

Given that a lot of people seem to show up with this sort of opinion every time the multiplayer/online gaming discussion comes up, I have to think that if a giant like EA can't manage to produce games like that any more even with the crazy prices they are asking, then their management have lost the plot. Then again, given all the horror stories about working conditions there, it's not surprising.

Re:Piracy (1)

Tukz (664339) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512192)

I got no mod points, so posting in agreement instead.

Re:Piracy (2, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512198)

>>>not worth playing for around 95% of games

Plus my wallet is not infinitely deep. All the games I buy are $20 or less in cost and never expire (I'm still playing 30-yr-old games) while online games are constantly sucking money month-after-month and eventually die (when the server shutsdown) so all the money I invested is wasted. The online multiplayer model is as bad a ripoff as the $80/month* CATV charges.

Which is probably why EA thinks multiplayer is so innovative (for them). It's like printing money.

*
*$60 base plus $5 per tv plus tax

Re:Piracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34512442)

Which is probably why EA thinks multiplayer is so innovative (for them). It's like printing money.

Those who forget history...

Idiots. It was that same attitude that got rid of originality in arcade games in the late 90s as every game turned into yet another fighting game clone. What happened to the arcades again? Of course there the games arcades were complicit in their own demise. What's happening is that these people are opening the doors for their own competitors to walk through. Just because they're too greedy to try to meet the demand of gamers instead of trying to force-feed them what's profitable doesn't mean someone else won't. EA can outspend the market disruptors in the brick&mortars for the aisle ends and buying magazine reviews with advertising, but the Internet means that there isn't a greedy gatekeeper that they can count on to block all competitors like there was with game arcades. At some point somebody will put up a web service that will provide the market what it desires and make a bundle of money that EA left on the table.

Re:Piracy (1)

Kokuyo (549451) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512306)

Frankly, I've been disappointed with Brotherhood SP and MP. Much more so with MP, but then again, I am not a strong multiplayer gamer. I get competitive, wound up and the whole thing turns into an altogether unenjoyable, teeth grinding, high bloodpressure experience.

I love League of Legends but I just don't deal too well with a game that doesn't go my way (which does not necessarily mean I must be winning! Just... I hate to be steam-rolled).

All in all, I usually prefer the singleplayer mode. With few exceptions, I don't play multiplayer. So either I'm alone with that opinion, or EA is full of shit.

Re:Piracy (1)

IKnwThePiecesFt (693955) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512358)

I personally think Brotherhood is *excellent* in both SP and MP. I feel like the MP is innovative and finally provides an experience that's outside of which is refreshing. The SP, while not -better- than AC2 isn't bad, either. It's mostly more of the same, but refined a bit and with some interesting new dynamics (recruiting the novice assassins, etc)

While I can totally understand it not being for everyone, I've noticed several reviews seem to agree with my stance. So EA isn't completely full of shit.

Re:Piracy (4, Interesting)

jojoba_oil (1071932) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512316)

If a game is designed to be played single player, then it shouldn't have multiplayer tacked on; I agree with you there. (PopCap casual games are a perfect example of that. They make all their money selling simple, single-player games and are very profitable.) But if the game is ever going to have a multiplayer aspect to it, the developers need to first balance the multiplayer aspect and build the single player after multiplayer is finished. Not only does this ensure that multiplayer modes are enjoyable (because it's evenly balanced) but also provides a way to drop a beta test without giving away the single player aspect. (One of the more well-known developers that seems to work this way is Blizzard. Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 2 betas were multiplayer only, campaigns came out with full-game and were still an enjoyable single-player experience. Even after campaign is played through, multiplayer is still fun.)

The problem is that so many games are designed and developed in single-player and then a multiplayer addition is hacked on at the end. This often results in strange bugs for multiplayer and countless exploits, not to mention character/weapon/whatever imbalance and overall just shitty experience in the game online as a whole.

Re:Piracy (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512404)

It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact companies tie achievements to their shitty multiplayer modes no one plays either, because it basically means if you are a completionist and like collecting achievements and don't get them on release week then they'll be permanently unobtainable a few weeks later.

If you're a completionist and the online version of the game is that shitty, do you really *want* to be tortured by those extra hours of gameplay anyway?

I know that unless I had a particularly game oriented version of OCD, that wouldn't be a problem for me.

Re:Piracy (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512160)

Also, no dedicated hosting of games outside of the approved ones. Many hosting companies for game servers actually have a box to choose if you want a cracked server, it costs you a couple bucks per month extra

and its why i havent bought a game form EA .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34512272)

and ts why i havent bought a game form EA ....in years like 9 to be exact....
stupid....you want us all to have caps and throttles and user based billing and fraking pay for your online bullcrap?

FAIL IN SOOOO MANY WAYS
back to battle for Wesnoth
assault cube
etc....

It's about money (4, Insightful)

emj (15659) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511914)

They just look at Zynga and hope they can make the same amount of money making crappy games.

Re:It's about money (5, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511966)

Well, they've got half of that equation down.

Bollocks (5, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511916)

Yeah, that's why everyone is still waiting and crying out for HL2:Ep3, Duke Nukem Forever, etc. It's got nothing to do with whether the game is single- or multi-player. It's just that single-player games you have to actually put more work in so the player *doesn't* feel alone (or feels *suitably* alone in the game's environment). Whereas any shit that has a multiplayer mode saves you from having to write tons of AI and instead just keep a couple of servers up.

Multiplayer was/is a twist on a game to increase longevity. Now it's *replaced* bothering to make the game's have longevity themselves. I play tons of multiplayer games, but as they age, they die except for the ones that were *always* going to be played by people anyway (e.g. Counterstrike). Single-player games and LAN-playable games and games that you can just connect to random IP addresses TOO last forever.

Stop tacking on "multiplayer" as a feature and instead make a decent game. Apart from a handful of exceptions, almost every Steam game I own is primarily single-player. I own very, very few multiplayer-only games for the same reasons.

Re:Bollocks (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34512006)

Not to mention Fallout 3 or Fallout New Vegas that are single player only and both huge successes and amazing games.

Re:Bollocks (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512204)

I bought Fallout 3 because of the hype, but I only played it for a couple of days. Just because the game sold well doesn't mean it was good. It was me trying to give RPGs another chance, but it just made me wish it was an MMO. Then I found out about Oblivion and bought it, it was a much better single player world because it's actually fun to wander around in and explore rather than just being miles and miles of grey.

Re:Bollocks (3, Insightful)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512102)

It's cool. I don't play multiplayer as a rule, so unless a game has a decent single player mode, I'm not going to buy it.

Of course, it's a long time since EA produced anything I wanted to play in the first place, so it's not a big deal.

EA can do as they please. It's not going to affect me :)

Re:Bollocks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34512218)

Thank God for that. Be sure to update us when you next buy a game.

Re:Bollocks (1)

RogueyWon (735973) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512150)

Agreed. In my case, it's more that my online gaming phase, which lasted from the age of about 18 through to 28 or so, was a passing fad. Competitive online gaming has its moments, but a lot of the time it's like wallowing in a cess-pit of foul mouthed teenagers, griefers and cheaters. Then most of the games which focus more upon co-operation rather than competition (by which I mostly mean MMOs) turn into life-consuming grind-fests. These days, what I want from a game is pretty much the same as what I want for a book or movie; I want to be entertained, engaged and to be told a decent story. Now, there's an expectation that a game will last a bit longer than a movie (though it doesn't 100% have to; the special editions of any of the LOTR movies are longer than Vanquish, but still enjoyed Vanquish) and it if wants to keep me entertained, then the gameplay needs to be decent. I'll compromise on the story; I'm perfectly happy to play a Forza 3 style game, if the gameplay is good enough. But I'm quite happy with the idea that something has a finite span and will come to an end.

Part of this might be to do with the fact that I have enough disposable income to buy a good few games these days. Back when I was a student, multiplayer was good value. My original £35 on Half-Life lasted years, due to Team Fortress Classic and Counter-Strike. In terms of cost-per-hour, it probably ended up as the cheapest entertainment product I ever bought. But cheapest does not mean best.

I suspect that it's cost here driving this latest (idiotic) EA statement. Multiplayer is just so much easier and cheaper, from their point of view; no need to employ writers, you can get away with a fraction of the work on level design and, best of all, you can pretty much force people to pay for not-really-optional extra content (or lose the ability to play with their friends, who do have it). Fortunately, there are lots of talented people out there making singleplayer games, so I suspect that offline gaming is far from dead.

Re:Bollocks (2)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512242)

My original £35 on Half-Life lasted years, due to Team Fortress Classic and Counter-Strike. In terms of cost-per-hour, it probably ended up as the cheapest entertainment product I ever bought. But cheapest does not mean best.

Cheapest doesn't have to mean best, but Counter-Strike is probably still the top on my list of multiplayer games that I've really enjoyed. No stupid levels to acquire with grinding. Just good old fashioned hand-eye coordination and tactics.

These days when I get a game like Battlefield or CoD, I expect to be shit until I play a few days to get all the weapon upgrades I want and that kind of thing, then I can start to actually put effort in once I feel I'm playing on a level playing field. I find it pretty silly that the players who have been playing for weeks should be the ones that have an in game advantage over noobs. IMO if you want to do all that XP crap, you should be able to lose XP for playing badly, and the higher your XP gets the harder the game becomes. Then being high level would actually mean something.

Re:Bollocks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34512308)

I find it pretty silly that the players who have been playing for weeks should be the ones that have an in game advantage over noobs.

Yeah, you should quit gaming and take up tennis. Trust me -- you just walk out on the court, ask what the ball looks like, then start winning. Repeat tomorrow.

Re:Bollocks (3, Insightful)

RogueyWon (735973) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512338)

No, I think he meant an actual hard-coded skill. As in, those with more experience of the game actually get a more powerful character. So to use a sporting analogy, it would be like saying that more experienced soccer teams would be given a smaller goal to defend when playing against novice opponents. I'm not saying I agree with GP's point (persistent-experience is a major hook these days), but it isn't as ridiculous as you make it sound.

Smaller goals (0)

gringer (252588) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512468)

So to use a sporting analogy, it would be like saying that more experienced soccer teams would be given a larger goal to defend when playing against novice opponents.

FTFY. Larger goals are harder to defend, easier for the attacking team.

Re:Bollocks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34512324)

A ten year long "passing fad"?

Re:Bollocks (1)

RogueyWon (735973) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512434)

Compared to the length of time I've been playing single-player, yeah, that's a passing fad.

Re:Bollocks (4, Insightful)

melikamp (631205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512180)

Lately I think, what makes a game truly great is the art, period. The whole is greater than the sum. I agree with you: the multiplayer/singleplayer axis is completely orthogonal to both the goodness axis and the longevity axis. The goodness is in the explicable combination of graphics, sound, writing, controls, UI, and that viscerally felt response to the user input. And that other thing you know, but I am forgetting.

Counterstrike I will give you, even though I personally was never a fan. It just feels so crisp. But also Quake, and Commander Keen, and the whole multitude of godly platformers. And all HalfLife. And Diablo I and II, as different as they are. And most (but not all) games starting with Sim. And ditto for games starting with Sid. And pretty much everything done by Interplay and Black Isle. And, like, every PC adventure that didn't suck, which is a good chunk of them. And I cannot even begin to name console titles, since I am a PC boy, but I am fully aware that I am barely scratching the surface here. There are dozens of excellent games from every genre, ancient or relatively recent, that I could put in this list right now, so I'll just stop.

What the EA drone is trying to say is that they cannot design an effective copy protection for a singleplayer game, so they are not going to finance one. And nothing of value is lost.

Re:Bollocks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34512400)

There are dozens of excellent games from every genre, ancient or relatively recent, that I could put in this list right now, so I'll just stop.

Yo -- you're a few sentences late for that.

Pub, social, dollars (5, Insightful)

evanism (600676) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511922)

If I want to socialize I'll go to the pub or the park. I suspect Mr Exec is more interested in the endless monthly fees they can gouge from players. These guys arent gamers, they are business zombies who contantly moan like the undead itself.

Re:Pub, social, dollars (1)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511998)

I think you missed the entire point of the article. Multiplayer modes aren't always about being social (even the opposite at times). It's that fact that it can be difficult to justify buying a game without a good multiplayer component.

I loved Bayonetta but only played it for say 20 hours, where as in Halo Reach I have played for 58 hours since September and I'm still playing a couple of hours a week and having fun.

Multiplayer adds so much extra play time that it's some times hard to pick up a single player game when I know I'm buying something I will only play for 1/5th of what I would be playing something with it, or that I will rarely play at all because every time I log onto PSN/Xbox LIVE a friend will invite me to a party and go "Hey, lets play some Halo/CoD".

Re:Pub, social, dollars (5, Insightful)

Berkyjay (1225604) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512136)

You only got the point half right. What is happening is that many people are not buying EA's single player games that only have 20 hours of game play because their games are generally crap. EA is not willing to put the money into making worth while 20 hour game much less a good 50-60 hour single player game (it hurts their profit margin). They have realized that it is cheaper just to add a multi-player and try to pass it off as extra playing time. But really, who the hell buys a game based on the amount of playing time. I would rather spend 60 bucks on a 20 hour master piece than a 60 hour turd.

Re:Pub, social, dollars (2)

Raumkraut (518382) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512162)

This isn't about how many hours you play. The game companies don't care if you play 58 hours or 2 minutes, as long as you bought the game. Heck, the less time you play a game, the sooner you're likely to buy another one, so the companies probably *don't* want you to play games for very long.

But think about this: with console multiplayer games, who runs the servers? Who decides when those servers will get shut down? Who decides when the sequel will be released?
Think the original was a better game? Want to play that with your friends, instead? Tough shit; either buy the new version ("now with MORE teabagging!"), or stick to the single-player campaign (hah!).

Re:Pub, social, dollars (1)

nickruiz (1185947) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512056)

If I want to socialize I'll go to the pub or the park. I suspect Mr Exec is more interested in the endless monthly fees they can gouge from players. These guys arent gamers, they are business zombies who contantly moan like the undead itself.

"Brains!"

Re:Pub, social, dollars (4, Informative)

IICV (652597) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512208)

Not just that: the only effective way to enforce CD key checks and other such anti-piracy measures is via a significant multiplayer component. In short, either our servers validate you or you don't get to play the game. It's the only form of DRM that works, because it turns them into the gatekeepers of content - in essence, due to the fact that the game is primarily multiplayer, the other people become the game's content and the publisher sticks their server between you and other people.

I mean, just look at Star Craft 2! Oh, how the once-great have fallen; in Starcraft 1, you could use the second disk to create a multiplayer-only spawn install for an essentially unlimited number of LAN players; now, every single multiplayer game has to be authenticated via Battle.Net, even if it's just going to be played over the local network between two full copies of the game (which is, I suppose, something of a misnomer, because now there's nothing but full copies of the game).

Re:Pub, social, dollars (1)

m50d (797211) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512430)

Or rather, there's no such thing as a full copy of the game any more, except the one running on their servers.

Re:Pub, social, dollars (1, Interesting)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512250)

If I want to socialize I'll go to the pub or the park. I suspect Mr Exec is more interested in the endless monthly fees they can gouge from players.

Somehow I think you're spending far more money in the pub than on monthly fees, but you don't seem to be complaining about that.

Me on the other hand, I'd much rather spend the money on games than boozing.

Oh EA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34511934)

You crack me up!

What next, multiplayer novels? Surely they can distinguish between competitive or social and escapist gaming.

God is dead... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34511938)

- Nietzsche.
Nietzsche is dead - God

No matter what they say, single player will always have the needed audience. Being connected is the wish of EA and other studios to deploy their DRM schemes. Hopefully each method will be cracked.

For one I do not welcome our DRM masters...

"EA" confirms it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34511942)

Single-Player Game Model 'Finished,' Says EA Exec

Someone get Onlive on the phone.

Video Game Company seeks mad scientist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34511944)

And here's the reason why EA will be the first video game company to invest in time travel technology to prevent this inter view from ever happening.

co-op instead please (4, Insightful)

bmcage (785177) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511946)

I don't want connectivity, I want co-op, so I can play together with family members. WTF do care for some dude the other side of the ocean?

Re:co-op instead please (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511964)

'xactly. Also being able to do multiplayer on a single screen is good. Playing with friends or family in the same room is important and probably one of the major reasons the Wii is such a huge success.

It's a shame so few of the big name games do one-system co-op. Gears of War was always fun for that, as was Resistance, though by Resistance 2 the morons took it out!

Re:co-op instead please (1)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512066)

Many people have family and friends across oceans these days. Playing Co op with them is just as important to them as you with your family members.

Re:co-op instead please (1)

mtinsley (1283400) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512072)

The first thing that came to mind when I read this was Bioshock 2. The single player was great, the multi-player was terrible, co-op would have been amazing if they had implemented it.

Re:co-op instead please (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512080)

I couldn't care less about co-op. It always seems like a big waste in a game, to me. I'm not ten years old, so I don't know a bunch of people who play videogames. In fact, I could count the videogamers I know on one hand. The ones who own the same platform as me cuts that down. The ones using the same *games* as me even fewer. The ones playing often enough that I can hook up with them and play a game, even less. In fact, the only few people I know who game *at all* are almost ALWAYS doing one thing when I log into xbox: watching netflix. That's it. Any time of day - they're not playing games (or if they are, it's like . . . a rhythm game) . . . just netflix.

As for multiplayer? What a failure of an idea. Only some games need it and even most of those fail. Adding multiplayer into every game will just fragment the playerbase even more. We've seen what happens with most multiplayer games, already. At best, people play them for about a month or two. Then when you decide to try and play it, you're the only person on the PLANET trying to play multiplayer. Meanwhile, it'll continue to detract from the quality of the single player.

These guys are damned determine to misunderstand gaming and ruin it. Sometimes a great single player experience is all you want.

Oh - and multiplayer *local* on the same screen? Hell no. You go play on your OWN screen. I like my big giant screen without the image being deformed or squashed. I don't care how big it is, I still want it for myself. I hate split screen and never ever ever would use it.

Re:co-op instead please (1)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512248)

As for multiplayer? What a failure of an idea. Only some games need it and even most of those fail. Adding multiplayer into every game will just fragment the playerbase even more. We've seen what happens with most multiplayer games, already. At best, people play them for about a month or two. Then when you decide to try and play it, you're the only person on the PLANET trying to play multiplayer.

Not always true. I've been playing Day of Defeat: Source for five years now and there is still a decent number of servers around. In fact the original Day of Defeat is 10 years old this year and is still popular. Generally speaking if a game is really good then people will carry on playing it. Hell you can still play Quake 1 online if you want.

Meanwhile, it'll continue to detract from the quality of the single player.

True, this is often the case - see Call of Duty for example. Their games used to have single player missions that would take more than a single evening to complete.

These guys are damned determine to misunderstand gaming and ruin it. Sometimes a great single player experience is all you want.

All you want, maybe. Sometimes a great multiplayer experience is all I want. Not always. But sometimes.

Oh - and multiplayer *local* on the same screen? Hell no. You go play on your OWN screen. I like my big giant screen without the image being deformed or squashed. I don't care how big it is, I still want it for myself. I hate split screen and never ever ever would use it.

Wow. Are you just resentful because you don't have any friends? Sometimes people come to my house that like playing games. Should I say "No, either you watch or you go home and play from there"? No! We both sit in the same room, play the same game and have a laugh together. Yeah you get a bit less screen but it's more fun! Me and my old flatmate played Call of Duty Nazi Zombies to death on split-screen mode. I played it a bit in online multiplayer mode and even though there was twice as many players and we got twice as far in terms of levels, it wasn't as fun as having someone else in the room enjoying it too - shouting at each other and taking turns to reload because there are so many zombies coming at you. I'd be happy to see more games like this. It used to be that every game would have a two player option - even if it wasn't particularly great (I'm looking at you Luigi). Consoles like the NES were designed for a couple (or more) people to have fun together. Now it's just you, sat alone in your living room, not even talking on a headset.

Anyway, I digress. This is just another pointless Slashdot "One True Way of Gaming" article. Different people like different things. Some people like multiplater, some singleplayer. Some both. Personally I just like good games, be they single player, multiplayer or whatever. I wouldn't want a multiplayer Just Cause 2 just as I wouldn't want a Singleplayer Team Fortress.........actually that would work. Cooperative Half Life 1 remake [blackmesasource.com] ? Fuck yes.

Re:co-op instead please (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512286)

You have some valid points, but also some that are blatantly just self preference. I'd say you're in the minority for wanting the screen to yourself. It's nice for them to at least include the option for people who do want it. Games like MarioKart would have been way less fun and successful without local multiplayer.

I used to wish that certain games had multiplayer, but then I got my wish once when they included it in in Uncharted 2. It sucked. And all the single player achievements were geared towards unlocking stuff for multiplayer rather than single player, so I have only played the single player story once so far, rather than the 3 times I did with the original when I was trying to find all the hidden treasures . Uncharted is one of the few games I've ever felt was worth replaying, the single player gameplay and level design is great.

Re:co-op instead please (1)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512174)

And please don't tie to co-op to one screen. Sometimes my friend goes home, or is too busy to come over after work. We would still like to pick up the game and play over the internet right where we left off.

Severe lack of decent co-op games out there right now.

Re:co-op instead please (2)

daid303 (843777) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512374)

Indeed. Co-op should get more attention.
Difference in skill is less important in co-op, which makes playing together with friends more enjoyable.

The list of co-op games I know and enjoy is short:
-SWAT 4 (up to 4 players, NEEDs voice communication, up to 10 players with Stetchkov Syndicate)
-Diablo 2 (but hard to do with new players, as 'old' players run off like crazy because they know everything)
-Serious sam (Yes, I'm serious! Just fun to shoot around a bit)
-Commandos 2 (A bit tough to get running in multiplayer, only recommended for 2 players max, but great fun. Voice communication is a must)
-Left 4 dead 1+2 (Up to 4 players, but can be great fun)

Still on my 'to try' list are:
-Lara croft (the top down game, has coop, but was broken at PC release)
-Trine (some indie game, which was on discount some time back on steam)

Most RTS games support coop vs computer, but if you have one or two very good players then they wipe all the computers off the map before you get to do anything.

Any recommendations?

Re:co-op instead please (1)

bmcage (785177) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512416)

Recommendations? PS3 here. The Lego franchise for small children :-D.

Dead Nation on PSN is getting good reviews for it's co-op (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-syxOHFqN0k ).

Eh (2)

bbqsrc (1441981) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511948)

Maybe if they made 70 hour single-player games the model wouldn't be dead. I still miss the old, proper RPGs like Baldur's Gate.

Re:Eh (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34512034)

well, now they expect to throw out just levels, models and physics, and the players will fill the missing story.. it's nothing more than cost cutting

Re:Eh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34512084)

Hope you didn't miss Fallout 3, and especially Fallout New Vegas! I probably played Fallout 3 for 200 hours, but I didn't keep proper track. I'm currently at 126 hours in Fallout New Vegas and still going with plenty of quests and undiscovered locations.
 
EA guy is full of baloney. So is there any news this morning?

Re:Eh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34512146)

Hope you didn't miss Fallout 3

Fallout 3 is a good game in itself, but it doesn't touch the computer RPGs of the late 90's and early 2000's. New Vegas is an improvement, but it still doesn't hold a candle to the first two Fallout games.

retarded EA exec says PC games are finished. (5, Insightful)

Zurk (37028) | more than 3 years ago | (#34511950)

wasnt EA one of the slave shops who claimed PC gaming was finished too ?
hint to EA execs :
DO NOT WANT stupid asshats and 12 year olds who whine incessantly in your spyware laden voip enabled gaming franchises.
DO WANT games which are engaging, fun and can be picked up with no significant time investment.
DO NOT WANT incessantly annoying DRM which requires online servers AND a CD in the drive to validate the game is "legal". Oh and typing in a 80 digit serial number.
DO WANT games which have a compelling storyline, decent graphics with no advert ware built in and are engrossing enough to keep people occupied for the 60 bux you charge which is more than movies, theatres and any other reasonable form of alternative entertainment costs.
DO NOT WANT monthly fees ON TOP of the 60 bux you charge for the game.
DO WANT to resell games once I have finished plowing through your inevitably buggy DRM infested pile of franchised crapware.

Re:retarded EA exec says PC games are finished. (2)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512298)

Problem for EA: They are a slave shop, and suck at promoting true creativity in their development efforts. As a consequence, they

- CAN tell their employees to pump out yet another variation of an existing theme.
- CANNOT regularly come up with good ideas. At best, they can buy up smaller studios who happen to have good ideas. And they seem to suck at this too.

Thus, you (the customer) usually won't get compelling storylines or original game concepts.
BTW this was different 25 years ago. One of the coolest games on the C64 was Archon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archon:_The_Light_and_the_Dark [wikipedia.org] ), distributed by EA. Back then, the EA leadership at least knew what games to pick for publishing, even if EA did not develop them by itself.

Excuses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34511954)

This seems like a good excuse to make crappy games without a good storyline, and just shoot, shoot and shoot.

It isn't dead; you want to kill it! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34511988)

If playing with your freinds is so great, then why are developers taking away support for lan and dedicated servers? It's a whole load of crap! I don't want to spend $120 on a game only to play it on a server on the other side of the world, with a ping of 500! It's not the players' demand for connectivity, it's studios want to charge subscription fees!

guess I won't be buying many more games then... (1)

PhantomHarlock (189617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512002)

Maybe it's just me, but I find a game environment that's been set up like an interactive movie to be much more enthralling than watching the various asshattery of the internet do their thing in an MMORPG setting. The rare exceptions are Diablo series multiplayer and LFD/LFD2, when played with friends that you know.

The quality of play is much, much higher in the average single person game. It's like a feature film vs. MMORPGs, which can be like a reality TV show featuring the cast of Jersey Shore.

MMORPGs have no ending, and serve only to sap your wallet and your time.

Re:guess I won't be buying many more games then... (2)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512144)

I tend to disagree. I dislike movie-like setups (I'm a nosy person and keep bumping into "you're not supposed to be here" corners with blatant immersion-breaking obstacles blocking your way). OTOH, I love huge, open-ended single-player sandbox style games. A huge world with a lot to do and with freedom of choice what to do. Events unfold around you and you're often in the middle of things, but you may turn around and do other things if you choose so.

Yes, MMORPGs seem bland to me, I prefer a good open-world single-player game instead. But railroad-fests like Half-Life don't quite appeal to me.

Re:guess I won't be buying many more games then... (1)

bencoder (1197139) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512228)

I tend to disagree. I dislike movie-like setups (I'm a nosy person and keep bumping into "you're not supposed to be here" corners with blatant immersion-breaking obstacles blocking your way). OTOH, I love huge, open-ended single-player sandbox style games. A huge world with a lot to do and with freedom of choice what to do. Events unfold around you and you're often in the middle of things, but you may turn around and do other things if you choose so.

Can you give some recommendations for games? There's minecraft, which I love, but I'd love to hear of any other games you could suggest.

Re:guess I won't be buying many more games then... (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512336)

The ol'good Oblivion, heavily modded and with all the extensions. (also, ancient Morrowind obviously.)
If you love Minecraft, you may love (or hate) Dwarf Fortress. It's truly hardcore (ASCII art game that can make a 4GHZ machine crawl due to world simulation complexity...)

I heard many good things of Fallouts and Borderlands. Fallout is not really my cup of tea world-wise, but I think Borderlands sounds very promising.

And S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games - Shadow of Chernobyl and Call of Pripyat (skip Clear Sky, it's a disappointing, narrow railroad).

Give ShoC the right mods (like SuperModPack) and don't treat the main quest as your primary task, and the game becomes really entrancing and immersive (and difficult, goddamnit! Original game was hard, game with AMK mod (contained in SMP) is truly a hell. Bullets hurt bad (both ways), mutants are fast and deadly, anomalies are deadly and often invisible, generally the game IS hard.)

CoP is much, much easier even than unmodded ShoC (I still need to find a good "hardcore" mod for it) but it is much more open. You have 2 out of 3 areas of the game available from moment one and there is definitely no "line" of the main quest through some 3/4th of the game - something resembling a "questline" only appears in the last part.

Re:guess I won't be buying many more games then... (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512346)

This is pretty much exactly how I feel too. Operation Flashpoint, Grand Theft Auto III series rank as my favourite single player experiences of all time, and I enjoy Oblivion despite me not really usually being one for RPGs.

Certain single player games manage to have their levels on rails without spoiling the immersion too much, but there's a lot of crap out there. I played the demo of Killzone after hearing all the hype. Sure the graphics were nice, but you couldn't even jump over a 2 foot obstacle. WTF? I'm not playing that shit no matter how pretty it is, thankyou very much.

Re:guess I won't be buying many more games then... (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512366)

Amen to that. If EA does this, then they'll lose me as a potential customer. I don't waste my time on multiplayer only games due to the lack of worthwhile people to play with.

In otherwords (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34512014)

Don't buy any more expansions for The Sims, nor Dragon Age 2, nor Mass Effect 3... if they're finished then we shouldn't buy them right?

What they missed (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34512022)

What they should have said was "Single-player game model finished... for EA"

this isn't a 'what the people want' scenario, it's simply a 'follow the money' one, they see how much money farmville, wow and all of the other skinner box games make and want in. As a poster above said, Duke-Nukem Forever, HL2-EP3 and Bioshock Infinite are some of the most anticipated games of the moment, all of which are single-player experiences.

The statement isn't a prophecy, it's a business plan.

Saying it wont make it true (4, Insightful)

dilvish_the_damned (167205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512030)

and it wont make us stop wanting to spend weekends sunk in some game where no one will bother us. Sometimes its about being disconnected.

Well, I think... (4, Interesting)

twocows (1216842) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512038)

Well, I think he's full of shit. Some of the best games I've ever played are single-player. Golden Sun for GBA, Bioshock 1, the Elder Scrolls series, Persona 3, Fallout 3 and New Vegas, the Penumbra series, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 1 and 2 (despite 2's.. er... lack of polish), the Final Fantasy series... Come to think of it, Fallout: New Vegas' sales numbers prove this crap wrong. It's a perfect example of a modern single player game that garnered huge sales. Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age also had great sales as single player games, though I can't say whether they were good or not since I haven't played them.

My guess is that EA would rather pump out the same big name game over and over. Guaranteed profits, no risk, and virtually no money spent on developing the hard things like a good plot or character depth. Don't get me wrong, some of my favorite games are multiplayer (hell, the Battlefield series is one of my favorite series as well, been a fan since BF1942, and don't get me started on Valve games), but by no means is single player a dead genre.

Hey EA Brainiac... (5, Insightful)

BulletMagnet (600525) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512082)

You're right - please stop making single player games.

Sincerely,

Bethesda Softworks / Obsidian Entertainment
(you know, the people who brought you Fallout 3 which sold 4.7m copies in the first two weeks of release in 2008 and Fallout: New Vegas - which just happened to sell 5m copies in the 1st three weeks since release in 2010)

Re:Hey EA Brainiac... (1)

polle404 (727386) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512158)

mod parent up, please :-)

F you EA and the dead flogged horse you rode in on (1)

marcushnk (90744) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512088)

Since Tribes I haven't been able to stomach multiplayer games online. My entire gaming life almost exclusively exists in single player mode. Just because EA cant be bothered funding decent AI and single player game player doesn't mean the rest of the world wont/cant.
If they persists in dumping out crap for the masses I'm sure the indie and open source gaming industry will harvest my money just as quickly.

$60, 25-hour single-player games ARE dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34512094)

Well, he's right about one thing, $60, 25-hour single player games are dead. It's not enough replay value for the asking price. You can sell it for a $60 when it comes out, don't have a lot of content, make it single player only. Pick two.

Trying to do all three at once is a business model set up to fail.

Of course, Gibeau seems to think the last one's the source of the problem. Not so.

Strange... (2)

thrill12 (711899) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512112)

I still play Operation Flashpoint regularly. It's from 2001. I play single-player mode only.
The power ? Mission-editing: constantly recreating new missions with new concepts is much more interesting than getting online and beaten by some cheating (and sometimes: extremely good) opponent.
The only problem is that it is too much work for most, who indeed just want to use 'fire-and-forget' packaged games. Which is probably why Operation Flashpoint stands alone at the top - for me, anyway. And yes, I do not care about graphics: game concepts are the most important part of the software.

Re:Strange... (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512390)

It's still my favourite game of all time too, though I stopped playing games when I went off to University, and now even though I game, I don't game on PC anymore.. but I probably will replay OF one day, or try out one of the single player mods.

Sure. (1, Funny)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512118)

Making single-player games started mere 60 years ago, major single player games appeared about 15 years later. I'm absolutely sure this temporary fad will die any moment now.

Disgusting to hear for a gamer (5, Interesting)

furbyhater (969847) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512126)

EA's blabber is disgusting to hear for someone who appreciates gaming, be it solo, local or online.
They clearly understand jack about a gamer's heart and what makes a game great, but they hope to get their business-goals accepted by trying to sound all visionary-like.
Alas, nobody with experience in gaming will be able to take them seriously.

EA's true goals:
  • Facilitate data-mining
  • Make more DLC sales
  • Updateable in-game advertising
  • Restrict gameplay to EA-approved content
  • Take control away from the gamers/modders and claim it for themselves

These profit-driven bastard won't spend a second thinking about what makes a game great, because they don't know jack about games. I spit in their face.
The future lies with indie-games and Nintendo

Re:Disgusting to hear for a gamer (1)

feepness (543479) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512450)

The future lies with indie-games and Nintendo

Nintendo? Dear God I hope not. I mean, good for them and all, but still...

The Title is misleading (4, Interesting)

Floritard (1058660) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512164)

It's not that single-player is dead. It's that offline is dead (or dying). Which is, and I say this as a predominantly single-player game enthusiast, basically okay. Right now I'm playing two games pretty regularly, Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit and Joe Danger, which both have well integrated leaderboards. But they don't just pit you against millions of random people across the globe. They actually pit you against people on your friends lists.

So when I boot up NFS and get ready to tick off another event on that big map I instead skip over to the Autolog and see what my friends have been up to lately. I then spend the next hour and a half trying to beat their times and reclaim my top spot on the wall. So for a game where I would normally run straight through trying merely to complete every event and reach 100% completion, I'm now basically wasting time re-racing events competitively against my friends list. And you know what? I'm loving it. I think this is actually the best way to enhance replayability that I've seen in a long time. And it's not like leaderboards are anything new in games, far from it. But that connectedness is really addicting. I've yet to play one multi-player event. I will at some point but I'm still having fun with the single-player. Fun that indeed benefits from the connected, social features they've weaved into the game.

And yea I'm not a Facebook guy but from what I understand this is a pretty common thread among Facebook games as well. It's an interesting way to game.

Yes, he is lying or just not thinking clearly (1)

maxwells_deamon (221474) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512182)

I guess if you define "major" in an unusual way.

there will always be a market for simple games.

Games like solitare will last longer than any current single release they currently offer.

Games like Angry Birds are still fun and share nothing with what EA lets the devs make.

Maybe he will keep everyone at EA from using imagination, but if he does they will stagnate and the company will die.

Yes, they will own some of the market, but that market will die if you don't allow it to change fundmentally from time to time.

People will get tired of EA and they will not even see it coming.

EA? (2)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512202)

Electronic Arts is still alive & kicking?

Thanks EA! (1)

cbope (130292) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512214)

As a long-time gamer, I want to thank EA for letting me know that the last 25 years or so were wasted on a failed game model. I had no freaking idea!

Seriously, I am starting to believe that the top game execs make these ridiculous statements only to get press coverage. Practically everything they spew is garbage, not worth the time it takes to read the headline.

I play both online multi-player and stand alone single-player games very regularly, and I'm sorry EA, but you are full of shit. If you don't want to make the kinds of games I am likely to buy, I'm sure someone else will, and I don't believe I'm alone in this. I spend a significant amount of my disposable income on gaming, which from the sound of it will not be going to EA in the future. Sounds like EA wants to be the next shovelware king, and charge you a subscription each month for the privilege.

Tetris will be a mess to play (1)

cjeze (596987) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512216)

There will always be single player games where it doesn't make sense or is worth the effort to have multiplayer or online functionality where it won't affect or add to the original game play.

Instead of single fire, 25 hours and out... (1)

Grimbleton (1034446) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512222)

Why not make "Game so awesome it's worthy of 4-5 playthroughs and can easily top out at 100+ hours per." Like in the good old days.

Re:Instead of single fire, 25 hours and out... (0)

Warma (1220342) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512278)

I dare anyone to name even one game that fits that dreamy criteria. Nethack and ADOM are the only ones that I can think of which would be even close, but in my experience, the desire to actually beat them all over again arises more from neurosis than how fun it actually is.

Re:Instead of single fire, 25 hours and out... (1)

pimp0r (1030222) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512352)

Metal Gear + every single sequel across many many platforms. (except the fake No.2 on NES)

Re:Instead of single fire, 25 hours and out... (1)

Lotana (842533) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512408)

- Planescape Torment
- Deus Ex
- Alpha Centauri
- Knights of the Old Republic
- Thief series
- The Witcher
- Baldur's Gate series

Those above (Not exclusive list, but main ones that come to mind right away) I have replayed many many times. Call me neurotic if you will, but I did not play them to "beat it", I played them again to see other choices and completed story. Exhausting that, I replay them now and again just to enjoy the storytelling, the atmosphere and gameplay.

It is like a very great book. According to what you say people should only read it once and throw it in the trash. After all it doesn't change between readings! Yet I can safely bet quite a bit of money that I wasn't the only one that re-read Lord of the Rings many times.

This was taken out of context (1)

Ryunosuke (576755) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512258)

i think this is being taken out of context. I think they meant to say "Any company we buy is finished"

Thinly veiled DRM (1)

Feinu (1956378) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512266)

I firmly believe that the way the products we have are going, they need to be connected online...

... in an attempt to curb piracy. This has nothing to do with actual multiplayer.

I wouldn't mind more games with full campaign co-op, though.

yeah right (1)

rastoboy29 (807168) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512268)

If my game had a single player mode (and the requisite exquisite AI code that would be required), it would probably already be successful.

By the way, it's actually quite the programming challenge, as it has players on foot, with jetpacks, cars that hop and drive on walls, planes, etc. etc. some pretty unusual combinations of FPS tropes that I think makes writing AI for it unusually interesting.  So hit me up.

I guess I must be weird then (1)

Krakadoom (1407635) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512276)

Am I alone in preferring single-player modes of most games? The only ever exception is really Diablo 2 and actual MMO's designed without single player modes. In the latter case I tend to play a lot on my own anyway, so technically all those other people dont matter.

All I really want from a game, is a good single player campaign, when I'm done with that, I usually just shelve it.

Re:I guess I must be weird then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34512372)

You are not alone. You probably like rich, fulfilling content. You probably also read books.

(Social) Network Effects (1)

Aceticon (140883) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512282)

It's all a bit of Facebook and WoW envy:
- EA wants to turn their games into highly social activities because they want to benefit from the Network Effects [wikipedia.org] that a social environment brings (you're there because all your friend are there, they're there because all their friends - including you - are there).

They're hardly the only ones:
- Look at all most recent games and for most you'll see some kind of competitive (global scoreboards) or social (online chat channels) functionality bolted in.
- Look at what Blizzard did with Real ID and the way they connected WoW IDs with those in their other multiplayer games so that "friends can keep track of their friends" in other Blizzard games.
- Look at how pretty much every "online gaming platform" out there (like XBox Live) comes with some kind of chat functionality

The thing is, when it comes to Networking Effects, the outcome is a winner takes all result: if they sacrifice the offline component on their games, considering that EA is competing with the likes of Blizzard for being THE social gaming platform, they risk having no fallback plan for the possible outcome of them not being the winner.

Slashdot Users != EA's Target Demographic (2)

Abrisene (1477289) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512296)

You aren't EA's target demographic. Please don't forget while people are properly outraged on the internet against things like DLC and the death of LAN gaming, they are actually the vocal minority, compared to masses of consumers who don't necessarily even know that LAN exists, much less what it does. Really the point here is that while a person from EA might read, and even agree with what you're saying, it's not going to change their business strategy one bit.

Re:Slashdot Users != EA's Target Demographic (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512376)

Perhaps but there's a decent overlap between Slashdot users and gamers. Even if they're a minority, it's by no means a small minority. There are millions of gamers who want to play single player games.

Guess they don't want my money (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512310)

Pretty much all games I play these days are single player. I lost interest in multiplayer games quite some years ago.
So, some other company will get my money instead of EA.

The best part of singleplayer games is that the experience doesn't depend on the presence of others.

What he meant to say (5, Insightful)

Xelios (822510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512318)

What he meant to say is "online is where the money is". DLC, DRM, lower development costs due to lack of story or AI, mini-transactions, monthly fees, it's a wet dream for EA.

Single player is not finished (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512354)

In reality:
  • Some people like playing games by themselves, or like the option to be able to play a game by themselves.
  • Some people like buying a game, knowing the game they bought is the game they bought forever with no further obligation.
  • Some people don't have internet or don't have the bandwidth or simply don't want to be logged in to play a game.
  • Every piece of bullshit EA / Activision / Ubisoft puts out about some existing form of gaming being dead is a prelude to a payment model they intend to rape their prospective customers with.

I suspect that EA et al would rather people subscribe to a game rather than it being a one shot transaction. Erode what people would rightfully expect a game to offer out of the box and move it to a "premium" service that requires monthly payment. Want to use our matchmaking services? Subscribe. Want to get that cool new map? Subscribe. Once games go subscription, the second hand market doesn't matter, and sellers are largely cut out of the loop too.

Sony are already doing something similar with PSN+ and I believe the industry is greedily eyeing it up and thinking of making their own models.

So says EA (1)

Plekto (1018050) | more than 3 years ago | (#34512356)

With the linear type of games that EA knows how to make, I'm not surprised that they would think of games as good for only one play-through in single player mode. There are many games that are made by other companies that excel in single player mode because of the vast ability to play the game multiple times without it getting old. Now, true, many games today ARE linear but that's because they are dumbed-down to near idiot levels as they are also released on consoles. But that's only because the game developers are simpletons who can't design a good single player game. Not because there is a lack of interest in them.

Deluded (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34512364)

Wow how deluded are these guys at EA?

People primarily care about quality. Not about micro-transactions, achievements, DLC (which should have been part of the game in the first place), and half-arsed features/content just so they have another 'feature' they can list.

There is still a huge market for GOOD single player focused games. E.g. The Witcher, Assassin's Creed, Fallout 3, Oblivion, and GTA. There is also a market for multiplayer games, but it shouldn't be treated as the next stage of evolution in games by replacing singleplayer.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>