We all know that online gaming is popular these days, but apparently there are only a few of us left who want to retain some good single-player, story-driven experiences. Electronic Arts appears to have given up on them entirely, with EA Games president Frank Gibeau claiming the days of such games are over.
"It's one of my core cultural studio values to allow developers to decide more on what they want to build," he explains. "And a studio's creative call needs to be balanced against a commercial imperative, and if you look at online these days - that's the place to be.
"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, is at."
Frankly, I think it's a terrible idea for developers to focus so heavily on multiplayer, chiefly because gamers only have a finite amount of time and they spend it with a finite amount of games. Most gamers find a small handful of online games and spend all their time getting good at them. When you're trying to train on Halo or COD or Killzone, why would you stop to play Overlord's online mode or Dark Sector's? It's ludicrous.
Single-player isn't dead, but many games will be if they focus entirely on multiplayer.
Single player only games 'are finished' - EA [CVG]
Contest:
9:00 AM on 12.08.2010 | 
Except with RE5, it worked. Dead Space was one of the last true survival horror games left though, so I hope it doesn't go balls out.
Either way, Japanese developers have something to say about "single player being dead". Demon's Souls found a way to make an entirely "single player game", and incorporate multiplayer elements flawlessly. Western Developers are just saying this because they love that possible Call of Duty money. Except EA doesn't make Call of Duty quality games, AND the Call of Duty series has excellent single player campaigns. Come to think of it, make a good multiplayer game, EA.
I myself am of the minority with no interest in multiplayer games. I enjoy spending a couple nights a week with a game like Oblivion or MGS4 for an hour or two.
If this ridiculous claim becomes true, I might as well forget gaming in the future.
But of course, they're going to come up with another excuse for the lack of sales in the wake of this. Piracy, for example. Just so long as it doesn't admit that EA themselves are being idiots.
The model's not dead. They're just trying to stop used games by including multiplayer, whether or not it's warranted.
While I still feel that gameplay is paramount to making a good game, entertainment these days require a certain level of plausibility and originality, which would be explained in the game's backstory. Remove that backstory, and the game becomes unbelievable, pointless and unoriginal.
EA gave themselves a good shot in the mouth for saying that single-player story-driven games are done for.
I for one prefer the single-player experience since that's pretty much all I have time for these days with everything else going on in my life.
Turns out, MP only games were a passing trend.
WoW and CoD would like to have a word with you.
I just spent over a hundred hours on Fallout: New Vegas, a single-player game with an immense amount of content, a high replay value, and no multi-player. This is also a model that works, and works very well.
Then again, EA does publish BioWare games, which do try to connect you to the web without leaning on multi-player, though sometimes in silly ways. If that's all me means, then it's annoying as crap, but not so bad. But if you do stop making long, quality single-player experiences, EA, then I'll have to buy my games elsewhere.
"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"
They may emphasize the multiplayer a lot because its a band-aid, but what he said there was "online services" also, which means they don't want to just put out a single-player disc and walk away from it. They want to support it afterwards with good DLC, because people are becoming big happy buyers for DLC, especially additional campaign time (like Borderlands and Fallout 3 which added a lot of additional game-time).
Sure, they will add more multiplayer to games, and I'm sure a lot will feel tacked on, but what EA has said to me is that at least they will support that multiplayer if people choose to flock to it, and at the very least improve it over time, and if people love the single-player, then they're gonna support that too.
So out of touch with reality their games still sell well and they still make money.
@everybody moaning
You don't have to suffer ea's choices, just don't play their games and cut the melodramatics. You will live longer.
1.) Open mouth wide
2.) Insert foot deep
Done.
Games I've enjoyed the most this year: Basara, DKC Returns, Muramasa, Arkham Asylum, Pac-Man CE DX, Mass Effect 2...all of them have been strictly single-player experiences for me, and rather rewarding at that. Oh, and Fallout isn't selling like hotcakes because it's a multiplayer killfest, it's because a SINGLE player can lose themselves in a world for large amounts of time. Think before you speak, EA.
Although I do partake in the occasional SSFIV, MonHun, and Mario Kart online.
Am I bad person?
I don't think single player is going anywhere, but it will pale in comparison to playing co-operative campaign type scenarios with friends.
Besides, nothing ever really goes away. Take a look at 2D platformers this gen.
Mark my words, Dead Space 2 is going to SUCK compared to part 1. Nearly everything you have seen for it has been been focused on the multiplayer, which means the single player is a second thought and will probably be akin to Force Unleashed II, a rushed mess of what should have been decent ideas.
That's why, imo, games like Mass Effect, Heavy Rain, God of War do so well, and execute amazing. They concentrate on what they're trying to achieve without worrying out how they're gonne let players tea bag each other from accross the world.
and even more forced co-op ( ie like re 5 where If you play alone your screwed at enjyoing the game)
now more online like demons souls I would like more with....why has no one fallowed after this.....
god I hope they don't ruin mass effect or dragon age with this
Unless they make two separate titles. One could wrap up the existing trilogy as a single player game, and the other could introduce a multiplayer series based around the First Contact War...yeah, that might work.
EA just doesn't publish Bioware, they own Bioware. This really worries me. I don't mind MP off-shoot games, like a Mass Effect: First Contact, but hopefully they leave the main series alone.
Come the fuck on, EA, you brought us two of this generations best single player experiences (Mirror's Edge and Dead Space). Now you're saying it's dead? I'm playing DS2 for single player, and single player only.
I want story and immersion. Not soulless team deathmatch clones and a billion other modes that no one will play more than a month after release.