EA killing single player games?

I knew there was another game I was forgetting.

Why do people think online integration for single player games is a bad thing? Do people think Dark Souls's online integration took resources away from the main game?

edited 5th Sep '12 7:21:21 PM by unnoun

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/08/29/spec-ops-the-line-dev-brands-games-multiplayer-a-waste-of-mon/

I'm reminded of this.

Yes. People do.

They're full of shit, in my opinion, but they do.

Then explain my link.

I think most people are worried about games' multiplayer being more important and resource consuming than the singleplayer. Not just small online features being present in the singleplayer.

Online integration =/= multiplayer.

There ya go.

edited 5th Sep '12 7:25:47 PM by CorrTerek

...why? he was reffering to dark souls, im pretty sure.

Your link was about Multiplayer. Multiplayer and online integration aren't the same.

People that say Online Integration is bad are full of shit.

People that say Multiplayer is bad are also full of shit, but they at least have some good points, and can point to times when Multiplayer has been bad, and wasn't handled well.

And obviously, when multiplayer is outsourced and ends up conflicting with the single player that's bad. Multiplayer for the sake of multiplayer is usually not a good idea.

edited 5th Sep '12 7:30:19 PM by unnoun

It's not just the resources it can also be annoying and tacky.

When you're watching a film do you feel the need to go on facebook and chat with friends about it while you're in the middle of watching it?

Do you really need someone to type "LOL ROFLMAO LE UPVOTE XD" when something funny happens during a film?

Not all games are social events like Co D or Mario Party or something like Dark Souls where the game is so difficult you could use a hand from others. In many singleplayer games other people have no business invading the experience.

edited 5th Sep '12 7:28:22 PM by ShadowScythe

I'm not saying online integration is inherently bad, but the conventional wisdom spreading among publishers that you must have an online/social/multiplayer component or die is. Very few developers have the clout to be able to say "well we don't want to if we don't have to." Bethesda is one. Nintendo is another. If you have a limited budget, ideally you want to be able to spend it on the areas that will best serve making a good game, period.

Valve is technically also adding online components to future single-player games, going forward. Granted, if it's stuff like Portal 2's co-op, I don't think people will complain that much.

Film is not an interactive medium, and therefore a bad comparison. You wouldn't need a friend's help to watch a film.

edited 5th Sep '12 7:32:01 PM by unnoun

What game does this happen in?

I know if I saw anyone do an update like "BLAH BLAH EARNED BLAH BLAH" I'd probably block them.

Its annoying and no one cares.

Yeah, but that's Valve. They will polish everything to a high gloss and make it work together, release dates be damned. Budget? They'll make it back on release.

As long as they give us a proper Half Life game ending in 3, they can do all the online integration they want after that.

edited 5th Sep '12 7:37:34 PM by Elle

Four major component reasons:

1. It ruins portability. You can't play the game without active Internet meaning you can't play a traditional LAN party or just bide some time on your own while your Internet is down. (To say nothing of lightweight, portable games you can run off a flash drive.)
2. It's insecure. Any connection on the Internet can be intercepted and read/exploited. ANY. CONNECTION. Put some strings attached like say a credit card number or even a name in that connection and now you suddenly have a massive liability risk for identity fraud.
3. It's insincere. It puts the expectation that somehow single player gamers are lesser creatures, second class if you will. That the online multiplayer component if present is the actual game and anything else is merely Filler at best.
4. It runs the risk of being illegal. Depending on what you do for your online integration you may cross the wrong side of the law in regards to information sharing, wiretapping, privacy laws, and contract law.

The interactivity isn't the point. There are films you watch with friends and chat and joke and cheer and laugh and it adds to the fun (like say Commando) and then there are films you watch alone where joking around with friends would ruin the experience (for example, The Shawshank Redemption). And the same thing applies to games.

It's a broad generalisation against social network elements in gaming, feel free to knock it down with examples of good social elements in games (and by this I don't mean co-op or MP since the discussion has changed to point out that these aren't the same thing).

My point is that some games are much more fun when you're playing on your own and others are great fun with friends (the new Mortal Kombat is the perfect game with friends) adding multiplayer to the former defeats the point and requires a lot of extra resources that will be diverted away from the SP, and adding social elements to the former can detract from a lot of the experience and the atmosphere when some dick online keeps messing around.

Online Sims 4 actually sounds kinda fun.

But forced multiplayer components? Isn't that kinda overkill?

Developers other than EA have been mulling over pushing games to require a connection at a minimum. As for multiplayer in general that is up in the air. Drop in drop out co-op is becoming popular and they usually have controls keep other players out if you don't want co-op. Pure multi-player only is still just a general part of the mix.

As for Wasteland 2. There was sequel to Wasteland courtesy of EA however they decided to not give it the name Wasteland 2.

EA dropped any direct connect to Waste Land and Fount of Dreams in 2003.

Wasteland 2 is the rebirth of the sequel being down outside of the hands of EA.

I can see how you can get Wasteland 2 is being done via Kick Starter to keep big companies like EA out of it.

For those claiming Jaf has lied and demand he provide proof you also need to provide proof that he lied or was grossly innacurate and not just take you on your word.

Plus, isn't the Wasteland IP was held by Konami by the time Fargo got it?

Just a note: had 2K had the same policy, BioShock would have never been made, because Ken Levine was adamant about not having multiplayer divest attention from the game.

And again, this source worked directly with both Bio Ware and Lucas Arts. (And he also discussed with me how SWTOR was also released way too early. They wanted a March release.)

edited 5th Sep '12 8:54:44 PM by JAF1970

Warren Spector had nothing to do with Bioshock. He was however one of the main devs of System Shock, which Bioshock was based on.

He was also a dev for Deus Ex. Which had a multiplayer.

edited 5th Sep '12 8:53:11 PM by unnoun

I'm sorry but "I know a guy who knows a guy" doesn't fly with me.

I have no way to know you don't actually have a source, but with vague statements like that, that does tend to be the case.

Deus Ex is a case where the MP was added after launch iirc, as opposed to resources taken away from SP during development.

I don't require you to believe me.

Multiplayer was added in the 1.112 patch, long after release.

And I meant Ken Levine.

edited 5th Sep '12 8:56:50 PM by JAF1970