EA: Single Player Is A Dying Breed

Speaking to Develop, EA Games label president Frank Gibeau has claimed that single player-only-games games are on their way to extinction and that "online is where the innovation, and the action, is at".

"I volunteer you to speak to EA's studio heads, they'll tell you the same thing," he said. "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," he affirmed. "Online is where the innovation, and the action, is at."

Gibeau was then quick to clarify that EA doesn't force their studios to add multiplayer - or any other design aspect - to their games. "I mean, EA used to be against M-rated content," he gave an example. "Go check out Dead Space [laughs]. It's one of my core cultural studio values to allow developers to decide more on what they want to build. 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."

Add new comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Comments

it's probably more cheaper to

it's probably more cheaper to make just mp lol

single player involves AI design, story, plot, etc.. i've been seeing this a lot, they trying to make us believe it's the "pay for play" bs that is on

For example, i loved the KOTOR series, but I'm not in the mod to go play the new online game its being made. I love games with AI skirmish, i love plots and single player stuff.

Even more, i love LAN gaming! But that doesn't make them money, right?

Yeah EA... Right... ¬¬

sure.. cause Medal Of Honor campaing sucks every singleplayer game is dying xD if the SP in some games is dying its because they dont focus the same time that they spend for the multiplayer.. for example, i like to play COD online and SP on my ps3 but i enjoyed a LOT the MGS4 singleplayer, God Of War 3 story, they dont need online gaming, maybe some co-op or co-op online but without the singleplayer story these games are nothing..

SP is a dying breed.

Of course, EA is following the nature of all corporate policies since the first organized fishery back to the very origin of society. SP games need development, plot, dialogue, and a lot of smart guys/gals doing things besides coding it all. Too many expenses to release a product. So, why not going into MP instead? you don´t need brains,only eyes, fingers and is all shoot-drive-cast-hack-slash. Downgrading quality. For us,oldies, hardcore gamers for the last 25 years, this is the beginning of the end of real gaming industry. No more an art, back to all business. Fucking corporate pricks!

The entire reason...

The entire reason I play video games is to get away from the seething mass of retards that constitutes this pathetic species. Otherwise I'd go out and get drunk, or something

Why must I play with some awful teenager from Seattle, when you've been able to code a perfectly polite and functional artificial intelligence for the past ten years?

Video games are going the way of Hollywood... Lowest common denominator is all that counts.

SP are still strong and still fun

From a gamer's pov, I still enjoy SP, some of the games already released put up a good engaging story, I can start by saying ES:Oblivion, one of my fav SP games ever and Morrowind with it. The bioshock series also packed a punch in the SP story and there's so many other SP games that are still selling well. What has always worked imo, is a game with both SP and MP. Best of both breeds and should remain like that.

As a matter of fact take warcraft 3, a good old rts with a very well made SP story and a solid online system played to this day (that's 8 years since release).

EA may see it their way, but the real question is: how do the rest of the companies say?

EA is lost

Ea has lost their connection to gamers, first they had shity franchies games then they got greedy and droped the big names to make their own shity games now they have found a way to make their games even worse

Fire & Forget?

I thought this was funny "as opposed to fire-and-forget, packaged goods only, single-player, 25-hours-and you’re out."

Doesn't anyone remember the good ol' psx days when you had to play an SP game for 40-80hrs. It was not just big name games like Final Fantasy and such. When games were being developed in that era they spent longer then a month to develop them with new consoles they are getting lazier and charging more.

How I see it the new consoles out there should be packing in better SP games then they should MP mainly because there is so much more room for development. There's no excuse that the disc or whatever does not have the room for instance Legends of Dragoon has 4 cds and has at least 30+ hrs of gameplay and if you want to unlock everything much much more. Hell one ps2 dvd should have the compacity to 4x the game + more now we are talking dual layer and blu rays theres just no excuse..

PSX - CD 700mb -> 30-40hr gameplay
PS2 - DVD 4gb -> 20hr gameplay
PS3 - Blu-Ray 25gb -> 10hr gameplay

It is rediculkous

PSX - CD 700mb -> 30-40hr

PSX - CD 700mb -> 30-40hr gameplay PS2 - DVD 4gb -> 20hr gameplay PS3 - Blu-Ray 25gb -> 10hr gameplay

console grapics quality on a scale of 1-10

psx - 2 -> ps2 - 4 -> ps3 - 8

what takes up the most space! well graphics of course! the addition story line takes up almost nothing but companies now are pumping the graphics up as high as they can. they blow their budget and time on graphics then the story line suffers or is cut short. such is the modern video game

Interesting...

That's pretty terrible that they think there isn't any money in SP games anymore(reading between the lines here) since their SIMS franchise is basically the #1 selling game in PC history (besides MYST of course, and shocker! that is a SP game as well, but not a EA game) with the newer versions of SIMS being able to incorporate towns that are available online (not a bad idea actually).

It's just a case of the me-too's. They see Blizzard raking in the cash from WOW and they say, "Wow (no pun intended) if they can do it, so can we. We don't need to spend millions on titles that are substandard, we can make a few online only games and milk the cow dry until someone comes out with another innovative idea, then we can hop on the bandwagon too! Genius! Let's all go smoke 100 dollar bills now..."

But a business is a business, indie games are going strong thanks to Steam and other venue's like that. EA is going to continue to do what they do. If people don't like it, they can always start their own video game firm with whatever rules they want. But remember this, the majority will hold the vote, and popularity is what drives business.

In conclusion, I just wanted to say "Fuck EA, fuck them up their stupid asses".

coop on a single pc

coop games on a single pc, with splitscreen for instance,would be fun.
I always ask myselfe, why it is possible to play Resident Evil5 with splitscreen on a PS3 but no on PC.
The only games that allow coop on a single machine are mostly console ports as well.

split screen sucks ass anyway

split screen sucks ass anyway and for the most part is pointless/hard on the computer most people don't use their tv therefor they have a small screen, also you'd need to have at least 1 person using an xbox controler. which is what people on pc's strive to avoid

True and yet false.

Well innovations can happen even in single player story driven games, so its not 'at' multiplayer level. Besides multiplayer/mmorpgs games are fun, precisely because your are able to interacte with a non A.I driven character. Hence translates well in an action orientated game.
However, i really couldnt see how that wud play in a survival Horror game (Im well aware that resident evil 5 had co-op, but resi 5 wasn't even a bit horrifying).
Story driven games are somehow to me better suited for single player action.
For me Story driven multiplayer games is like, having a someone peep into a book while im actively reading. Im sure we all have dealt with annoying people with microphones while playing Counter-strike or a Mmo.

Anyhow this is just my taughts on the topic.
Regards
lucas

Just my opinion

Single player games aren't going anywhere anytime soon. (i'm not a huge fan) but think of games like Halo. Had those all been just mp games it NEVER would have took off. You need the story, why am I this guy and why do I want to friend/shoot/kill/destroy planet/etc. What is this enviroment, why does x = y. Single player walks you through and sets you up for mp aspects. co-op's aren't ever built right. 1/2 the time they have it eliminate the story aspect.

Fallout with a friend or 4 tops on the same epic scale would be fun and have replay value especially if they actually followed through with add-ons and updates. Digitally distributed at that even. I personally think co-op epic stlye games are a rarely explored big money idea. Elder scrolls with a friend or two, Assassins Creed co-op with a story built around that idea to start with, not a afterthought.

Like someone mentioned earlier, there is no decent way to monitor all the idiots on live etc. I have played games at times where someone repeats nigger for 15 minutes as loud as they can just because they think its funny. Other times people fucking sing on it for ever, yell, EAT FOOD, set the mic in front of a radio, talk about work, kids crying, etc. I ONLY play games like COD with friends....EVER, for those reasons.

There are many cool features that could be done online that I never see. instead of a boundless chat channel, I want a distance set. You stand next to me I hear you fine, walk a few feet away, quieter. Across a field I cant hear anything you are saying. Maybe you find or buy a radio to talk to someone at range etc.

How about giving us a game where the world is stationary, but weekly, monthly, whatever scripts are all changed for kick ass missions etc. you dont have to reinvent the wheel each time, just new scripts and voice packs for those scripts etc. Maybe one month blow half the city up. Tons of things could be done online to enrich the experience and keep good games that dont have to rely on other players, but would enhance the play if you chose to.

SP games will always have a place, but adding a mp aspect to story driven games as opposed to death match 10 map bullshit (i enjoy I admit but gets old quick)would be well received I think. There is a ton of creative freedom that is still untapped. Persistent online worlds, but with sp like stories for the players in it. I know I'd pay, even a monthly fee for a game with those types of features as LONG as it was actually maintained, which is where most fail.

Like I said, just 1 gamers opinion...

I much prefer single player

I much prefer single player games, HOWEVER, SP Co-Op is a win-win situation. I find it irritating to try to enjoy a good COD game with 12yr olds who get headshots on you every time you spawn.

I'm not good with FPS, but i do enjoy them and play them. playing online becomes a massacre and no fun for me at all. among many other games where 12yr olds with no job/wife/kids own me....

Good games but...

Ask yourself this, wouldn't those games have been better if you had one or two friends by your side instead of bots? Don't know about you but the majority of gamers would says yes.

Dying doesn't mean dead, The existence of sp games today does not invalidate this claim.

And that wouldn't be so bad if full campaign co-op replaces sp now would it?

I think co-op mode is often

I think co-op mode is often simplified at the expense of gameplay, and it needs to be.

imagine a campaign that takes 30+ hours to complete, saves would have to be in sync, you would both need to be available at the same time, and both agree what course you want to take within the game, like important in-game choices.

making co-op as deep as single player just wont happen i fear, that's why i say SP isn't dying at all.

theres lots of people who love a good story, SP is a great way of being immersed into the story, to live out the choices, taking it online would water it down too much.

I disagree

"saves would have to be in sync"

That's what the client-server architecture is for, just the server has to save, if the clients want to have the save files too then a simple upload after the save is complete would suffice (but is unnecessary).

"you would both need to be available at the same time"

That's the basic principle of multiplayer, and people play together often. Sure some scheduling might need to be done for longer sessions but nothing that doesn't already happen (think WoW).

"and both agree what course you want to take within the game, like important in-game choices"

That's part of what in-game chat/voice is for. Nowadays its used to relay and discuss important tactical information, decide on courses of action etc. Again, its nothing that doesn't already happen.

"SP is a great way of being immersed into the story"

Unlike what game makers would have you believe, immersion is not a characteristic of the game. It's a skill that the players have (to varying degrees), if you're good at it you'll be quite immersed in the story, if not then you won't and will need help(graphics, sounds, etc). After all, people did get immersed in games 20 years ago and they had no help at all and co-op campaigns were fairly common back then (via lan or serial cables, no internet of course), its not a new concept at all.

To sum it up, there is absolutely nothing that needs to be watered down to turn a good SP campaign into a good co-op campaign, there's no new technology that needs to be created, its all available. Those of us who had a taste of it know how much better it can be, those who didnt, either want to try or refuse it (afraid of changes).

see co-op like that would be

see co-op like that would be amazing co-op as it is is simply okay but never that will never kill sp. why ? do you always want your friend to be around? we play games to escape things even friends at times. there are times you just want to play alone.
worst off if you had to (or only wanted to/could) play a 30+ hour game with another person a lot of peoples lives just don't snyc up right to allow for that to be finished quickly so you could really wanna play the next part yet never yet have to wait.

You can play co-op alone...

"a lot of peoples lives just don't snyc up right to allow for that to be finished quickly so you could really wanna play the next part yet never yet have to wait."

That's what matchmaking is for. You don't always have to play with friends. There are random strangers around to play with, vent, screw around and all that sh*t. But if you feel like playing alone, create a passworded server and do it? That should be co-op without the other people but with the great advantage of cutting production costs since a SP specific mode doesn't have to be made.

Sounds Good

Ok, EA, lets go with that idea. Do away with single player. Except if I am going to buy a game without single player then I expect to pay half or less, around 30 bucks for the game. Oh, if you decided that these mp games should charge a subscription then I would expect the game to be free, since I have to pay to even play it at all. Hows that grab ya?

I agree

I think this person has the right idea. If the focus is all on multiplayer, the game had better be half price, since half the game is gone.

However, this means single player games that have no multiplayer option should also cost less.

single player games will

single player games will never effectively die.

just because multiplayer games are heavily tied into the information wave our society is heading into doesnt mean the roots of video games will be killed off.

What those money-grubbing

What those money-grubbing bastards really mean is that single player doesn't bring in enough money (especially if you're incapable of hiring good writers and developers!). Multiplayer is where the money's at, because you can charge people the price of one cheap game every month. EA wants to milk the average inexperienced young gamer. But don't worry EA, if you disappear from the single-player market, you can be sure that good developers will fill your place. You won't be missed.

Not so wrong

Single player is fun. But I do agree that single player only games are losing their value. A few can still be very good but I'm left with that feeling 'oh man if this game had mp it'd be perfect'.

Co-op campaigns, I believe, are one of the ways to go. Enjoying a good campaign with your friends is much better than on your own. Sharing adventures, working together instead of being a resolve-all-situations one man army.

Still, I'm surprised. I don't find myself agreeing with EA's statements often (or at all until now).

This is just freaking dumb

They have not done there homework on anything.

I for one can only play Single player due to fact that i do not have Hi-speed nor can i get it. so theres a few players out there that are like this.

Second Single player helps get the point of the game across to the player. and helps fill in the story where multi player would most likely skip things.

One thing that i think that Multi player could have that currently doesnt have ( atleast to me ) is do the Single player story mode in a Multi player world. making the game/story even harder than ever. making a player unable to play the story by him self. and there for allowing for others to join the Story and going thro it like that of Wow.

Single player should never be faded out for any reason. i for one cant see any reason to fade it out. just because theres a ungodly amount of players playing online than offline. How do they know how many play offline. theres no way to keep track. of those that are in the shawdows like me playing offline. also theres some that feel the online gaming is evil ( just saying and speaking for that part ) regardless theres still a hand full of reasons why not to fade them out.

plus never do or say anything with out have done your home work and polls to back up your statements.

Not so...

"I for one can only play Single player due to fact that i do not have Hi-speed nor can i get it. so theres a few players out there that are like this."

The VAST majority plays online and that's what they care about. It's just how business works.

"One thing that i think that Multi player could have that currently doesnt have ( atleast to me ) is do the Single player story mode in a Multi player world"

That's my favorite feature in games(few have it, but the number is increasing).

"Single player should never be faded out for any reason. i for one cant see any reason to fade it out. just because theres a ungodly amount of players playing online than offline"

You pointed out the reason yourself, player = $. They go where the most $ can be found. Not to mention making a sp mode along with mp costs more.

"How do they know how many play offline. theres no way to keep track. of those that are in the shawdows like me playing offline"

That's rather simple, lets do some basic maths:

X = amount of games sold
Y = average amount of people playing online
Z = approximate amount of people who play offline

Z = X - Y

Since they don't care about how many pirates are playing that's a pretty reliable formula. And they can also estimate the error percentage giving them pretty accurate figures.

"plus never do or say anything with out have done your home work"

Right back at you.

Just as a reminder, I don't like EA as a company. They are overly greedy (more so than usual), cheap, franchise milkers and an absolute zero regarding innovation. But in this VERY particular case, I believe they are correct in what they said.

I just had to comment on this

I just had to comment on this one. Your 'pretty reliable formula' says that:

X = Z + Y

That is, total gamers are the sum of players playing online plus players playing offline. I´d say that´s a pretty damn good discovery!

And so how do they do the estimate about players who play offline?

Come on.

I am appalled...

Sorry, I thought that much was obvious. I mean, its capitalism 101, so here we go:

Sales figures?

Think companies make up numbers when they say game x has sold 2 million copies? They (publishers and resellers/retail) keep a registry of every single game copy sold (that's how they charge for it, apply taxes etc) hence they have the total number whether they like it or not.

theres a few others. those

theres a few others. those are just 2 of the most popular/recent ones. theres none if you look at what ea does. ea's single player games are short which is why they don't think much about them. but as gta and fallout have shown, both being MASSIVE titles that have sold millions. people still want singleplayer. multiplayer is okay but you forget the human factor. people are dickbags plain and simple. a great example is l4d2 it SUCKS playing online with random people... try it you'll want to destroy humanity. another good example would be all of xbox lives online chatter.... yes screaming 12 year olds is where its at! people play games to escape from real life, and ultimately other people

Add new comment