PS3 News: EA: Single Player Only Experiences "Finished" - PS3 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

EA: Single Player Only Experiences "Finished"

It's a hot-button issue amongst veteran gamers, many of whom remain convinced that the multiplayer boom has had a noticeably negative effect on single-player adventures.

Many - including yours truly - dreads the day that single-player campaigns become obsolete and everyone only cares about online multiplayer. And although many designers and developers say there will always be a place for the solitary gamer, EA isn't buying it. In speaking with Develop, EA Games president Frank Gibeau said his company will remain focused on "connected gameplay experiences," and that the era of single-player entertainment is slowly dying away. Said Gibeau:

"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. 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."

Gibeau does clarify that he's not merely talking about multiplayer gaming, but other forms of "connectivity" with interactive entertainment. An example of that might be Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit, which doesn't require online connectivity but with the Autolog feature, it certainly encourages a player to be online. But of course, there are still plenty of quality titles out there that don't bother with multiplayer, including the recent Vanquish and Enslaved: Odyssey to the West, as well as premier, measuring-stick titles like God of War III and Heavy Rain.

But what concerns many is that the most popular games tend to be very multiplayer-driven; Call of Duty is only one example. Furthermore, the sheer amount of time players put into online multiplayer is reminiscent of...well, obviously, of the MMO mentality, which contains certain addictive elements. This may be what's driving the multiplayer explosion these days, but there's one thing of which we're certain: if EA is right (and we don't think they are) and the single-player campaign dies...millions of gamers - yes, millions - might stop playing tomorrow. Including me.

Tags: ea, video games, gaming industry, single player games

12/8/2010 8:39:32 PM Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (145 posts)

556pineapple
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 9:35:29 PM
Reply

I almost never play online. I stick to single player or split-screen. I just don't find playing online very appealing, unless it's with someone I know. Count me among those who will stop playing when they do away with single-player.

Agree with this comment 13 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

FM23
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 9:42:06 PM
Reply

Red Dead Redemption has MP...rarely play it. Assassin Creed Brotherhood has MP...tired of the unfair mechanics, don't play it. Both games were purchased for the single player experience and both delivered. EA is putting that pointless MP in Dead Space 2...guess what, I'll try it and never play it again as my interest lies in the single player. Seriously, how many MP games can be produced if everyone is already attached to one MP game already. Oh EA...leave MP as an option, not the primary goal. Man I can wait for MGS5 online...anyone else?

Agree with this comment 7 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Kiryu
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 9:44:16 PM
Reply

I don't like Online Games.I hate the way the Current Industry is headed.
I love Single Player Games because i am a story and a Collecting Gamer.I still play ps1 and ps2 games because of the story and gameplay while playing the story.

Agree with this comment 16 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

NoSmokingBandit
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 9:47:51 PM
Reply

"Online is where the innovation, and the action, is at."

Only if your developers suck.

Agree with this comment 22 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

shadowscorpio
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 1:12:52 AM

Thank you. I also think what he said was a stupid statement. If he is right then how in the hell was there so much action and innovation during the ps1 and ps2 gens where most of the games were single player campaigns?

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

NoSmokingBandit
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 7:32:34 AM

And this gen theres Demon's Souls, Uncharted, and Valkyria Chronicles just off the top of my head.

Its not like online games have changed a whole lot. New guns, new maps, same stale gameplay. The only game i liked to play online is KZ2 because of the constantly switching objectives and the class system. Even then its not really innovative, they just put the best of everything into their online system.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

THEVERDIN
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 9:49:51 PM
Reply

That's when I stop.

Agree with this comment 8 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 9:50:04 PM
Reply

Online is where a lot of the action is, but none of the innovation. They are all largely the same few modes grafted onto the game. And as long as games are gimped by DVD, they will always suffer from the addition of MP. Look at Bioshock 2, great game but significantly worse textures plus pop-in and a shorter campaign all add up to the MP gimping it. And for CoD and other wannabe CoDs, well the SP is just a brief excursion.

All games already have connectivity be they trophies or leaderboards or whatever, but if MP became the norm you can count me out of my favorite hobby as well.

Agree with this comment 11 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 11:13:11 PM

Indeed. Just how much innovation has there been in shooters in the last 10 years? Halo 3 is basically the same as Halo 2 and Halo. OK, there are additional/different weapons and vehicles. But the basic gameplay hasn't changed at all. The same is true in most shooters and has been since network play arrived with LAN parties and Doom.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ricochet
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 7:04:17 AM

"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"

NO, I VOLUNTEER YOU SPEAK TO THE GAMERS ABOUT THAT; MANY WOULD SAY OTHERWISE.

Here's the problem with "innovation" online. You either innovate or you find a 'winning formula' for the masses. Case-in-point WoW vs Eve online. WoW represents the latter while Eve the former. Ever wonder why Eve is so successful even though there is a horrendous turnover rate for new-comers? It's because it does deliver what no other online community does. HAVING COMPLETE CONTROL over the universe and market. The game even allows you to purchase extended game time by using "in-game" money in itself. This would be the equivalent of re-newing your Xbox live subscription by attaining XX amount of achievements.

However, that type of market is not a dominating one. Ironically, it's a NICHE. Another game is also that innovative "online" portion of Demon's Souls, and I'm betting none of the EA so-called studio heads didn't think of that as an innovative "online" system.

But guess what, it doesn't make the single-player campaign any more obsolete. Unless they're adamant they can keep to their plan of "innovative" online (looks at Dead Space 2), as opposed to a copycat formula done by COD. I may give them a chance. If not, then there's that extra time I need to platinum my other games.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

MadKatBebop
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 10:11:36 PM
Reply

That's disappointing to hear, besides the Battlefield series I never buy a game for multiplayer its all about the singleplayer. I hope, pray devs never remove singleplayer completely from games, if they do that's when I stop buying new games and consoles and stick with the old ones.

Agree with this comment 8 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

main_event05
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 10:12:15 PM
Reply

Just goes to show how out of touch EA is.

Agree with this comment 13 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tim Speed24
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 7:11:38 AM

I agree. I play online 2% of the time and play single player or split screen 98% of the time.

Too many idiots with crying babies and music playing in the microphones. Not enjoyable.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

AcHiLLiA
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 2:16:05 PM

that can be easily fixed, mute the microphone volume, that's what I do when I play COD online here and there after a break from my SP missions and other games as well.

Last edited by AcHiLLiA on 12/9/2010 2:17:45 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

main_event05
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 10:02:15 PM

ya, but if you mute the mics you can't hear the others and there's no point in playing with the mic off since you can't hear the team.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 10:17:47 PM
Reply

Wow!

I mean, just wow! How out of touch are these guys? Single Player gaming is the heart and soul of gaming. Hell, you might as well say that single reader book reading is dead, or that solo movie viewing is on the way out. What a bunch of 100% pure BS.

What, did these fools see Call of Duty and decide that because the world is entranced by the opportunity to shoot each other in a virtual environment we no longer like single player games?

I'm sorry, I just point blank refuse to accept this idea that Single Player is dead. If anything I'd say that multi-player is ultimately doomed because of the sheer number of immature jerks online who make online gaming as pleasurable as walking across broken glass in bare feet while holding a 50lb weight in each hand.

I am so sick of this multi-player mania.

Agree with this comment 20 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

main_event05
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 11:49:05 PM

Do I dare say??
This is all Microsoft's fault.

Agree with this comment 9 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 12:45:28 AM

LOL! You beat me to it. But I'm sure I can think up some rationalization that makes it all Microsoft's fault...let's see....original Xbox, Halo, multi-player shooter...rise of the twitch gamer...shooter-mania...would you like multi-player with that sir?...Modern Warfare 2...Would you like some single player with your multi-player sir?...Call of Duty Black Ops...EA says single player is dead.

O)K, you're right, it is all Microsoft's fault. Damn them!

LOL! The scary thing is, it actually makes sense.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

SirLoin of Beef
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 8:33:14 AM

Before Halo, there was never online mutliplayer gaming.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 9:05:02 AM

@Sir Loin

You're absolutely right, at least not at this magnitude! (Although, I remember my first online multiplayer experience being Worms Armageddon, which came out long before Halo.)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

main_event05
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 10:07:21 AM

While it wasn't online there was plenty of multiplayer shooters. Golden Eye anyone?? But yea. I didn't get ridiculous till Halo and all its clones came.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 10:12:44 AM

@Sirloin,

Not in the same way. The hideously successful Warcraft and games like it were/are kind of like harbingers of doom because they brought a certain kind of semi-addictive alternate reality. I refer you to the slightly off-beat, but terribly accurate South Park episodes that are themed on World of Warcarft and then Facebook for examples of what I mean on that. But that kind of thing started way, way back with Multi-user Dungeons. The thing about MUDs was that they really weren't in the same league as World of Warcraft and the like.

Multi-player video gaming really took off with Doom played over IPX/SPX networks. The early LAN parties were where things really started to get interesting. It didn't take long for that to spread to IP based multi-player death match, and the shooter craze was born. You had games like Quake (the original shareware version) that started to stretch the envelope a little more. But Doom established the basics of the strangest multi-player video game trend. MMORPGs have moved into video game territory, but shooters are what represent - in my mind at least - the core of the multi-player online video gaming. Sure there were some multi-player online experiences before Halo, the PS2 had some, but they were limited by the technology and online service. Halo was really the first video game to get just the right balance between video game, online service and online playability, combined with the online user experience to back it up.

If you feel otherwise, I'd love to hear your reasoning.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

SirLoin of Beef
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 11:20:38 AM

I guess I should've put the ol' <sarcasm> tags around my post. I know that multiplayer gaming was around before Halo. For example, I played a ton of MP on Halo's precursor, Marathon when I was a graphic designer. MMORPGS have been around before XBL.

I responded like I did because, come on... this is really Microsoft's fault? I hate sounding like I'm defending them because I'm not a big fan of theirs but sometimes the "blame Microsoft" mentality goes overboard. They've done enough that warrants legitimate blame (poor QC on their consoles, the way they change MS Office all the time, IE, etc.).

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 12:06:30 PM

@Sirloin,

LOL! No worries, I was being slightly less than serious blaming Microsoft. I was just surprised at how reasonable it sounded once I rose to the challenge of rationalizing it all as Microsoft's fault.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

main_event05
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 1:53:26 PM

well, unlike the Highlander, I wholeheartedly blame Microsoft. While they are not the originators the certainly are the instigators.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 2:45:05 PM

@Main_event. I don't hold Microsoft blameless at all, but they are not the origin of multi-player gaming.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

swapnilgyani
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 10:18:57 PM
Reply

What?! I take that statement as a personal insult of sorts!

EA was showing signs of improvment this generation, but...oh well...looks like they're back to monkey business.

Agree with this comment 13 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 10:24:35 PM
Reply

Another reason for mento stop supporting EA with my money. :) that's fine, more to give to Sony and Nintendo.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 10:31:33 PM

Can I have one of those mentos? heh heh.

Agree with this comment 10 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 11:09:00 PM

Lol! Gah, I hate this iPhone sometimes.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Nynja
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 3:37:54 PM

Damn autocorrect....

http://damnyouautocorrect.com/

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 10:27:55 PM
Reply

"Online is where the innovation, and the action, is at."
There's a lot to interpret from that claim. I suppose he means the forward momentum that generates revenue in today's gaming is largely being derived from content that offers a heavy online gaming component.

There's problem here, actually.
Michael Pachter claimed that heavy online based games sort of absorb the gamer into a single purchase far longer than a single-player game would absorb. This trend has disrupted the flow of gamer transactions; consequently, gamers are buying fewer games.

This would suggest to me one of two logical approaches: publishers will move away from online driven games-- but how can they when many gamers have chosen to place their money into online heavy games?
Or, publishers will shift their business model to a more "service" oriented format and create fees for playing online. This benefits the publisher because they won't need to design as many games and still be very profitable by charging service fees.

My argument: Many of PS3's blockbusters, Uncharted, Infamous, GTA/RDR, GoW, Assassin's Creed, and Heavy Rain aren't, or aren't really, multiplayer driven. There's markets for these products today even during this new competitive online gamer movement. So why would a publisher want to close doors on avenues of profitability from gamers who are placing their dollars into these products?
This EA guy seems to be making a broad generalization about gaming trends.

It just seems hard for me to buy the notion that this online segment of gamer will brainwash everyone into believing that online gaming is all that's worthwhile today. It's a slap in the face for those who value something single player driven. And it's quite presumptuous for this guy to make such a claim when single player gaming is still growing and evolving into a richer form of entertainment. Games like Uncharted 2, Assassin's Creed, MGS4, and Heavy Rain could not have existed in generations before. How can this segment of content be considered dead?

All I sense is a dev who is a online gamer who recollects days when he grew up playing single player games and then migrated to the online crowd. So using incredibly flawed deductive/conventional wisdom he's convinced everyone else has experienced things through his eyes just the same.
Which as many would probably know is false.



Last edited by Temjin001 on 12/8/2010 10:29:04 PM

Agree with this comment 15 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 10:35:09 PM

Temjin, I think you have nailed it. This isn't about gamers, it's about their business model. They know that by converting a game to a service they can gain a stead, and potentially inexhaustible flow of revenue. Where as producing new games can be risky, because a crap game doesn't make any money.

This is more of that micro-transaction bullcrap that others have mentioned before. Things like Farmville where the basic game is free but you pay a never ending stream of small transactions for additional stuff in the game.

It's not about the gamer, or the games, or making good, interesting or even thought provoking products. It's all about monetizing gamers.

Agree with this comment 8 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Killa Tequilla
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 10:28:47 PM
Reply

I agree with EA and disagree with you all!

SP is slowly dying away... just a matter of time. This is just my opinion, but im just one of many.

SP can't be erased COMPLETELY, but developers will focuse primarily more on MP.

Last edited by Killa Tequilla on 12/8/2010 10:30:11 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 29 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 10:31:20 PM

Yes, well, your avatar image is oddly ironic...

Agree with this comment 29 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 10:35:58 PM

Wanna back that up somehow Killa? I'm curious.

Agree with this comment 12 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

gumbi
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 10:44:01 PM

Highlander: 10 points!

Agree with this comment 16 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

SixSpeedKing
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 10:47:16 PM

Yes Highlander!
Haha I just look at the comment and then the avatar and just have to laugh.

Last edited by SixSpeedKing on 12/8/2010 10:48:10 PM

Agree with this comment 10 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 11:10:56 PM

Clueless.

Agree with this comment 12 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

swapnilgyani
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 11:16:13 PM

I'm just going to assume you forgot to put "</sarcasm>" at the end of your post...

Agree with this comment 8 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

dkmrules
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 11:28:38 PM

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mmBw3uzPnJI/S_5IHGcf5II/AAAAAAABSjk/9PsNThMctCM/s1600/Haters_Gonna_Hate_03.jpg

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 12:28:41 AM

this is exactly who EA and Activision are targeting with their products. twitch influenced youths that think that they're the core gamer crowd after playing a few years of call of duty or an equivalent game. I for one never touch the online component of a game until i fully complete single player.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 12:38:22 AM

Very young...just a guess...

Agree with this comment 8 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lawless SXE
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 1:08:16 AM

You're right, but that doesn't make the concept right. The contingent for online focussed games certainly seems larger, and it's logical that developers will chase that, getting rid of much of the single player in the process. I hate it.
Peace.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

FatherSun
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 6:35:10 AM

@Ben... Very young you guess. The last response to that was from a person who was not so young.. Yet some people portray themselves in a manner that makes them seem this way. I know some very old children that roam the earth. They have grown in age but not in mind and wisdom. I have accepted this fact of life. It makes me appreciate those who make sense so much more.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Killa Tequilla
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 9:39:40 AM

You guys are funny adults. Talking bout gaming like your life depended on it. What would happen to your conversations if you took em somewhere else besides PSX? What would people think?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 14 down Disagree with this comment

MadKatBebop
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 9:48:49 AM

@Killa Tequilla

Come on man, its pretty rude and disrespectful to make fun of them for being proud adult gamers. I'm still young (18) but I agree with everyone of these adult gamers. They have years of experience over us and know what their talking about. So show some respect.

Agree with this comment 12 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 10:19:57 AM

@Killa, really? I mean, really? So, you're saying that we should somehow feel bad for discussing a hobby with a group of like minded individuals? You're saying that if we took our thoughts to another site our comments wouldn't be well received? Why? Because others would disagree with us? Big deal, I often disagree with the immature jerks abusing others on those other gaming sites. Places where the level of discussion revolves around the various nasty things someone would do to me, or my mother if they ever meet me. Oh yeah, as if I value those people's opinions on *anything*. Why do you think the number of readers and comments here at PSX is growing? It's not because people disagree with the overall tone of the site and it's readers comments. So, in the immortal words of Chad Ochocinco, all I can say is, "Child, please."

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 10:20:36 AM

Killa: Grow up. We simply called you on a not-so-educated comment. Most everyone who posts here has a job, family, etc. What is it that YOU do again, besides go to school...?

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ludicrous_Liam
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 10:35:33 AM

BEN!

Why is it when someone says something stupid you assumne they're young? I find it offensive & demand an apology.

Just kidding, but my point still stands :/

Agree with this comment 2 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 10:40:38 AM

Hey Killa... how bout some *real* rebuttle with some well-educated comments to defend yourself instead of blinded jabs at people who are *clearly* (and it is VERY clear) more knowledgable, respectable, and respectful than you are?

Because... really... if you can't legitimately back yourself up without the use of insults, maybe you should either crawl under a rock where you can pretend your pride is protected, or admit that maybe your view wasn't as educated or insightful as you first thought? Maybe... just MAYBE... these educated (and they are well educated), hardworking (most have CAREERS), family based (most have families or at least WIVES), and experienced (clearly been around the block a few times more than you) folks MIGHT have some terrific input to the discussion. And maybe, (you never know!) they might have put much more thought into the topic over the years well before this article was posted.

Because if they're like me, they have been thinking about this for a while. I get the impression you wrote the first thing that went through your head after reading this topic material for the first time in your life. Quite often, if you're mature enough to notice, other people, regardless of experience, actually, often have much deeper insights than you have.

You'd be surprised how wise you can become just by learning to say things like, "maybe you're right" or "I never thought of it that way".

Not that you'll listen... but whatever.

Last edited by Underdog15 on 12/9/2010 10:47:35 AM

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 10:52:31 AM

@LiamDaniels
If it looks like a child, acts like a child, and reasons like a child...

Guess what it is?

Last edited by Underdog15 on 12/9/2010 10:53:03 AM

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 10:57:53 AM

I told you Killa, humble thy self and learn from people who are much older and wiser then you. Your mouth just got you into trouble. Again.

@Liam, don't take offense. Not all young people are stupid but a lot of stupid people tend to be young. Just goes with the territory. There was a time when all of us were young, arrogant and just plain stupid. Besides we know how young and dull Killa is. He's told us in previous threads. This isn't the first time he's ran his mouth about things he doesn't know about.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 11:03:59 AM

Indeed Jawk. I was also prideful and mouth-running at one point. Varsity athletics didn't help. I was quite the trash talker.

Know what it took to fix me?

My wife. lol! Strange what a woman can do to a man.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 11:08:10 AM

Underdog,

Trash talk is the common vernacular of the online gaming world. It's one of the main reasons I am very careful about what I play online.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Killa Tequilla
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 11:09:10 AM

Yea Jawknee, I would like to learn from you guys but how? When instead of a legidimate reply I get all this BS and get called a kid. Thats equivalent to getting called " your retarted " in my point of view. Look sometimes I just need a little explination. Not even Albert Einstein has all the answers to the world.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Killa Tequilla
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 11:23:00 AM

TheHighlander, I wasnt talking about another website :)

Heres my opinion on why PSX community is growing, because I can make a pretty darn good argument everyone has one for themselves and just need to reply :)

Atleast thats what i think

Agree with this comment 1 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 11:30:33 AM

Killa... some people (some more tactfully than others) asked you to add some relevance to your original post. In other words, WHY do you feel SP is dying? And WHY do you think that single players are non-existant?

People will be ok with you having a differing opinion than them if you give it some relevance. ie: explain why, through your own experience or knowledge, why this is the case.

People still likely won't agree, but that's ok and is why we have discussions here. The "adults" (and i do mean to put that in quotes, because really... who knows? I've known some brilliant 16 year olds) here often disagree with each other. But what USUALLY ends up happening, is that people have well thought out discussion and both parties take on at least a small ounce of alternative perspective with them. Plus it helps you learn more about people and what makes humans tick (in the long run, anyways).

The people here didn't REALLY start going after you until you replied with the comment implying our lives revolve around gaming only or that we would somehow get ripped to shreds if we took our opinions elsewhere... this reply coming without further insight to your original post, like we all requested.

What did you think would happen? People are going to call you out on your behavior if you react in a way that avoids the topic and goes after the individuals. And they're going to call you out even further if you can't expand on your thoughts.

I'm sure you've given it lots of thought, but if you can't relay those thoughts to us, what do you expect is going to happen among a group of folks who are used to constructing well thought-out arguments?

All I'm saying is, try not to be offended if people don't agree. People are GOING to be negative. Especially with computer screens to hide behind. Just ignore it and expand on why you originally said what you did.

Does that make any sense?

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 12:02:01 PM

"Heres my opinion on why PSX community is growing, because I can make a pretty darn good argument"

This is an example of why your childish. So PSX is growing because of you? as if you're that important? Riiiiiiiiight....anyway, listen to what Underdog has to say and learn from it because he has the grace and the patience right now to try and help you. I do not.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

CH1N00K
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 1:28:50 PM

I hate to say it guys but the kid has a point. He kind of went about it the wrong way, but it's not something that you guys haven't said before or complained about before.

This generation has seen a major influx on developers who seem to be focusing more and more on the online and multiplayer aspects of a game and less on the single player campaigns.

Do you remember Playstation's old slogan? "Live in your world, Play in ours" That is slowly been taken over by a new slogan. "Forgot the world, Live in ours." How many times have we seen this generation of games that have come out where the career mode is way to short but the multiplayer is good?

Now I definitely don't think that Single Player will forever dissapear, but when you have games like Warhawk, Socom:Confrontation and Mag, who did relatively well sales wise...and had no career storyline at all. When people buy a game now, one of the most commonly asked questions is, "How's the Multiplayer?" How many times have you gotten into an online and heard someone say that they haven't even played the single player?

I myself will pick a good plot, storyline and single player over a multiplayer every time. I don't even go online usually until I've finished the single player campaign. But I am from the "older" generation of gamer. Now into my 30's..I'm the old man online. I grew up playing single player because I didn't have a choice.

The new generation of gamer for the most part are all wired in for playing online. Even Kevin Butler recognizes that. "Not online!?! What is this 1997?!" So although I don't think Career mode will die off completely, I do think that we will see more and more online only games. I wouldn't even be surprised if COD becomes one soon. Like it or not...with everyone and their dog online..multiplayer will slowly become the leader/deciding factor in game sales, if it isn't already.

This means that developers will be spending less time on building a solid storyline and focusing more on making a solid multiplayer.

Last edited by CH1N00K on 12/9/2010 1:47:09 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Killa Tequilla
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 1:57:07 PM

Underdog15, Yea man I understand, I should have backed up my comment with something but CH1N00K explains that really well for me. BTW I greatly appreciate replies like Underdog15's & CH1N00K's. One positive comment leads to another. Things like "Very young...just a guess...""If it looks like a child, acts like a child, and reasons like a child... Guess what it is?"(Negative) comments lead to negative comments. See I have nothing against you all any of you, nor I get in any way affected by these comments. Anyways lets just let it go, but please be nice to people, act like you would if you werent behind that screen.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

gumbi
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 1:58:00 PM

At the expense of coming off like a spelling/grammar Nazi... Killa, you should take note of those little red squiggly lines under the words, it's not just to make your text look pretty.

legidimate: legitimate
your: (when abbreviating 'you' and 'are', there's an apostrophe) you're
retarted: retarded (hmm...)
explination: explanation

Sorry bub, but I just can't take anything you say seriously when you're posts are laden with errors like this.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 1:58:53 PM

@Ch1nook
Moving towards more focus on multiplayer, yes. The single player experience, as you said too, no.

The reason I think the EA pres. is wrong is because he says single player campaign will die (or already has). However, this is incredibly inaccurate. I think that, although there is a larger base of online players, there is a massive clientelle of single players out there.

Games like Final Fantasy XIII or Heavy Rain are great examples. Neither have any online functionality, yet there is a great market for single player entries, providing they are top quality. How many millions world-wide did FFXIII or Assassins Creed II sell? Both great examples of successful titles that catered ONLY to people that appreciate single player experiences (although, I'm sure many who like single player also like online).

At any rate, I would agree there is a marketing trend that -sometimes- promotes multiplayer before single player, but to suggest the single player client base is dying or already dead is way way off. In fact, I believe that a game would probably sell best if it had both amazing single and multi- player experiences.

But there is definitely a giant market for both. Single player campaigns are not dying. And if they truly, it isn't because of the gamers...

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Killa Tequilla
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 2:27:53 PM

@gumbi, im sorry man im using my iTouch to type & I really can't tell what I hit. I can barely see the screen hey but you want to fix grammar? So let's fix grammar

Look at YOUR post. Can you spot the mistake? I'll give you a hint

..."you say seriously when you're posts are laden with errors like this."

Here i'll spot it for you...

" you say seriously when YOU'RE posts are laden with errors like this. "
Doesn't that abbreviate to you are? So you explained it to me but you get it wrong.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 2:58:05 PM

I get bent out of shape about grammar sometimes, too, Gumbi. Usually it's more about repeat offenders like the anonymous cowpatty who NEVER gets the difference between then and than...

But in this instance... i think Killa deserves a cookie. XD

Aw, come on, no hard feelings. It is a -LITTLE- funny, right? ^.^

EDIT: My home computer has the red squiggly, but my work laptop doesn't. When on the lappy, I miss mistakes ALL the time. I type too quickly. lol

Last edited by Underdog15 on 12/9/2010 2:59:58 PM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Nynja
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 4:26:55 PM

Simple answer: Single player isn't going anywhere, not for a long while. In the US alone, there are still over 40% of the population who do not have broadband connections.

As Ben mentioned before, there are MANY single player only titles that still sell better than many multiplayer focused titles: Fallout 3, God of War 3, Alan Wake, Heavy Rain, Final Fantasy XIII, Dragon Age: Origins, Mass Effect 1 & 2, Zelda, Arkham Asylum, Oblivion, Prototype, inFamous, Bioshock, Assassin's Creed 1 & 2. Then there are those titles that have multiplayer components, but the main draw being the single player experience: Metal Gear Solid 4, Uncharted 2, Grand Theft Auto IV, Red Dead Redemption...

In my opinion, only ignorant people would believe single player games are going the way of the dodo. Did you know the most played game in the world is a single player game? Solitaire.

Instead of being sheep, they should try leading the herd. Make a great compelling game and people will play it whether or not it has multiplayer.

Last edited by Nynja on 12/9/2010 4:28:51 PM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 4:27:49 PM

just one of many.,,,,,

......SHEEP?????????

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Fane1024
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 4:34:15 PM

@ Underdog

(this is NOT intended as a personal attack)

That's why it's always a good idea to read your comment before clicking the "submit" button.

People have become too dependent on machines to catch their errors...especially since those machines are then programmed by error-prone humans.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Friday, December 10, 2010 @ 10:03:28 AM

@Fane
oh, I completely agree! And I don't think there's anything in your comment that feels like a personal attack, at all!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

gumbi
Friday, December 10, 2010 @ 10:23:31 AM

Hah! Alright, I gotta give you that one Killa. For shame gumbi, for shame.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

dkmrules
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 10:30:44 PM
Reply

Well, at least EA has the stones (or is dumb) enough to recognize the elephant in the room. While I dont agree at all with this, unfortunately this is where things seem to be heading.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

gumbi
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 10:31:55 PM
Reply

"I think that model is finished."

I'm not even really sure how to comment on this... What the hell? Thank the gaming gods EA's not responsible for any of my favourite titles. I suppose, with that mentality how could they be?

Sorry Monsieur Gibeau, but you're wrong, dead wrong. So wrong in fact that I don't even need to qualify my statement with reason or explanation... just flagrantly and unabashedly wrong.

And if you're right (which you're not) and this comes to pass, then I'm afraid I'll never play another new game again, I'll have to become a 100% retro gamer.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

hadouken
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 10:35:15 PM
Reply

If that happens as much as I love games I may retire. Everybody should be able to play the way they want to play either or on or offline.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BattleFox21
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 10:36:37 PM
Reply

I for one believe he is talking about taking single player to a co-op based option instead and having multiplayer and/or as well. if thats the case I can agree with him for the most part, but then u look at games like UC2 and u say wow will we miss out on games like that if it becomes the standard...I hope not. I think in the future u will see more co-op, single & multiplayer games on disc with the discs getting bigger we can only hope this will be the case tho to be honest it may never happen (standard. I love co-op and multiplayer myself over single player, but there are some games that are just better single player wise FYIO UC2 and Vanquish. IDK about Enslaved: Odyssey to the West. UC2 the online was good, but needs alot of work imho. For one the AK47 sprays way way too much. I went thro clips and couldn't kill ppl, but with M4 killed'em. Anywayz overall MP is here to stay but please dont take SP away too :(

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 10:43:15 PM

Yup, I will miss out on any game that forces me to take help from some online biscuit who might want to shoot me in the head just for fun.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 12:33:16 AM

yes, you will miss out on the experience. for me, gaming is all about immersing yourself in the games world, specifically single player aspect. nothing breaks you out of that experience like an idiotic or sometimes just a plain comment coming from another player.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BTNwarrior
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 10:37:56 PM
Reply

well there are always exceptions, but there are quite a few games out there that have single player only right now that could benifit from some mp. Even RPG's I mean think of how fun it would be to go head to head against some one in a game like valkyria chronicles or get some co-op action in yakuza

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 10:44:30 PM

The online in White Knight Chronicles is a step in the right direction at least.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BTNwarrior
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 10:59:15 PM

never got around to getting it, and now that they are saying that it will come packaged with the second game for free I think I'll be waiting even longer

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lawless SXE
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 1:12:03 AM

I, for one, would love to be able to face off against another player in VC. I mean, the strategies that you need to employ against the AI are great, but imagine needing to evolve it as the other player changes their methods. Would be brilliant. Some games should have it as an add-on, but for many others it is pointless.
Peace.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Fane1024
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 4:38:08 PM

On a similar note, I can't understand why SRPGs like FF Tactics don't always have multiplayer. It seems like a perfect fit, their being Chess-like and all.

Last edited by Fane1024 on 12/9/2010 4:38:45 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 10:42:26 PM
Reply

The fundamental problem with the observation that the single player model is dead is that it is predicated on the fact that yes, multiplayer oriented games do bring in more sales, but all those masses of sales typically add up to casual gamers who literally can't do anything in a game EXCEPT point at something and shoot. EVERYTHING else is "boring" to these gamers.

As such you would be cutting out a massive market share by using MP to try to drive a product forward that there is still plenty of room for like say God of War or Final Fantasy.

Then there is the point that multiplayer gaming commits suicide. After a year there isn't anybody playing any more, and then your game is useless. Not so if you want to re-experience a great SP experience, and collectors always want that. That's why gaming is also an entertainment investment.

Finally, as long as gamers are the ones making games, artistic visionaries like David Cage and Hideo Kojima will continue to come to the forefront to bring us true experiences as opposed to nifty arcade gaming.

Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 12/8/2010 10:48:28 PM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 11:10:01 PM

To me, single player is like movies and multiplayer is like syndicated TV that goes into re-runs immediately it hits 100 episodes.

So you have artists (generally, but not always - there are exceptions) making movies and production companies making TV.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Fane1024
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 4:41:48 PM

I get your point, but high-end TV shows are better than most movies nowadays.

AMC, for instance, makes better dramatic fiction than any studio.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

piratedrunk
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 10:44:19 PM
Reply

I am not too worried. There will always be smaller developers who cater to different gamers. Atlus, NIS, and Level 5 are examples of developers who cater to the jrpg crowd at a time when those games are considered dead by most of the big companies. Same will happen with single player games in general.

I do however welcome online components to single player games like leaderboards and downloadable updates or levels.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lawless SXE
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 1:14:35 AM

Yeah that's true, but when push comes to shove, if those smaller developers can't find a publisher, we won't get the games. But then, there will always be publishers willing to take a risk, so like you, I see no real reasno to worry.
Peace.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 11:06:44 PM

Oh, I like that.

Most Unnecessary Multiplayer...

How about "Shortest Single Player campaign" or "Most pointless sequel" or my personal favorites "Most gratuitous panty shot in a JRPG" and "Most gratuitous panty shot in a sword based fighter"

oh, wait, did I say that out loud?

::flees::

Last edited by Highlander on 12/8/2010 11:08:26 PM

Agree with this comment 7 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

FatherSun
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 6:53:36 AM

To me it seems that they look at games like Uncharted and only wish that could produce such a gem. Oh well we can't so lets go multi!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

main_event05
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 1:55:50 PM

Of topic wreck, but is that the guy from "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"?

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

main_event05
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 6:50:43 PM

That was my second guess. I've seen it before a long time ago. I need to watch it again because I didn't like it when i 1st saw it, but since then my tastes have changed.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 11:20:04 PM
Reply

As I've said before, gaming is a social activity. It's only natural for it to move forward by providing more and more online features.

I doubt those who are complaining about this statement even understand what he's saying. People get all jumpy that all games will become multiplayer shooters when Gibeau clearly states co-op and online services.

The lack of co-op is a CONSTANT complaint around here so it sounds like they're listening to us. Online services, such as the one for NFS mentioned in the article, are innovative and absolutely BRILLIANT.

I don't see how progress like this should be frowned upon.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 11:23:45 PM

No, I understand what he is saying, and I think that what you say might be part of it. However I think that his statement is more about the business model of multi-player games and micro-transactions than anything else.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

swapnilgyani
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 11:46:03 PM

Having modes like co-op and other innovations is one thing. Saying that single player experiences are finsished is quite another...

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 11:46:50 PM

The problem is the progression of this model at a time when Multiplayer already cramps the style of the Single Player experience. Imagine it getting worse.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 11:47:26 PM

You can assume the worst if you want, but it's pretty clear to me that he thinks games in this day and age need to be connected in some way.

I know you enjoyed your time with Burnout Paradise TheHighlander. Was it a mistake for EA to include the online services? I don't. I think that game is a perfect example of just what kind of online connectivity games are capable of. Now with NFS it's gone on to the next level.

Why would you think they're out to micro transaction you to death when their games prove otherwise?

Agree with this comment 3 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 12:40:36 AM

It's a slippery slope Alienange, and you know it. Progress is one thing. Putting multiplayer in everything without hampering single-player is fine. Brotherhood is a good example of that, and you already mentioned NFS - as I did in the article - as a "connected" experience.

However, developers only have a certain budget. They have certain resources. They can only spend what they have...if the primary emphasis shifts from single-player to multiplayer, it's only a simple matter of math. Translation: single-player stuff takes a hit. That's what we're worried about.

It may not matter for the huge studios. But maybe part of the reason we don't have any JRPGs coming stateside is because they don't have multiplayer and the Japanese believe we won't buy them, based on current trends...? Only part of the reason, of course, but a reason, I believe.

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 12/9/2010 12:49:07 AM

Agree with this comment 7 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 9:15:33 AM

@Alienage
"...as opposed to fire-and-forget, packaged goods only, single-player, 25-hours-and you’re out. I think that model is finished."

How does this quote NOT mean he feels the single player model is finished?

You're right... but only in part. Innovation is great, but in the quote, he himself feels single player will take a hit.

Why in the world would you think it's wrong for people who value single player most to be upset about such a statement?

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 10:27:53 AM

But, Alienage, that's not the way his comments scan to me. I have no problem with adding connected features to single player games, such as leaderboards and the like. Hell, trophies work in a similar fashion allowing you and your friends to compare your progress through a game like Infamous, for example.

No, I have no problem with that kind of thing at all. Burnout Paradise included multi-player online, because it's gameplay suited multi-player online. The single player experience didn't suffer at all.

But that's not always true. Soul Calibur 4 is half the game it should have been because Namco spent too much time and money trying to get the online to work well. Whether or not they succeeded in getting it to work online is a moot point, but the single player campaign in Soul calibur 4 was laughably shallow compared to the single player elements of Soul Calibur 2 and 3.

The thing is, if he's talking about adding connected features to enhance the single player game, then he's not going to go on and describe single player gaming as "finished.". To my reading of his comments, he's making a far stronger point about the future (in his view) of single player experiences in games. Since he's president of EA, his view matters, and he views single player games as "finished.", it's that simple for me. I don't disagree with adding connected features to single player games. I do completely disagree with wasting resources needlessly adding multi-player features to a game, because it does take away from the single player experience.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 5:17:02 PM

Wreckless,
Damn, I thought your avatar looked familiar, but I just couldn't place it, till you told Main_even05t who it was.

Man, Dark City has got to be one of my all-time top favorite movies! I've got the platinum version of it & I go back & watch it again every year.


"They built a city to see what makes us tick"
"Last night one of us went off"

BTW, here's a nice 7 minute clip from Dark City....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOHn2uzriBg&feature=related


Last edited by BikerSaint on 12/9/2010 5:17:49 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

main_event05
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 11:55:32 PM
Reply

"Online is where the innovation, and the action, is at"

sorry, but you can only have so many FPS without out the Genre going stale, and it is already a Genre that is already way past it's expatriation date.

EA needs to focus on new IPs, because as I said before; eventually the Need for Speed subsides, QB vision fades, and you won't always hear the Call of Duty.

Last edited by main_event05 on 12/8/2010 11:59:32 PM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 12:40:47 AM
Reply

single player isnt dead. i'd say its more like developers/publishers like activision and their cod developers are in the process of killing it. lackluster effort on single player aspects of a game combined with their idea of the core gamers as those younger twitch/impatient crowd as their main demographic will then lead them to believe that single player isnt as important as multiplayer which we are seeing with call of duty games and the new medal of honor. to me black ops and medal of honor campaign had a good idea/story but the dev team ended up putting their focus on multiplayer instead.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Snaaaake
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 1:04:31 AM
Reply

Era of single player is slowly dying away?
.............
In that case, why don't we build a huge gaming center, then we don't game at home anymore.

This has got to be one of the dumbest statement ever.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

AshT
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 1:23:24 AM
Reply

i dont think SP is dying away, lot of gamers including me like to play SP more than MP online.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lawless SXE
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 1:32:31 AM
Reply

I know that I'm late to the party, and have little, if anything to add to what's been said already, but here goes.

Yes, these days, it does seem as though more innovation goes into the multiplayer side of things, but I believe that that is simply because it is newer, fresher, and more open to an expansion of ideas than the SP of games is. With the connected nature of the world, it makes sense to have everything with an online segment in order to attempt to maximise the replay factor for many. And, people latch onto this. For proof, just take a look at Call of Duty. It is the highest selling game for its compelling multiplayer. At the same time, there is Co-op play for those who like to get things done that way. There are leaderboards, and things like NFS's new Autolog that encourage competition, without actually necessitating it. You have Demon's Souls online set-up, which allows you to interrupt another players SP experience if you so wish, and you have games like MAG, which are a mixture of competitive and co-operative play, and as such, can appeal to a much broader range of people. Not to mention the P.C.S. ideal of LBP and Modnation.

So yes, the innovation is there, and it is becoming more diverse, but... There has to be a tipping. There has to be a place where it simply cannot grow further without some massive catalyst. And I think we are approaching this point. Of course, a larger range of titles can adopt multiplayer, such as the recently released AC: Brotherhood, and games that haven't really dabbled in it, like Valkyria Chronicles, Devil May Cry and Heavy Rain, but really, how different can these experiences be to what we've already seen.

This brings me to my point. There is still a massive contingent of gamers, myself included, that would give up if the SP of all games was dropped to add-on status. This is because, we have not yet seen the peak of single player experiences, even though gaming has been around for more than thirty years. It is only relatively recently that we have begun to see immensely powerful, and engrossing stories and worlds being created. Not only that, but there is still innovation in the SP. You only need to look as far as Heavy Rain and L.A. Noire for that.

So it is that he may be right, and Multiplayer sentiment is growing stronger than Single Player, but that does NOT mean that they should let the experiences of SP games disappear. No. It is there that the roots of gaming lie, and it is there that they should always remain.
Peace.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 10:39:02 AM

Lawless, the thing is that the single player experience in many games is like the experience of reading a book, you are following a story, watching it unfold, shaping the events a little, progressing the character(s) a little. It's the video game equivalent of reading a novel. Multi-player games have little to no story. MMORPGs rely on the same formulaic repeating quests with a few names and character models changed to protect the innocent. Multi-player games are all about competition. The two elements are not entirely compatible.

It's like saying you can have competitive reading.

Here's how I think that would go....
Two readers enter an online lobby and eye each other up.

Reader 1: "Yo man, where you at in the book? I'm at chapter 15."
Reader 2: "Dude, Chapter 15, man that's so crap, I'm already on chapter 21. What's wrong with you, trouble keeping up?"
Reader 1: "Oh Yeah? Well, let's see who can read chapter 3 fastest, and answer the pop quiz questions after more accurately."
Reader 2: "Dude, I already creamed that chapter, 17 minutes and 23 seconds, and aced the quiz. think you can do better?"
Reader 1: "Oh really? It's on!"

The two furiously grab their books and start reading....

Well, somehow I don't see that happening, but to me, that's what adding competitive play to single player games (especially those with a story) would be like. Sure you can have comparative features that let you see how well someone else is doing or where they are, but to morph single player into head to head competitive play is several steps too far.

Last edited by Highlander on 12/9/2010 10:39:28 AM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

CH1N00K
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 3:11:13 PM

Lol, you're two readers is a great analogy highlander...and it's also the reason why I love the NFS HP experience. I can play through the single player campaign, and still see how I'm doing against my friends. Sure I can still go online and race, which is a pretty white knuckle ride in itself, but if I don't want to race against other people...I can still communicate with my friends while racing the single player...it's a cool feature.

However Ninja Gaiden Sigma tried to do a leaderboard with it's game...I found that I just didn't care about it...wasn't the same experience...

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

KNG201
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 1:41:34 AM
Reply

just make more drop in drop out co-op games and im happy. single player games are good but sometimes its not like when you have a friend over. the good ol days of streets of rage, double dragon contra...i miss them so much....

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bloody_rootz
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 3:50:27 AM
Reply

really they can only go so far with multiplayer online games. they only create scenarios where ppl online run around kill each other, play war games etc...BUT, at the end of the day, multi player games cannot create a story.

Hence in time i believe ppl will grow old of this relatively new concept of gaming.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Fane1024
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 4:51:49 PM

My friends and I used to create stories all the time playing table-top RPGs together, so I will dispute that point.

Whether or not that sort of co-operative storytelling is possible working within the limitations imposed by computers remains to be seen, however.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

FatherSun
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 6:45:33 AM
Reply

Its all corporate BS. He is planting a seed for a future business model where they make one mediocre game every 5 years. Low development costs. High microtransaction returns.

If Black Ops did not release everyone would still be playing Modern Warfare 2. But of course Acti would not make any money that way because they as of yet are not charging for online play.

Multiplayer isn't going anywhere. I can see the benefits that those who play get from the experience. But single player isn't going anywhere either.

A village has two rivers. Both alive with fish. One larger than the other with more fish. Will the village simply ignore the smaller river?

Last edited by FatherSun on 12/9/2010 6:46:54 AM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

main_event05
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 8:12:38 AM

Hmmm, what kind of fish?

And what if the (master) Chief makes most of the villagers think that while the smaller fish from the small river are good, but they difficult to catch and prepare and the fish from the big river are just begging to be caught and are ready to eat?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 9:18:19 AM

Then the villagers are dumber than the master chief.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

main_event05
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 10:08:31 AM

WTF is up with my grammar? I swear i proofread that like 8 times.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 10:43:11 AM

lol happens to me all the time!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 5:26:21 PM

Main_event....
Master Chief would just frag both rivers.

Last edited by BikerSaint on 12/9/2010 5:27:14 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

main_event05
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 10:05:16 PM

That is exactly what might happen and when that does guess what, no fish for anyone. Or whatever fish is left will be terrible.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

JackC8
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 7:23:18 AM
Reply

"Online is where the innovation...is at." That's complete and utter bull****. Ah well, what can you say about company heads who spend millions on a basketball game, and supervise the project so incompetently that it doesn't occur to them that it's too lousy to be released until the disks are already being pressed.

The best part about EA is that no matter how ignorant and short-sighted the bosses are, and no matter how many dollar signs roll in front of their eyes, the studios they employ still somehow manage to turn out some great games despite it all.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

maxpontiac
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 8:02:23 AM
Reply

Once single-player gaming dies, so does my hobby.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

frostface
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 8:06:23 AM
Reply

I play my fair share of online so I can't hate on it completely. But it does piss me off sometimes, be it due to connection errors or some idiots I'm playing up against. Or sometimes I just want to play alone, disconnect from people (not to sound anti-social but games can be a form of escapism, just when you need some 'Me' time!)
At times, even if the crew are online and getting a game going, I just have to flat out refuse and play some single player campaign and just be left to my own devices.

Also, how do you tell a story if all games are multiplayer only? What makes some of the best games the best, is the story telling aspects and not the running around mindlessly shooting everything that moves. Some of us want our games to have a goal thats more than just capturing a flag. I am for Co-Op in some games but only added as an extra.

I think balance is important. EA should realise this. As much fun as gaming can be with a group of friends, gaming imo, can be and should be allowed to flourish as a solitary experience also. If my gaming time was forced on me to be online multiplayer only, I don't think I'd play as much or keep purchasing games.

Last edited by frostface on 12/9/2010 8:10:21 AM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 10:41:44 AM

I don't think it's so much about hating on the online modes, it's more a reaction to the president of one of the larger gaming publishers saying that single player gaming is finished.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

frostface
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 11:21:40 AM

I think my use of the word 'hate' was maybe a bit strong. The context was that I wasn't going to attack outright multiplayer gaming, just in favor of more single player. They both have their own unique entertainment values. I think there's plenty of room in the world for both and keeps everyone happy.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

CH1N00K
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 3:27:53 PM

Ah, Frost why you gotta hate? Don't hate the Playa, Hate the Game...I'm sure there's more hate analogies..but I just had to say that...anyways, on to my point I was going to make...umm...ahem...yeah...

I think that worries me the most is that Online Gaming is a HUGE market right now. And like a few other people here have already said, it worries me that when it comes down to creating a budget for a game, Which part of that game will suffer in the name of budget restraints and time lines? No matter how we look at it, video games are still run by one main thing. Money...Some companies focus on the games more then others but if they didn't make money, they wouldn't make games..It's just all a matter of how much time and money the invest in their product..

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

SirLoin of Beef
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 8:44:23 AM
Reply

The only MP I would ever want to see in the Mass Effect or Dragon Age games would be co-op of some kind and, even then, I'm not sure how keen I am of that. MP wouldn't be so bad if there was more co-op stuff. The competitive MP content gives too many people an outlet to display their jackassery on a global stage. I'd much rather play a good SP game with a compelling story than run around through the same MP maps day after day.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

crunchy_nut_kid
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 8:51:58 AM
Reply

i enjoy a good online experience but i'd much rather a awesome single player. they should perfect the single player and if there is time left, then add a satisfactory online mode. single player should always be priority.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

STAY3R
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 9:10:34 AM
Reply

EA KISS MY ASS.
u charge money for unlocking ingame cars (premium cheatcode, lmao)!!!
and u alwz throw bs like this from ur mouth, soo i just don't care

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 9:22:03 AM
Reply

His comments might be easier to swallow if I'd seen more multiplayer innovation than single player innovation this gen.

Who are they kidding, here? They aren't going to innovate... not really... they're going to come to the party with a formula that is already proven to sell sell sell! That's not being innovative. That's selling out. (Double meaning!)

Last edited by Underdog15 on 12/9/2010 9:22:28 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Nynja
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 9:36:12 AM
Reply

EA saying stupid $#!+ like that will only earn them a place back in the dog house with me.

I like hanging out with my friends, but not every single time I turn on my PS3. I want my solo adventures as well.

Question: Are publishers/developers becoming that naive that they think gamers don't want variety?

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

ebterp
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 10:04:56 AM
Reply

I am not buying what EA is selling. I think there will always be a place for the single player experience...now that may be delivered by a different mechanism but it will still be there. I do have to say though that games with good online multiplayer add alot of additional value to the experience especially for the casual or time constrained gamer.

EB

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

frylock25
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 10:10:22 AM
Reply

screw you EA. take away my single player games, i will no longer be buying your products. you were on a good road after making your games quality and now you want to take away my single player. i will now be taking away your money from my pocket.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Sogi_Otsa
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 10:16:12 AM
Reply

Shut up EA, most of your games are not even good. once single player dies out, i stop buying games. period. i have like 2 games i play online.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

GuyverLT
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 10:43:54 AM
Reply

Since online gaming 1st started I have yet to touch it I just don't find playing with people who aren't in same room kinda not appealing at all whatever to the times where a friend or family member could come over and play that old school kinda of split screen co-op, that's the kinda of gaming i want to see come back for example being able to play split screen co-op in the new batman game with robin if he was in the game which I don't think he is but how awesome would that be. To hell with multi-player.

Last edited by GuyverLT on 12/9/2010 10:47:16 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 11:07:32 AM
Reply

I don't really play multiplayer online at all unless friends I know are on. Once you get older, a lot of your friends aren't even in the same area of the country (or the same country!) anymore. Online gaming is really the only way we can consistently connect on a weekly basis.

We just buckle down for a good time, mute everyone else but each other, and shoot the sh!t. Once none of my friends are on, the online gaming ends and I move to single player if I continue playing. Aside from real life friends, multiplayer has no appeal for me.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

DemonNeno
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 1:43:06 PM
Reply

I see the opposite being true. Mp offers nothing that's progressive to me. You're always held up by your weakest player. I'm never online to game, only to update and shop.

This statement is disgraceful to true gamers who get their game on for the entertainment a good game with a solid story. I'd dare say mp is useless to me. Besides, did they forget pretty much every great game is single player!

Idiots. I'm so happy the crowd here agrees that this statement its just pain stupid.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

tlpn99
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 2:15:43 PM
Reply

I play online with my clan 1-2 hours a night. However the majority of my time is spent offline in single player mode. I have and always will be a single player person and jump online for an hour or 2 that's it.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Imagi
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 4:03:16 PM
Reply

Single player games are not going anywhere, the processing power has only really just come about to let the creators make the games and experiences as they intended.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

tes37
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 4:21:11 PM
Reply

Sounds like EA just confirmed their plans to be Xbox exclusive from here on out. No fear in my eyes, I bought a Sony and it does everything, including single player.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

thj_1980
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 4:45:08 PM
Reply

I hope EA doesn't go to being an xbox exclusive, because even though their online might be a little more competitive, the ps3 dosen't lack by too much and also I think EA's games are better on the ps3 then 360.

EXCEPT: every need for speed except the new hot pursuit is better on the 360.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

wizzardofozzy
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 4:56:58 PM
Reply

Man those were the days,sooo many awesome games.I probably rented 90% of the ps2 games in blockbusters inventory back in the day.I've pretty much played them all.

It pissed me off when i started hearing all this multiplayer crap.I couldnt figure out why anyone would trade onimusha or splinter cell for a dull,mindless multiplayer game.I like to use my brain...solve puzzles and stuff.Thats fun to me.

Oh,speaking of splinter cell,thats another one that annoys me.What happened to splinter cell?Is it just me or is that game trash any more?

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 5:44:25 PM
Reply

Well, I've got a news flash for EA Games president Frank Gibeau & all others that want to follow suit in going forward to end the single player mode.

That's just fine that you'll cause me to quit spending thousands of dollars each single year towards any future gaming, buying, or any more gaming collections.

I'll be quite happy to go backwards into my retro gaming, buying up the multitude of games I still need for all my collections dating back to the SNES days......& beyond.

And seeing how I'll even be able to close in on the upwards of a 1000 game backlog I already have...

....well you can see where I'm coming from, once you all start implementing those new-found profiteering skills.

Last edited by BikerSaint on 12/9/2010 5:46:49 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 10:39:30 PM
Reply

Hey EA,

If you do, all I gotta say is........

"Retro, bi***es"!!!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zzKuwpkOI0&feature=player_embedded#!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

just2skillf00l
Saturday, December 11, 2010 @ 6:07:05 PM
Reply

To be honest the whole innovation idea is too overrated. Sure innovation is fun because it's new and sometimes it works, but just look at a title like FF13. That was innovation for RPG land and look how far it fell from the FF series in terms of greatness. Honestly, I feel I don't want some things to change. Turn-based is fine in itself and the only thing that need change is the story and cetain gameplay elements, however; as a whole, I'd like my experience to maintain a sense of authentic flavor if you know what I mean.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

MMKM
Monday, December 13, 2010 @ 11:47:16 AM
Reply

I think that games that are mostly MP are the products of lazy developers. It takes *work* to come up with a good, engrossing game that lasts more than an evening or a weekend.

I never play multiplayer online. I have no interest in it.

@just2skillf00l, I thought FF13 was a good game, but it should not have been called "Final Fantasy".

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ar_tonelico
Monday, December 13, 2010 @ 12:45:42 PM
Reply

I'll stick to my 1 player only JRPGs and visual novel games.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

lowsushi
Monday, December 13, 2010 @ 1:48:22 PM
Reply

I think EA need to have a word with Bethesda. Esp. after TES V releases. Let's really see how many people are "done" with the single player experience.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Flipvan
Monday, December 13, 2010 @ 3:14:55 PM
Reply

I would just like to start this off by saying this is actually true and why I believe getting rid of SP is a horrible idea:

My brother lives in my house and plays MMO games all day long. He weighs over 350lbs, hes 21, has no girlfriend and leaves the house only to go to his 24 hour a week job. He's one of the biggest slobs you could ever meet. He wasn't always like This until he started playing multiplayer games. He's addicted. He lives more in the virtual world than the real one. He sometimes only gets a few hours sleep a night because he has to get up to go "raiding" with his friends and all other kinds of quests/missions that require multiple people to achieve.

I ask him all the time why he does it and he never has a good answer. I gave up on multiplayer a long time ago for many of the same reasons as others. Cheating/advantages being the first. It's not fun when your getting beaten all the time because someone knows something you don't that gives them an advantage, someone has a faster connection than you or has just been playing so much longer than you.

Now the most important reason I do not play multiplayer is how can you possibly have a social life and also play multiplayer. I can not be tied down to a game for hours without being able to pause and take a break. That's the beauty of SP. I can pause and go to the bathroom, eat, sleep, go out, etc.

I also believe this is the reason the older generation plays SP, because of this ability to be able to pause and walk away. They have wives, children, basically normal human responsibilities. The reason the younger generation plays multiplayer is because they usually have no more responsibility than taking out the trash. They can sit in front of their tv/computer for consecutive hours at a time.

If society goes on the same path my brother has gone than the future could be really interesting. I'm not saying it will happen but it's not looking good. In summation I hope SP is never thought to be dying or dead and will never become obsolete.

I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of sh** for this but this is what I see every day. I also apologize for any spelling/grammatical errors as I wrote this on my iPhone.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

The PS4 exclusive(s) reveal in December will be...
MEGATON! Biggest thing evah!
Pretty great, but not mind-blowing.
Something decent but that's it.
A waste of hype.

Previous Poll Results