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

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

Comments

Piracy

[Americium]

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

Re:Piracy

[Xest]

Well, kind of works.

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

Re:Piracy

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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

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

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

Single player only: 4

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

Full multiplayer: 0

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

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

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

Re:Piracy

[alaffin]

Bingo and then some. If you listen closely EA is not saying "single player games are dead". What they're saying is "we have to work harder to produce a profitable single player product, therefore we are killing it."

Re:Piracy

[pnewhook]

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

Actually I'm glad it's finished. Finally. I've been waiting for a good single player game to be released for a while now. I just hope it's bug free.

Bollocks

[ledow]

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

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

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

Re:Bollocks

[NickFortune]

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

The point is, trollface, that a company already infamous for churning out tired, low-quality sequels is adopting a policy aimed at further alienating a sizable portion of the market.

They're acting like they have enough of a grip on the marketplace to dictate trends, but I very much doubt that is the case. There are too many other game developers out there

Pub, social, dollars

[evanism]

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

Re:Pub, social, dollars

[Berkyjay]

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

retarded EA exec says PC games are finished.

[Zurk]

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

Re:It's about money

[mwvdlee]

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

It isn't dead; you want to kill it!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Hey EA Brainiac...

[BulletMagnet]

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

Sincerely,

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

Disgusting to hear for a gamer

[furbyhater]

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

EA's true goals:

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

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

What he meant to say

[Xelios]

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

The problem with multiplayer is...

[Joce640k]

The problem with multiplayer is you can't play casually. The servers are full of people with absolutely no life who get their jollies fragging newbies (usually shouting obscenities as they do so...)

It might be somebody's idea of a 'game' but it's not mine.

Not to Mention

[sycodon]

No everyone wants to play in an environment populated by potty mouth teenagers jumping around like monkeys.