Actually, EA’s Multiplayer-only Policy Could Be a Good Thing

Okay, bear with me here. I know you just read that headline and you’ve probably already commented that I’m on the Electronic Arts payroll. But let me explain — EA’s policy of greenlighting only games with multiplayer is a good thing, because it will hopefully encourage developers to go elsewhere.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
000012261d ago

interesting way of looking at it, good article.

zeal0us2261d ago

Guess I can expect to see some crappy multiplayer games for future(excluding future battlefield games).

Lord_Sloth2261d ago

Just remember that the online wasn't the issue with ME3.

strauser3602261d ago

I think its more about replay value than multiplayer. If a game has little replay value than the owner will most likely sell it back to the retailer, which causes companies to lose money. They just need to make games from the ground up to be played multiple times at least. Just my opinion.

TotalSynthesisX2261d ago

If they make a Mass Effect 4, they could make it more open-ended than the other games. "Choose your own adventure", pardon the cliché. No need for multiplayer, yet has plenty of replay value (the development time/lines of dialogue would be enormous, though).

Am I hitting the mark here?

strauser3602260d ago

I think that was initially the goal for the series but they decided to go for a more structured story and narrative. I'm still waiting for a true "choose your adventure" game, where each playthrough is entirely different. The only game I see (imo) coming close to that would be Minecraft, and that's being real generous.

DeadlyFire2260d ago (Edited 2260d ago )

Definitely see Multiplayer future for most EA game titles, but that doesn't mean they will all be FPS killfest.

Mass Effect 3 for instance takes nothing away from the Single-player mode while adding a great Multiplayer element that has been far better than I expected originally.

Army of Two is another title. Its multiplayer element is Co-Op team work with 2-4 players more than likely.

Just because the MP element is there doesn't mean they ignore the SP portion of the game at all. EA knows they need both sides of the coin to be good if they want consumers to keep playing their games.

Their key goal is to sell DLC to consumers. No doubt, but they are a game business so I see nothing wrong with them trying to appeal to me. I am a big no DLC buying fan.

smashcrashbash2261d ago (Edited 2261d ago )

No.If their plan is to wedge MP into everything whether it needs it or not I am completely against it.
That just sounds like another excuse to jip us on SP so they can work on MP more or give us single player but make some crappy MP to go with it.I could give a $hit how much these FPS sell. Don't had me a short SP and claim 'it's okay the MP is good'. If you are so obsessed with MP then do that alone and charge me half price for the game. I am a little tired of the trend of shoehorning MP into everything or shortening the SP just so you can make the MP better.Instead of constantly creating time wasters and cheap ways to lengthen the game, how about you improve the playability of the game itself? Make a better game that people will come back too instead hooking on MP just to attempt re-playability.

Kratoscar20082261d ago

Full games are dead thanks to DLC and now single player games are dead thanks to multiplayer, thats not a good thing at all.

Show all comments (17)