f13.net

http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/ea-no-more-single-player-games-on-playstation-4-xbox-720/

They've said this a lot already.

When they say multiplayer games, they mean like ME3.

Really? I took it to mean "always-on authentication" without calling it that.

I have to agree with the "always-on" part. WE MUST STOP PIRACY AT ALL COSTS!!1

I gotta think this is also a move to do away with production costs of packaging and materials. The next PS/XBOX will be...an entertainment PC without any drive, just a shoebox with guts and a power cord. Wireless everything and will download nothing but a minor client to interface with. They shall call this, Skynet V0.3.  :why_so_serious:

I'm not even sure this is news, as most western AAA game companies have been heading this way for the past few years.

In a lot of cases they mean "social networks," online ladders, unlocks, and other bolted-on "hey everyone look at my epeen" cruft that I opt out of whenever I have the option.

The next generation of gamers behind most of us really enjoy that stuff. It would be silly not to cater to that group, since ours is becoming more niche and less economically relevant when it comes to disposal entertainment income.

Yeah I read the article and revise my earlier statement.  That's *exactly* what he's talking about.. he's just stated it in an awkward way.

Paelos is totally correct about the whys and wherefores. It's all good with me, I've got a good stockpile of old single-player-only games and have been cherry-picking only the best for years now anyway. I know I'm not the market and it doesn't hurt me when things shift the way it once did.

The good news is that the less time we have to game, the less our gaming may cost due to Steam's delivery system. Given that we have the patience to not worry about world firsts, achievements, and shit means that we can wait out the clock on sales.

Of course then you end up like Rasix with a backlog of stuff you can't play through entirely until 2020.

He's not the only one. :)

This only reinforces my recent belief that one of the few companies left making games for people like me is Bethesda and sometimes Atlus.

The social page for DA:O and the ME3 multiplayer bothered you that much? That's the kind of stuff they're talking about, by my reading.

It's the mandatory (unless you know where to find the cunningly hidden privacy features) epeen waving that bugs me - the datamining and broadcasting on a web site of every single thing you do in the game. I knew the guy who programmed DAO's datamining systems, so I know just how deep that rabbit hole can go (for example, they didn't just measure which decision you made at a given conversation node, they could measure how long you idled on choices before making a decision).

When I buy a game, it's because I want to play the game. Not because I want everyone to see me playing the game, or because I want to talk about the game with strangers who play it.

That right there is probably where a big generational divide occurs. We see the difference. And I'm bothered by it as well. Younger players though? Heck, even contemporaries who just stick to Facebook games which are all datamined for everything. Side note: I always find it funny when people like wife who won't call herself a gamer even though she puts as much time into playing word games or click management things as I do playing my games :-)

Ouch! I knew that Bioware tracked out decisions.  I had no idea that they knew how long each stage took me.  Not sure why they would want that kind of data.


Anyway back to the original topic.  I wanted to add that I think its past time for another RPG company to come in and permanently relegate Bioware to the dustbin of history.  This is just me but I don't understand why the shareholders of EA aren't going "excuse me?"  They bought Bioware for a ton and Bioware was/is amazing successfull.  They should have opted to leave Bioware alone and let them do what they do best.  I don't know anyone who would disagree with me who has been with Bioware from the Interplay days that Bioware as a brand has significantly diminished since being absorbed by EA.  I think long term the outlook of Bioware is quite bleak as a money maker for EA.  Especially if they continue to piss off the ones who made Bioware such a success to begin with the RPG gamer.

But what do I know as an RPG fan.

Yes, the social page bothered me. I didn't like the idea of people knowing exactly what I did in DA:O.

As for ME3, yes that multiplayer bothered me. Why? Because if I want to replay and get the "best" ending I better hope some people are still playing multiplayer. If they hadn't tied it into the game like that I would've been "eh, whatever." But they tied it in so I feel compelled to play it.

You not only have to worry about people still playing the ME3 multiplayer, but you also have to worry about whether or not EA's plain-out shut down the servers hosting it, which they do for a lot of stuff after a few years.

I should re-emphasize that they could track it. I have no idea if they actually do in the shipped game. I know it was tracked during development for testing purposes - I imagine so they could determine which choices were most confusing or emotionall difficult.

That's not what takeover corporations like EA do. They see success and think of it as a FORMULA that they can duplicate ad infinitum - essentially, they see successful companies as literal money-making machines. Put X input at this end, it spits out Y times Infinity money out the other end. They do not understand nor do they care about the creative process - that's just what the smelly hippies say to make themselves look valuable. Look at the history of EA mergers/acquisitions to see the pattern. Origin and Westwood are the two I can think of off the top of my head. It's a wonder DICE hasn't been absorbed and fucked over yet (though BF3 is definitely not quite up to the level of BF2 so it's already starting).

I'm pretty sure they totaled pop-cap games as well. It used to be immensely profitable but after EA it sort of vanished and got hit in the last cut-backs. I assume they told it to chase after the face-book market.

I love origin though, EA games living in their own little ghetto.

It seems like exactly the sort of thing they should be tracking, and presumably that information would be even more valuable for future games development when you're getting it from real end users rather than QA.

Good news! If you want to replay ME3 and get the best ending, you can ignore the fuck out of the multiplayer. They lowered the requirements across the board when they released the extended cut DLC.

Of course, if you were a completionist working from a save, you could ignore the fuck out of it anyway, depending on what you considered the "best" ending. I didn't do a scrap of multiplayer my first time through, and I unlocked Green Ending (the one that Bioware seems to think is the best ending, for some reason).



EDIT: And while I find all the LOL FACEBOOK shit they've added into the Sims 3 in the more recent expansions pretty irritating, I don't doubt for a second it's actually a pretty popular feature for a big ol' chunk of the players.

Are they watching me when I'm doing Morrigan with my dwarf?  :ye_gods:

It's for this reason I'm sorta skeptical of all the talk of the younger generations loving the Dragon Age social stuff or whatever.  I dunno, I have a feeling most people think that shit is pretty lame, or at least don't care about it.  It feels like they're just flailing and throwing as much "social" stuff at games as possible, because they know that it worked for these other dudes really well and they want to make that much money too.

I'm kinda doubtful that younger gamers are really that wildly different than the older generation.  Sure, there are some differences, but I'm pretty sure that many of the things that look lame to us are, in fact, lame to pretty much everyone.

ME3 had fun multiplayer (imho), but I don't think it did a good job of integrating that experience into a single-player RPG like they hoped it would (and possibly think that it did).  They're just struggling to find some way of turning what is an innately private experience into a social one, because they believe that social means money, always.

They may not be able to watch you, but if they recorded any long gaps between player input and found one such gap shortly after that cutscene, they could probably make a reasonable guess regarding your activities and generate amusing statistics from the playerbase as a whole.

To a degree, because the 'people factor' is more important than the technology platform in most cases.

But you will see differences in how people use these things by age. If you've grown up with Twitter, you're much more familiar with it and use it differently than if you are older.

So yes, there will be lame stuff, but it may not be lame to the younger fok. See: the history of video games.

One buzzword (?) I've seen around is SoLoMo (Social, Mobile, Locational) as an approach that gaming will take. Increasingly people will be gaming outside of the home, just with people in the area around them. ARGs are another potential avenue for gamers. Now, I haven't got the time to wander around in an ARG and have some ideas on personal privacy that may lock me out of SoLoMo titles, but that doesn't mean there aren't huge opportunities there. I'm just not the target demographic.