EA Mandates Online, DLC for Every Game in 2011

arctarus

"With all the consoles now having serviceable online components, EA appears to have mandated that all its future video game releases to have both downloadable content and online play.

IGN quotes Electronic Arts chief operating officer John Schappert during the company's fiscal third quarter investor call as saying, "In fiscal 2011, every one of EA's releases will have an online component, both downloadable content and online play."

For EA, fiscal 2011 would be calendar April 2010 through March 2011 – which means the majority of EA games this year will be hooked into the online world.

While many games make worthwhile use of multiplayer and DLC, it's a little unsettling if developers are forced into shoehorning online play (and devoting resources) into a game that wasn't set out to have it."

 

Stupid piece of crap...

 

www.tomsguide.com/us/mass-effect-dragon-age-online,news-5781.html

 

 

 

 

Wizardry

This is what developers are doing anyhow,made worse by the demand for solo play.You can see by the content a game puts out ,if it is truly designed for MMO status.I see things like 1 on 1 faction wars ,lmao that is like a co-op game not a MMO.WOW and it's players bragging about instances ,again LMAO,that is NOT MMO that is co-op.

To clean up this genre,we need to get rid of the fake MMO players,and put some kind of meaning into labeling your game a MMO.Claiming 11 million players yet only 24 at a time in some instance,is far from being the same thing.Heck most servers have maybe 15k players bound with a maximum of 5k on at one time.

So if your game LURES players into a common field where everyone can be a part of the world,then it is a MMO,it if LURES players into playing solo or hanging out in CO-OP play ,it is NOT a MMO.

Right now Vanguard is probably the FIRST to create the seamless world?This game has as much content as any other game,the world is as big as any other game,the graphics are as good as any other game.So it meets all the qualifications of both a MMO standard and what players CLAIM to want.This is why i say "FAKE" MMO gamers,they do not really want to be a part of a MMO world,instead they want to play solo ,but have the ability to brag or show off to others when they want to.

FFXI is the ONLY true MMO designed game apart from the seamless world,so as of now we still don't have a complete MMOPRG game covering both forced multiplayer[the "M"in MMORPG" and the seamless world,the other "M"standing for massively.The most popular game "WOW" does not meet either criteria for being a true MMORPG,so this is proof,the majority of gamers are not true MMORPG players...FAKE.

We probably only have about 1 million true MMORPG players out there,witch is sad to think we really don't have a TRUE following for this genre,probably the reason it has never met my standards.

Ceridith

Fantastic,

Now I have a reason to fully boycott EA games now.

olepi

It makes sense financially, it is more profitable to get a monthly payment, or have an item mall, or dribble out bits of DLC over time, than to just get a one-time up-front box sale with no followup.

Also, the high level management has probably heard, perhaps from their kids, that it is way behind the times to release a stand-alone off-line game that runs on a console that is connected to the Net.

I could see just adding a chat line to a single-player game, and that would go pretty far. Imagine playing Oblivion, and being able to talk to other players that are also playing Oblivion ("Hey, where is the XXX?" "Howdy, it is right behind the keep at ...").

Getting players to play against each other also reduces the effort required to do really good AI for the mobs.

Palebane

Originally posted by Wizardry


This is what developers are doing anyhow,made worse by the demand for solo play.You can see by the content a game puts out ,if it is truly designed for MMO status.I see things like 1 on 1 faction wars ,lmao that is like a co-op game not a MMO.WOW and it's players bragging about instances ,again LMAO,that is NOT MMO that is co-op.
To clean up this genre,we need to get rid of the fake MMO players,and put some kind of meaning into labeling your game a MMO.Claiming 11 million players yet only 24 at a time in some instance,is far from being the same thing.Heck most servers have maybe 15k players bound with a maximum of 5k on at one time.
So if your game LURES players into a common field where everyone can be a part of the world,then it is a MMO,it if LURES players into playing solo or hanging out in CO-OP play ,it is NOT a MMO.
Right now Vanguard is probably the FIRST to create the seamless world?This game has as much content as any other game,the world is as big as any other game,the graphics are as good as any other game.So it meets all the qualifications of both a MMO standard and what players CLAIM to want.This is why i say "FAKE" MMO gamers,they do not really want to be a part of a MMO world,instead they want to play solo ,but have the ability to brag or show off to others when they want to.
FFXI is the ONLY true MMO designed game apart from the seamless world,so as of now we still don't have a complete MMOPRG game covering both forced multiplayer[the "M"in MMORPG" and the seamless world,the other "M"standing for massively.The most popular game "WOW" does not meet either criteria for being a true MMORPG,so this is proof,the majority of gamers are not true MMORPG players...FAKE.
We probably only have about 1 million true MMORPG players out there,witch is sad to think we really don't have a TRUE following for this genre,probably the reason it has never met my standards.

Ugh, by your definition, there would only be 2-3 actual MMORPGs. That would make for a very very boring site.

 

sn0wblind00

Originally posted by Ceridith


Fantastic,
Now I have a reason to fully boycott EA games now.

 

So they promise to give you, the consumer, some online content in all their games. 

Seeing how this is not negative, why would you boycott them again?

 

arctarus

Originally posted by olepi


It makes sense financially, it is more profitable to get a monthly payment, or have an item mall, or dribble out bits of DLC over time, than to just get a one-time up-front box sale with no followup.

 

Problem is we will be getting half release contents and have to pay for the rest of it. Its very cunning way of doing business.

Gone are the days when we buy for a complete game, just so sad...

 

 

RavingRabbid

If EA wants to put an online component in thier games then more power to them. If it works out financially for them then all the better. If they F up then its thier butts. Not really sure how this is hurting anyone especially if you arent playing thier games or dont plan to. best to vote with your wallet if you dont like the trend!

(BBBBBBBBBBBWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH raises double plunger in salute the troops overseas!)

arctarus

If EA can escape with it, than the rest of the companies will surely follow suit. We as gamers will be on the losing side...

 

 

Ceridith

Originally posted by sn0wblind00

Originally posted by Ceridith


Fantastic,
Now I have a reason to fully boycott EA games now.

 

So they promise to give you, the consumer, some online content in all their games. 

Seeing how this is not negative, why would you boycott them again?

 

 

Because it's an excuse for them to charge more for "content" that is either tacked on, or intentionally withheld from the original release of the game, only to be offered to consumers at an extra cost.

It can be negative, and knowing EA's track record, it likely will be when they put it into practice.

johnmatthais

 I'm out. Not playing some multiplayer deathmatch mode for a fully fledged RPG just because EA is a pain in the ass.

Does this mean Mass Effect 3 will have multiplayer? Geez. =P

Kyleran

In many cases, once developers decide to put in an online component, they shortchange the single player experience.

This is EA, guess which way its most likely to go?

 

Einherjar_LC

This can't be good for gamers.

 

As someone already mentioned it will inevitably lead to developers intentionally withholding content so they can charge for it at a later date.  STO withholding two races from the release so they could put them in the cash shop on day one of release is but a small taste of what will happen if this trend takes hold.

 

I hope EA crashes and burns on this but knowing how console gamers burn through content and are always eager to have more, this will probably be a huge boon to EA much to the detriment of the gaming community.

Evasia

I hated it already how  they try trick you into buying DLC in dragon age and they also make sure you dont miss it a solo game where your constantly reminded of please buy DLC and make sure your online or your solo game is shutdown.

Indeed as some say i start boycotting these games.

Ah well back to retro then less and less new games for me.

No company will force me to do what they say and not get my money for every goddamn patch BLOODY greedy $$$$$bastards.

onetruth

This was inevitable really, and all gaming companies will be following suit as soon as they're able.  All of these traditional development houses have seen what recurring revenue can do in the mmo space, and now the mandate is to move all of gaming to some sort of subscription model (the wet dream of every CEO).

It's also why they're so keen about OnLive, Gakai, and any other delivery platform that turns you into a renter rather than an owner.

Unfortunately, the days of buying a single player game and getting a ton of content for your money are numbered.

Evasia

Originally posted by Einherjar_LC


This can't be good for gamers.
 
As someone already mentioned it will inevitably lead to developers intentionally withholding content so they can charge for it at a later date.  STO withholding two races from the release so they could put them in the cash shop on day one of release is but a small taste of what will happen if this trend takes hold.
 
I hope EA crashes and burns on this but knowing how console gamers burn through content and are always eager to have more, this will probably be a huge boon to EA much to the detriment of the gaming community.

I dunno if anybody see this but this already happen with dragon age they intentionally with hold content so they can offer it as DLC try get more money for this game its ALL GREED.

EricDanie

It's really sad, there is no protection for us in case they take shady practices like taking content out from release to be charged at a later date, or weaker single-player capabilities due to online development. Release date won't be as important as it used to be (like in MMOs, there may be a lot of weak content releases, because they are taking in account further development and somehow assuming it is fine to weaken the release content).

It doesn't mean this can be good (imagine if every game out there like STO thought it decided brand itself a MMO and charge a monthly fee? It's better they go the DLC route), if they provide good online capabilities this can really represent a new era (like Battlefield and Call of Duty, games taking FPS online to the next level literally with the unlocks), but we will see, they may take the way of pay for gratification.

arctarus

Whats next? MMO patches that comes with a price?

 

 

johnmatthais

Originally posted by arctarus


Whats next? MMO patches that comes with a price?

 

Some would argue that that's happening now...

Elikal

I think it is a matter of what we get. Good new content is nice, but small trash DLC like Ostagar for DA is quite superfluous. But then, we don't have to buy. I buy the DLC which is good and the bad I skip. I am a bit afraid tho they may just take out normal content and make us extra pay, like the nefarious Sims 3 DLC. Hated that one.

So I am over the fence. For a good game its good to get move and not leave it behind after one play through. I still hope for more substantial stuff. Just for one new armor or one small battle I don't keep a game I finished on my HD endlessly.

Pedrob

Originally posted by arctarus

Originally posted by olepi


It makes sense financially, it is more profitable to get a monthly payment, or have an item mall, or dribble out bits of DLC over time, than to just get a one-time up-front box sale with no followup.

 

Problem is we will be getting half release contents and have to pay for the rest of it. Its very cunning way of doing business.

Gone are the days when we buy for a complete game, just so sad...

 

 

 

This is exactly what will happen sadly.

Well I have seen a great development of games in Europe that are not controlled by the "evil" EA, guess I'll have to start buying games from Europe and import them back to the US.

 

NightCloak

Originally posted by Wizardry


This is what developers are doing anyhow,made worse by the demand for solo play.You can see by the content a game puts out ,if it is truly designed for MMO status.I see things like 1 on 1 faction wars ,lmao that is like a co-op game not a MMO.WOW and it's players bragging about instances ,again LMAO,that is NOT MMO that is co-op.
To clean up this genre,we need to get rid of the fake MMO players,and put some kind of meaning into labeling your game a MMO.Claiming 11 million players yet only 24 at a time in some instance,is far from being the same thing.Heck most servers have maybe 15k players bound with a maximum of 5k on at one time.
So if your game LURES players into a common field where everyone can be a part of the world,then it is a MMO,it if LURES players into playing solo or hanging out in CO-OP play ,it is NOT a MMO.
Right now Vanguard is probably the FIRST to create the seamless world? Ever hear of UO? This game has as much content as any other game,the world is as big as any other game,the graphics are as good as any other game.So it meets all the qualifications of both a MMO standard and what players CLAIM to want.This is why i say "FAKE" MMO gamers,they do not really want to be a part of a MMO world,instead they want to play solo ,but have the ability to brag or show off to others when they want to.
FFXI is the ONLY true MMO designed game apart from the seamless world,so as of now we still don't have a complete MMOPRG game covering both forced multiplayer[the "M"in MMORPG" and the seamless world,the other "M"standing for massively.The most popular game "WOW" does not meet either criteria for being a true MMORPG,so this is proof,the majority of gamers are not true MMORPG players...FAKE.
We probably only have about 1 million true MMORPG players out there,witch is sad to think we really don't have a TRUE following for this genre,probably the reason it has never met my standards.

 

LOL

I got a laugh from this elitist banter.

MMORPG - Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game.

Lets break it down into MMO and RPG. What games do you define as RPG? Oblivion? Dragon Age? Dragon Warrior? FF series? DaggerFall? Mass Effect? None of them are seamless.

MMO... Nothing to do with seamless there.

Also, its not about solo players. Its about Social players. Casual gamers rule the subs. Casuals dont have the time to devote to large-scale events. I used to play EVE when I had the time but it ended up being too time consuming. It took over an hour to organize and execute a 35 man group to bust a 25 man gate camp. I would say 60 people is pretty massive for a somewhat impromptu camp bust.

There are no FAKE MMO players unless they say they play an MMO but havent.