"Ivyeyed;c-17611483" wrote:
I’ve gone on record before as being in favor of of well-implemented multiplayer that is small and with people you choose rather than MMO.
But as to why people are opposed? As far as I can tell it’s
1. They don’t trust EA to actually deliver this kind of functional multiplayer
2. They don’t actually know what this kind of multiplayer is. Instead mistaking all multiplayer for MMOs. Or other less savory or watered down experiences.
3. They don’t think their preference of deep and complex single-player experience can be delivered while allowing for multiplayer functionality.
Of those, imo, 1 is the only one that really makes sense. 2 displays a lack of imagination, and 3 just isn’t true. EA has plenty of money and resources. They could absolutely deliver a full deep impressive singleplayer that allowed multiplayer as a tertiary option if they wanted to. Not trusting them to actually do so is valid. But there’s nothing wrong with the idea conceptually.
Yes, EA has plenty of money and resources. They're just not willing to use them. The proof is in the packs. With the best predictor of future behavior being past behavior, it's most likely that they will not develop the impressive game you've outlined here.
As for the original question, I have a lot of the same reasons that other people have for not wanting to do multiplayer. Plus people seem to get upset enough about what other people have in their games, and they can't even see what other people do. Imagine how upset people will get when they can actually see what you're doing.
