"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.
SimCity 2013 online game ended the studio that made the PC games. They lost so much money they only have a mobile game now and City Skylines absolved their customers.
EA pushed the online only with SimCity:
https://www.polygon.com/2016/5/20/11722342/simcity-launch-ea-maxis-ocean-quigley
"The back end of it all, sort of, collapsing in flaming server rooms was, well — it feels a little bit like being somebody on a sinking ship, and you've done a really nice job on your part of it, but it doesn't matter," said Quigley. "It doesn't matter if you've made all these beautiful things, because the rest of the ship is exploding."
