568 réponses à ce sujet

[sympathyforsaren]

tj987654321 wrote...

I took this from my Mass Effect 3 Demo FAQ Posting

Why shouldn't BF3 purchasers get early access to the multiplayer demo? It is only there to garner interest for the Mass Effect series. I think this is a wise move on EA's behalf, because it shows that they know how to properly market a game. By giving BF3 purchasers an "prestigious" bonus of early multiplayer ME 3 access, there is a far greater chance that they will get into the series.

Also, while they haven't been announced yet, there are other alternatives to gain early access without having to purchase something. This gives fans such as us to participate in the multiplayer demo too. So I do not see why there are so many complaints about EA being disloyal to its fans. If you are a true fan of the Mass Effect series; while you may be interested in the new co-op feature; you are really here to enjoy a fulling single player experience. On the other hand, if you are a Battlefield fan and a newcomer to ME, you would most likely be far more interested in the new multiplayer aspects of Mass Effect 3 than the singleplayer aspects. However, as these types of fans play the multiplayer demo, they may become even more interested in the singleplayer storyline.

In short, if BioWare and EA execute this marketing strategy perfectly, Mass Effect 3 is going to have a hell of a lot more players! (I am not demeaning the popularity of the Mass Effect series; I am just saying that this game can stand to gain an even bigger fan base with the inclusion of multiplayer.)

Oh, and for the minotity of fans here that believe that ME 3 will be less popular due to multiplayer, ask yourself this question: "If at restarant, you planned on purchasing a hamburger; would you still buy the same hamburger if it came with a free drink due to a promotion?

Next time you don't want something on your hamburger, maybe the waiter will tell you "its optional" and walk away, leaving you to pick it out.

And wow. That new fanbase you wont get, even if they were obtained, will offer up an even greater slew of changes. See ya, romances. Goodbye, any form of stat. See you later, complex storyline.

[C9316]

Well I think we're getting nowhere here. Neither side is willing to budge, how about we just agree to disagree and move on?

[dreman9999]

Il Divo wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Vegos wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Vegos wrote...

Oh, and for the minotity of fans here that believe that ME 3 will be less popular due to multiplayer, ask yourself this question: "If at restarant, you planned on purchasing a hamburger; would you still buy the same hamburger if it came with a free drink due to a promotion?

If it was a drink I do not like I'd say "Lose the drink and charge me the drink's worth less".

But the drink is free. You can just not drink it.

I still don't want it, and if they can afford to hand it out for free, they can afford to reduce the price of the rest of my purchae by the drink's value, and hand my drink out for free to someone else.

Obviously it would never happen, but I'd be good with this approach. Features I don't enjoy/don't plan on using end up depreciating my game's value, in comparison to other products.

Then your only speaking for yourself.<_<

I would assume in making any post that I'm typically speaking for my own preferences. If multiplayer can be avoided altogether, I would gladly pay $10 less for a copy of ME3 with no multiplayer contained. However, I'm also aware that the world really doesn't work like that, despite my wishes.

But that's not the case. Mp does not make the game cost more to have it. It's not even a full mp mode. Your not being chargeg more for it. You getting the same ammout of content as the  last 2 games an more as this game at the same price, not including the mp in the equation.

[Blazenor]

The fact is the multiplayer effects the single player in an optional way and vice versa, I don't see what the disagreement is.

[AtreiyaN7]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

It's both sad and funny that some people don't seem to understand that "optional" and "affects the singleplayer game in bad ways" are not mutually exlcusive.

Affecting the single-player campaign in bad ways is an assumption that some people are making without any actual evidence to back it up, and it usually includes the use of the bugaboo of "wasted resources" that they feel should have/could have gone to the single-player game.

That's ignoring the fact that they had the Montreal team in place already. And honestly, it doesn't seem terribly sensible for BW to just up and decide halfway through, hey, let's just toss multiplayer in for the heck of it. One would assume that they had budgeted for the addition and that it required some planning. Based on all the MP previews, it doesn't seem like this effort would have taken all that much in the way of resources.

While some people can have a decentdiscussion about MP, the majority of people flailing around don't have any logical reasons or arguments other than "I don't like MP, keep it away from me."

[Killjoy Cutter]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

It's both sad and funny that some people don't seem to understand that "optional" and "affects the singleplayer game in bad ways" are not mutually exlcusive.

Affecting the single-player campaign in bad ways is an assumption that some people are making without any actual evidence to back it up, and it usually includes the use of the bugaboo of "wasted resources" that they feel should have/could have gone to the single-player game.

That's ignoring the fact that they had the Montreal team in place already. And honestly, it doesn't seem terribly sensible for BW to just up and decide halfway through, hey, let's just toss multiplayer in for the heck of it. One would assume that they had budgeted for the addition and that it required some planning. Based on all the MP previews, it doesn't seem like this effort would have taken all that much in the way of resources.

While some people can have a decentdiscussion about MP, the majority of people flailing around don't have any logical reasons or arguments other than "I don't like MP, keep it away from me."

There are at least as many assumptions on the part of the pro-MP posters, not least of which is that we can trust anything coming out of Bioware's collective pie hole at this point. 

EDIT:  POSSIBLE bad effects that have nothing to do with whether it's technically "optional", and nothing to do with whether any one particular player chooses to play MP at all. 

1)  Adjustment of SP progression to account for possible influx of benefits from MP play.
2)  Disk space used for MP content instead of additional SP content.
3)  Increased likelihood of Origin spyware being required even on installs from hardcopy
4)  Increased likelihood of anti-mod measures that affect SP content in blunderbus attempt to "protect" MP "fairness"
5)  Increased likelihood of being required to log in to play any content, not just MP. 
6)  Influx of dudebros and CoD-kiddies. 
7)  Etc, in case I'm forgetting any.  (typing this while waiting on reports to run at work)

And that doesn't count all the issues that SEEM to have been laid to rest by what we provisionally know but can't be certain of at this point.  For example, the differences between the setup of SP and the setup of MP seem to preclude the inevitable MP balance issues and crying players causing constant adjustments to SP gameplay.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 28 octobre 2011 - 07:20 .

[dreman9999]

sympathyforsaren wrote...

tj987654321 wrote...

I took this from my Mass Effect 3 Demo FAQ Posting

Why shouldn't BF3 purchasers get early access to the multiplayer demo? It is only there to garner interest for the Mass Effect series. I think this is a wise move on EA's behalf, because it shows that they know how to properly market a game. By giving BF3 purchasers an "prestigious" bonus of early multiplayer ME 3 access, there is a far greater chance that they will get into the series.

Also, while they haven't been announced yet, there are other alternatives to gain early access without having to purchase something. This gives fans such as us to participate in the multiplayer demo too. So I do not see why there are so many complaints about EA being disloyal to its fans. If you are a true fan of the Mass Effect series; while you may be interested in the new co-op feature; you are really here to enjoy a fulling single player experience. On the other hand, if you are a Battlefield fan and a newcomer to ME, you would most likely be far more interested in the new multiplayer aspects of Mass Effect 3 than the singleplayer aspects. However, as these types of fans play the multiplayer demo, they may become even more interested in the singleplayer storyline.

In short, if BioWare and EA execute this marketing strategy perfectly, Mass Effect 3 is going to have a hell of a lot more players! (I am not demeaning the popularity of the Mass Effect series; I am just saying that this game can stand to gain an even bigger fan base with the inclusion of multiplayer.)

Oh, and for the minotity of fans here that believe that ME 3 will be less popular due to multiplayer, ask yourself this question: "If at restarant, you planned on purchasing a hamburger; would you still buy the same hamburger if it came with a free drink due to a promotion?

Next time you don't want something on your hamburger, maybe the waiter will tell you "its optional" and walk away, leaving you to pick it out.

And wow. That new fanbase you wont get, even if they were obtained, will offer up an even greater slew of changes. See ya, romances. Goodbye, any form of stat. See you later, complex storyline.

Wow what a lack of perpective. You example is not the same case, you payed for the hambergur, you get what you a want. The mp is like a free drink.
Also, more thing were add to ME3 because of the deal the mp caused. We have homsexual romance now....So it not a point of getting less in the sp.

[tj987654321]

sympathyforsaren wrote...

tj987654321 wrote...

I took this from my Mass Effect 3 Demo FAQ Posting

Why shouldn't BF3 purchasers get early access to the multiplayer demo? It is only there to garner interest for the Mass Effect series. I think this is a wise move on EA's behalf, because it shows that they know how to properly market a game. By giving BF3 purchasers an "prestigious" bonus of early multiplayer ME 3 access, there is a far greater chance that they will get into the series.

Also, while they haven't been announced yet, there are other alternatives to gain early access without having to purchase something. This gives fans such as us to participate in the multiplayer demo too. So I do not see why there are so many complaints about EA being disloyal to its fans. If you are a true fan of the Mass Effect series; while you may be interested in the new co-op feature; you are really here to enjoy a fulling single player experience. On the other hand, if you are a Battlefield fan and a newcomer to ME, you would most likely be far more interested in the new multiplayer aspects of Mass Effect 3 than the singleplayer aspects. However, as these types of fans play the multiplayer demo, they may become even more interested in the singleplayer storyline.

In short, if BioWare and EA execute this marketing strategy perfectly, Mass Effect 3 is going to have a hell of a lot more players! (I am not demeaning the popularity of the Mass Effect series; I am just saying that this game can stand to gain an even bigger fan base with the inclusion of multiplayer.)

Oh, and for the minotity of fans here that believe that ME 3 will be less popular due to multiplayer, ask yourself this question: "If at restarant, you planned on purchasing a hamburger; would you still buy the same hamburger if it came with a free drink due to a promotion?

Next time you don't want something on your hamburger, maybe the waiter will tell you "its optional" and walk away, leaving you to pick it out.

And wow. That new fanbase you wont get, even if they were obtained, will offer up an even greater slew of changes. See ya, romances. Goodbye, any form of stat. See you later, complex storyline.

I didn't say anything about a new fanbase; I said a "BIGGER" fanbase. I know it is sometimes hard to understand, but people can enjoy more than one type of gerne. For example, I love playing FPS and TPS games with friends, but I also enjoy individual RPG experiences such as Mass Effect and Fallout.

What would happen if you were able to combine these elements together to get fans from both groups without affecting the individual game elements? That is what is being attempted with ME 3. It is projected to have the same quality in singleplayer gameplay, and also have a completely individual multiplayer co-op aspect. If neither gerne is affected, I see this as a "win win" situation.

[onelifecrisis]

C9316 wrote...

Well I think we're getting nowhere here. Neither side is willing to budge, how about we just agree to disagree and move on?

lol

[sympathyforsaren]

dreman9999 wrote...

sympathyforsaren wrote...

tj987654321 wrote...

I took this from my Mass Effect 3 Demo FAQ Posting

Why shouldn't BF3 purchasers get early access to the multiplayer demo? It is only there to garner interest for the Mass Effect series. I think this is a wise move on EA's behalf, because it shows that they know how to properly market a game. By giving BF3 purchasers an "prestigious" bonus of early multiplayer ME 3 access, there is a far greater chance that they will get into the series.

Also, while they haven't been announced yet, there are other alternatives to gain early access without having to purchase something. This gives fans such as us to participate in the multiplayer demo too. So I do not see why there are so many complaints about EA being disloyal to its fans. If you are a true fan of the Mass Effect series; while you may be interested in the new co-op feature; you are really here to enjoy a fulling single player experience. On the other hand, if you are a Battlefield fan and a newcomer to ME, you would most likely be far more interested in the new multiplayer aspects of Mass Effect 3 than the singleplayer aspects. However, as these types of fans play the multiplayer demo, they may become even more interested in the singleplayer storyline.

In short, if BioWare and EA execute this marketing strategy perfectly, Mass Effect 3 is going to have a hell of a lot more players! (I am not demeaning the popularity of the Mass Effect series; I am just saying that this game can stand to gain an even bigger fan base with the inclusion of multiplayer.)

Oh, and for the minotity of fans here that believe that ME 3 will be less popular due to multiplayer, ask yourself this question: "If at restarant, you planned on purchasing a hamburger; would you still buy the same hamburger if it came with a free drink due to a promotion?

Next time you don't want something on your hamburger, maybe the waiter will tell you "its optional" and walk away, leaving you to pick it out.

And wow. That new fanbase you wont get, even if they were obtained, will offer up an even greater slew of changes. See ya, romances. Goodbye, any form of stat. See you later, complex storyline.

Wow what a lack of perpective. You example is not the same case, you payed for the hambergur, you get what you a want. The mp is like a free drink.
Also, more thing were add to ME3 because of the deal the mp caused. We have homsexual romance now....So it not a point of getting less in the sp.

I disagree.

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

It's both sad and funny that some people don't seem to understand that "optional" and "affects the singleplayer game in bad ways" are not mutually exlcusive.

Affecting the single-player campaign in bad ways is an assumption that some people are making without any actual evidence to back it up, and it usually includes the use of the bugaboo of "wasted resources" that they feel should have/could have gone to the single-player game.

That's ignoring the fact that they had the Montreal team in place already. And honestly, it doesn't seem terribly sensible for BW to just up and decide halfway through, hey, let's just toss multiplayer in for the heck of it. One would assume that they had budgeted for the addition and that it required some planning. Based on all the MP previews, it doesn't seem like this effort would have taken all that much in the way of resources.

While some people can have a decentdiscussion about MP, the majority of people flailing around don't have any logical reasons or arguments other than "I don't like MP, keep it away from me."

There are at least as many assumptions on the part of the pro-MP posters, not least of which is that we can trust anything coming out of Bioware's collective pie hole at this point. 

Oh YES. They are lieing about everything in this game.... It's really a space channel 9 all male danceing game and it looks like this....

Clearly, bioware is the very definition of scum and villiany.

[Phaedon]

sympathyforsaren wrote...
Next time you don't want something on your hamburger, maybe the waiter will tell you "its optional" and walk away, leaving you to pick it out.

Next time you enter a Burger King, don't be the standard-filled-with-entitlement-customer who demands a cheeseburger without a cheese. If you don't like something that is on the menu, you can:

a) Just remove it, like a normal person.

Not buy it, even if you like it, which is only reasonable if your burger has something that spoils the rest of the contents (like a sauce).

At no point are you given the option to be the typical d*ck to the poor guy who makes it.

If you want to talk fast-food, co-op in this case is like the small bunch of potatoes that they serve with your meal, which you can ignore if you wish.

And wow. That new fanbase you wont get, even if they were obtained, will offer up an even greater slew of changes. See ya, romances. Goodbye, any form of stat. See you later, complex storyline.

Anyone who likes co-op doesn't like romances, deep statistical progression or a complex storyline?

Would you mind explaining this, or accepting that it's just inflammatory insults to parts of the gaming community that you don't share the same interests with? 

[dreman9999]

sympathyforsaren wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

sympathyforsaren wrote...

tj987654321 wrote...

I took this from my Mass Effect 3 Demo FAQ Posting

Why shouldn't BF3 purchasers get early access to the multiplayer demo? It is only there to garner interest for the Mass Effect series. I think this is a wise move on EA's behalf, because it shows that they know how to properly market a game. By giving BF3 purchasers an "prestigious" bonus of early multiplayer ME 3 access, there is a far greater chance that they will get into the series.

Also, while they haven't been announced yet, there are other alternatives to gain early access without having to purchase something. This gives fans such as us to participate in the multiplayer demo too. So I do not see why there are so many complaints about EA being disloyal to its fans. If you are a true fan of the Mass Effect series; while you may be interested in the new co-op feature; you are really here to enjoy a fulling single player experience. On the other hand, if you are a Battlefield fan and a newcomer to ME, you would most likely be far more interested in the new multiplayer aspects of Mass Effect 3 than the singleplayer aspects. However, as these types of fans play the multiplayer demo, they may become even more interested in the singleplayer storyline.

In short, if BioWare and EA execute this marketing strategy perfectly, Mass Effect 3 is going to have a hell of a lot more players! (I am not demeaning the popularity of the Mass Effect series; I am just saying that this game can stand to gain an even bigger fan base with the inclusion of multiplayer.)

Oh, and for the minotity of fans here that believe that ME 3 will be less popular due to multiplayer, ask yourself this question: "If at restarant, you planned on purchasing a hamburger; would you still buy the same hamburger if it came with a free drink due to a promotion?

Next time you don't want something on your hamburger, maybe the waiter will tell you "its optional" and walk away, leaving you to pick it out.

And wow. That new fanbase you wont get, even if they were obtained, will offer up an even greater slew of changes. See ya, romances. Goodbye, any form of stat. See you later, complex storyline.

Wow what a lack of perpective. You example is not the same case, you payed for the hambergur, you get what you a want. The mp is like a free drink.
Also, more thing were add to ME3 because of the deal the mp caused. We have homsexual romance now....So it not a point of getting less in the sp.

I disagree.

So your say we did not get homosexula romance because of the delay, even though they stated before we are not getting it?

[Blazenor]

tj987654321 wrote...

sympathyforsaren wrote...

tj987654321 wrote...

I took this from my Mass Effect 3 Demo FAQ Posting

Why shouldn't BF3 purchasers get early access to the multiplayer demo? It is only there to garner interest for the Mass Effect series. I think this is a wise move on EA's behalf, because it shows that they know how to properly market a game. By giving BF3 purchasers an "prestigious" bonus of early multiplayer ME 3 access, there is a far greater chance that they will get into the series.

Also, while they haven't been announced yet, there are other alternatives to gain early access without having to purchase something. This gives fans such as us to participate in the multiplayer demo too. So I do not see why there are so many complaints about EA being disloyal to its fans. If you are a true fan of the Mass Effect series; while you may be interested in the new co-op feature; you are really here to enjoy a fulling single player experience. On the other hand, if you are a Battlefield fan and a newcomer to ME, you would most likely be far more interested in the new multiplayer aspects of Mass Effect 3 than the singleplayer aspects. However, as these types of fans play the multiplayer demo, they may become even more interested in the singleplayer storyline.

In short, if BioWare and EA execute this marketing strategy perfectly, Mass Effect 3 is going to have a hell of a lot more players! (I am not demeaning the popularity of the Mass Effect series; I am just saying that this game can stand to gain an even bigger fan base with the inclusion of multiplayer.)

Oh, and for the minotity of fans here that believe that ME 3 will be less popular due to multiplayer, ask yourself this question: "If at restarant, you planned on purchasing a hamburger; would you still buy the same hamburger if it came with a free drink due to a promotion?

Next time you don't want something on your hamburger, maybe the waiter will tell you "its optional" and walk away, leaving you to pick it out.

And wow. That new fanbase you wont get, even if they were obtained, will offer up an even greater slew of changes. See ya, romances. Goodbye, any form of stat. See you later, complex storyline.

I didn't say anything about a new fanbase; I said a "BIGGER" fanbase. I know it is sometimes hard to understand, but people can enjoy more than one type of gerne. For example, I love playing FPS and TPS games with friends, but I also enjoy individual RPG experiences such as Mass Effect and Fallout.

What would happen if you were able to combine these elements together to get fans from both groups without affecting the individual game elements? That is what is being attempted with ME 3. It is projected to have the same quality in singleplayer gameplay, and also have a completely individual multiplayer co-op aspect. If neither gerne is affected, I see this as a "win win" situation.

Players who play FPS won't buy ME3 for the MP.

[Vegos]

dreman9999 wrote...

So your say we did not get homosexula romance because of the delay, even though they stated before we are not getting it?

Nice strawman.

I didn't see him saying that. He actually never said it.

Modifié par Vegos, 28 octobre 2011 - 07:15 .

[Cutlass Jack]

tj987654321 wrote...

Oh, and for the minotity of fans here that believe that ME 3 will be less popular due to multiplayer, ask yourself this question: "If at restarant, you planned on purchasing a hamburger; would you still buy the same hamburger if it came with a free drink due to a promotion?

Are you making up your own arguements to defeat? Its not a question of popularity, but rather quality. If a restaurant gave you a lesser quality hamburger for the same price so that it could afford to include a 'free' drink, would you enjoy your meal as much?

No matter how you feel about multiplayer, its still resources that could have been used to make the single player campaign even better. That its 'another studio' doesn't change that at all. They could have just as easily been used on some other grunt task on the single player game so that something else could have been done better by the main team.

If given a choice between every possible squadmate being able to return in ME3 as a full time squaddie and multiplayer, how many would really choose the latter? Or MP vs. more random conversations with your squad and crew?

Remember all those fun chats we had with our non-squad crew in ME2? Those were last minute additions done by people who weren't the main game designers. Something they wouldn't have had time to do if they were tied up with an optional multiplayer feature. As it was, they barely made it in.

Modifié par Cutlass Jack, 28 octobre 2011 - 07:18 .

[C9316]

sympathyforsaren wrote...
 That new fanbase you wont get, even if they were obtained, will offer up an even greater slew of changes. See ya, romances. Goodbye, any form of stat. See you later, complex storyline.

I just want to point out this nice form of hyperbole.

[Il Divo]

dreman9999 wrote...

But that's not the case. Mp does not make the game cost more to have it. It's not even a full mp mode. Your not being chargeg more for it. You getting the same ammout of content as the  last 2 games an more as this game at the same price, not including the mp in the equation.

That's exactly the case. In charging me $60 for this experience, the sum total results in features I don't want. You're assuming that multiplayer is some free extra and at this point in time don't have grounds to say how much content I'm getting compared to the last two games, or the quality of the overall experience. Game prices are typically stable at release from $50-$60.

Even going back to your McDonald's example. If I get a free drink, which I don't want, if given the choice, I'd rather tell them "hey, keep the drink and knock off a buck".  I'd gladly take that option, which unfortunately doesn't exist.

Modifié par Il Divo, 28 octobre 2011 - 07:20 .

[tj987654321]

Blazenor; I appreciate your opinion, but that is not what I am saying. I AM saying that the multiplayer aspects can be a partial incentive for FPS players who also enjoy RPGs.

[Phaedon]

Il Divo wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

But that's not the case. Mp does not make the game cost more to have it. It's not even a full mp mode. Your not being chargeg more for it. You getting the same ammout of content as the  last 2 games an more as this game at the same price, not including the mp in the equation.

That's exactly the case. In charging me $60 for this experience, the sum total results in features I don't want. You're assuming that multiplayer is some free extra and at this point in time don't have grounds to say how much content I'm getting compared to the last two games, or the quality of the overall experience. Game prices are typically stable at release from $50-$60.

Even going back to your McDonald's example. If I get a free drink, which I don't want, if given the choice, I'd rather tell them "hey, keep the drink and knock off a buck".  I'd gladly take that option, which unfortunately doesn't exist.

But, Il Divo.

What are you talking about. That free soda makes the tray much more difficult to carry, and I would have rather the effort put into preparing the free soda was instead invested on making my hamburger more delicious.

[Vegos]

Phaedon wrote...


What are you talking about. That free soda makes the tray much more difficult to carry, and I would have rather the effort put into preparing the free soda was instead invested on making my hamburger more delicious.

That's exactly it.

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

There are at least as many assumptions on the part of the pro-MP posters, not least of which is that we can trust anything coming out of Bioware's collective pie hole at this point. 

Oh YES. They are lieing about everything in this game.... It's really a space channel 9 all male danceing game and it looks like this

Your pathetic and failed attempt to belittle and demean anyone who realizes that Bioware has shown themselves to be untrustworthy clearly demonstrates your lack of any actual rebutal or counter.  Thank you. 

[Il Divo]

Phaedon wrote...

But, Il Divo.

What are you talking about. That free soda makes the tray much more difficult to carry, and I would have rather the effort put into preparing the free soda was instead invested on making my hamburger more delicious.

You got me Phaedon. I don't have a rebuttal for ya'.

[Phaedon]

Vegos wrote...

Phaedon wrote...


What are you talking about. That free soda makes the tray much more difficult to carry, and I would have rather the effort put into preparing the free soda was instead invested on making my hamburger more delicious.

That's exactly it.

I was being absolutely sarcastic. Be shameful, please.

EDIT: Especially for you thinking that the guy or gal who prepares the soda can somehow alter the concentrations of the natural ingredients of the meat to make it more delicious.

Modifié par Phaedon, 28 octobre 2011 - 07:26 .

[AtreiyaN7]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

It's both sad and funny that some people don't seem to understand that "optional" and "affects the singleplayer game in bad ways" are not mutually exlcusive.

Affecting the single-player campaign in bad ways is an assumption that some people are making without any actual evidence to back it up, and it usually includes the use of the bugaboo of "wasted resources" that they feel should have/could have gone to the single-player game.

That's ignoring the fact that they had the Montreal team in place already. And honestly, it doesn't seem terribly sensible for BW to just up and decide halfway through, hey, let's just toss multiplayer in for the heck of it. One would assume that they had budgeted for the addition and that it required some planning. Based on all the MP previews, it doesn't seem like this effort would have taken all that much in the way of resources.

While some people can have a decentdiscussion about MP, the majority of people flailing around don't have any logical reasons or arguments other than "I don't like MP, keep it away from me."

There are at least as many assumptions on the part of the pro-MP posters, not least of which is that we can trust anything coming out of Bioware's collective pie hole at this point. 

And I'm not "trusting" them. I read the hands-on previews, and the details from those hands-on previews seem to indicate that co-op gameplay is relatively simple. As described in the previews, if you choose to play co-op, what happens is that you can import your character into the main single-player campaign as a GR-related war asset (if I understand that correctly).

The description of the co-op gameplay was very clear: horde-style maps involving surviving waves with simple objectives and no story/dialogue. So for those who have claimed that they're somehow going to miss out on content due to their personal pecadilloes involving MP, they're clearly NOT going to be missing out on story content, dialogue or anything all that exciting as far as anyone can tell right now.