219 réponses à ce sujet

[Xewaka]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Half-Life, Half-Life 2 and Minecraft all come with strong multiplayer support and did so from day 1. You cannot say that they are single-player only games without being disingenuous. A large number of Half-Life's continued sales came because people wanted to play Counter-Strike, which was the most-played multiplayer game online for years.

I didn't say they were single player only. That doesn't deny the fact that the original drive of the game was the single player. Consider the critical praise Half-Life and Half-life 2 continue to garner through their narrative method. The fact that the option of multiplayer exist doesn't discredit the argument that those are mainly solo experiences.
Even admitting that the majority of Half-Life sales were due to Counter-Strike (which may or may not be true) it is accurate to state that Half-Life 2 and Minecraft are, mostly, single player experiences, even if they do allow for multiplayer. After all, of those counter as multiplayer several had elaborate single player campaigns, yet I didn't count them as single player.

Modifié par Xewaka, 27 septembre 2012 - 02:40 .

[LiquidGrape]

greengoron89 wrote...

LiquidGrape wrote...

If you read his statement in a more elaborate context without putting a very particular slant on the discourse, you'll find that what he proposes is actually fundamentally no different from PC-darling Valve's policies.

They wish to provide a service.
Although when it's EA providing it, it is apparently an evil service.

If the shoe fits...

No, really - coming from the same company whose CEO thought charging people money to reload their guns in Battlefield would be perfectly acceptable, it does make one question the motivation and intent behind these so-called "services" they wish to provide.

EA brought its negative reputation on themselves - don't chastise the player base for calling it like they see it.

I reserve the right to chastise the player base when it willfully distorts the debate for its own interests. Just as I reserve the right to chastise big publishers when they do the  same.

With regards to Riccitiello's statements, while I think they are absolutely morally abject (although I wouldn't rule out the 'pay to reload' system being little more than a knowing hyperbole for the sake of argument), there's no denying that he's got a point. The average online gamer seems perfectly willing to consume whatever shred of DLC is pumped out, and until there is some clear indication that players en masse object to this practice, the current microtransaction-model is going to remain.
The AAA industry, as it exists today, needs that money. Do you think they will willingly abstain from that income when they have telemetry telling them to sell more content?
Personally I think a number of mutual concessions need to be made in order to resolve that conflict, but both sides seem adamant in sticking to their story.

At any rate, all of that aside, what I wished to address originally was that the OP suggested Gibeau states he was "proud" to not have "green lit one game to be developed as a single-player experience."
First of all, two separate comments were conflated for no justifiable reason. Secondly, this turned out to be false, as Gibeau (not Riccitiello, you might notice) advocated a platform wherein the player has ready access to content and social components; not to be equated with a tacked-on multiplayer component for every conceivable product.

You might agree or disagree with that idea. Water off my back. But I prefer it when people bother to read up rather than simply reaffirm their bias.

Modifié par LiquidGrape, 27 septembre 2012 - 02:49 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Xewaka wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Half-Life, Half-Life 2 and Minecraft all come with strong multiplayer support and did so from day 1. You cannot say that they are single-player only games without being disingenuous. A large number of Half-Life's continued sales came because people wanted to play Counter-Strike, which was the most-played multiplayer game online for years.

I didn't say they were single player only. That doesn't deny the fact that the original drive of the game was the single player. Consider the critical praise Half-Life and Half-life 2 continue to garner through their narrative method. The fact that the option of multiplayer exist doesn't discredit the argument that those are mainly solo experiences.

I find it disingenuous in a thread about a quote that's taken out of context to purposely exclude large portions of out-of-the-box gameplay simply because it doesn't support your point.

You're making assumptions about "the original drive" and "the reason for the sales" without any evidence. Many of my friends bought Half-Life and barely touched the single player game. They got it for TFC and Counter-Strike, and the number of hours they spent playing those two positively dwarfs the time spent in the single player game. The multiplayer component to Counter-Strike was so popular that Valve bought the IP from Gooseman, the original developer.

The only way to be absolutely certain that multiplayer is not a major factor is to only count those games that don't have a multiplayer aspect at all (the sims, myst, sim city), and not selectively apply your standard of 'single player' and 'multi player' in a biased fashion. Otherwise, you're just being intellectually dishonest.

[Xewaka]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Half-Life, Half-Life 2 and Minecraft all come with strong multiplayer support and did so from day 1. You cannot say that they are single-player only games without being disingenuous. A large number of Half-Life's continued sales came because people wanted to play Counter-Strike, which was the most-played multiplayer game online for years.

I didn't say they were single player only. That doesn't deny the fact that the original drive of the game was the single player. Consider the critical praise Half-Life and Half-life 2 continue to garner through their narrative method. The fact that the option of multiplayer exist doesn't discredit the argument that those are mainly solo experiences.

I find it disingenuous in a thread about a quote that's taken out of context to purposely exclude large portions of out-of-the-box gameplay simply because it doesn't support your point.
You're making assumptions about "the original drive" and "the reason for the sales" without any evidence. Many of my friends bought Half-Life and barely touched the single player game. They got it for TFC and Counter-Strike, and the number of hours they spent playing those two positively dwarfs the time spent in the single player game. The multiplayer component to Counter-Strike was so popular that Valve bought the IP from Gooseman, the original developer.
The only way to be absolutely certain that multiplayer is not a major factor is to only count those games that don't have a multiplayer aspect at all (the sims, myst, sim city), and not selectively apply your standard of 'single player' and 'multi player' in a biased fashion. Otherwise, you're just being intellectually dishonest.

You didn't object to my presentation of Scarcraft and Diablo 3 as multiplayer, despite both having a long (+30 hours long in Starcraft, haven't played Diablo 3, but I will assume it is similar to basic Diablo 2 in length) single player campaign. I might be extrapolating from most critics' approach, as most will speak at length of Half-Life revolution in inmersive narrative paying just lip service to the multiplayer. And the fact that Counter-Strike was a user-created mod, which took a rise in popularity (similar to how DayZ drove Arma 2 sales), I'm confident to say that Half-Life's original focus was more in the single player.

Modifié par Xewaka, 27 septembre 2012 - 03:01 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Xewaka wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Half-Life, Half-Life 2 and Minecraft all come with strong multiplayer support and did so from day 1. You cannot say that they are single-player only games without being disingenuous. A large number of Half-Life's continued sales came because people wanted to play Counter-Strike, which was the most-played multiplayer game online for years.

I didn't say they were single player only. That doesn't deny the fact that the original drive of the game was the single player. Consider the critical praise Half-Life and Half-life 2 continue to garner through their narrative method. The fact that the option of multiplayer exist doesn't discredit the argument that those are mainly solo experiences.

I find it disingenuous in a thread about a quote that's taken out of context to purposely exclude large portions of out-of-the-box gameplay simply because it doesn't support your point.
You're making assumptions about "the original drive" and "the reason for the sales" without any evidence. Many of my friends bought Half-Life and barely touched the single player game. They got it for TFC and Counter-Strike, and the number of hours they spent playing those two positively dwarfs the time spent in the single player game. The multiplayer component to Counter-Strike was so popular that Valve bought the IP from Gooseman, the original developer.
The only way to be absolutely certain that multiplayer is not a major factor is to only count those games that don't have a multiplayer aspect at all (the sims, myst, sim city), and not selectively apply your standard of 'single player' and 'multi player' in a biased fashion. Otherwise, you're just being intellectually dishonest.

You didn't object to my presentation of Scarcraft and Diablo 3 as multiplayer, despite both having a long (+30 hours long in Starcraft, haven't played Diablo 3, but I will assume it is similar to basic Diablo 2 in length) single player campaign. I might be extrapolating from most critics' approach, as most will speak at length of Half-Life revolution in inmersive narrative paying just lip service to the multiplayer. And the fact that both TFC and Counter-Strike are user-created mods, which took a rise in popularity (similar to how DayZ drove Arma 2 sales), I'm confident to say that Half-Life's original focus was more in the single player.

It's really quite simple. The thread isn't about multi or single player focus. It's about whether multiplayer/social/online components should be included. That's what Gibeau's quote is about. That's what the thread is about. He refuses to green light a game that is simply sold and forgotten. EA requires games to have some sort of online component, in order to continue to provide its players a service. Multiplayer is one of those inroads. DLC support, leaderboards, etc. are others. DA2 qualified for the mandate, which really should show how loose the requirements are.

And yet here you are, trying to apply your criteria for "what is single player focused vs what is multi player focused" to actual data and interpreting it that way. You're either discussing a point that's at best tangentially relevant (What you think multiplayer and single player focus is), or at worst purposely misinterpreting the topic (Gibeau sucks because he said something he did not actually say).

[Xewaka]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
It's really quite simple. The thread isn't about multi or single player focus. It's about whether multiplayer/social/online components should be included. That's what Gibeau's quote is about. That's what the thread is about. He refuses to green light a game that is simply sold and forgotten. EA requires games to have some sort of online component, in order to continue to provide its players a service. Multiplayer is one of those inroads. DLC support, leaderboards, etc. are others. DA2 qualified for the mandate, which really should show how loose the requirements are.
And yet here you are, trying to apply your criteria for "what is single player focused vs what is multi player focused" to actual data and interpreting it that way. You're either discussing a point that's at best tangentially relevant (What you think multiplayer and single player focus is), or at worst purposely misinterpreting the topic (Gibeau sucks because he said something he did not actually say).

You know what? You're right with your first option. I misinterpreted and argument another poster made earlier and tried rebuke that point, and launched on a tangent discussion that while interesting to have at some point, is not the primary directive of this thread.
So I'll bow out.

[Brockololly]

Xewaka wrote...
You didn't object to my presentation of Scarcraft and Diablo 3 as multiplayer, despite both having a long (+30 hours long in Starcraft, haven't played Diablo 3, but I will assume it is similar to basic Diablo 2 in length) single player campaign.

Despite Blizzard pushing the online coop stuff with Diablo 3, they recently made note that only a minority of users actually use online coop and that "playing solo is the clear choice."

hoorayforicecream wrote...
It's  about whether multiplayer/social/online components should be included. That's what Gibeau's quote is about. That's what the thread is about.  He refuses to green light a game that is simply sold and forgotten.  EA requires games to have some sort of online component, in order to  continue to provide its players a service. Multiplayer is one of those  inroads. DLC support, leaderboards, etc. are others. DA2 qualified for  the mandate, which really should show how loose the requirements are.

Sure, DA2 seemingly met those requirements, but if you look at just about any other EA game that has come out since then or is slated to come out in the near future, they all have some sort of online coop or competitive multiplayer mode. DA2 seems like an anomoly in that regard. So in light of that, its fine that EA wants to do something to extend the life of a game but you look at their recent track record and it mosty comes down to coop or multiplayer modes. Whereas you can look at something like Skyrim, a single player game through and through almost one year post release, and it routinely has upwards of 20,000 people playing it on Steam daily, almost as much as most other multiplayer games like Torchlight 2 or Call of Duty 3's multiplayer. Why is that? There is probably some value in investigating that sort of thing as opposed to simply tacking on MP modes that may or may not make much sense for a given franchise.

Modifié par Brockololly, 27 septembre 2012 - 03:53 .

[Addai]

LiquidGrape wrote...

If you read his statement in a more elaborate context without putting a very particular slant on the discourse, you'll find that what he proposes is actually fundamentally no different from PC-darling Valve's policies.

They wish to provide a service.
Although when it's EA providing it, it is apparently an evil service.

If you've been following the thread, we already discussed his "clarification" and how it is worse.  Because he's basically saying all games should be an MMO.  To quote the article at your link:

"What I'm saying is if you're going do it, do it with an open-world game
that's a connected experience where you can actually see other players,
you can co-operate, you can compete and it can be social."

Basically, that makes me want to puke.  It's not comparable to Valve, at least for me, because I've never played any game made by Valve.  However Steam is my main digital platform.

[Addai]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
It's really quite simple. The thread isn't about multi or single player focus. It's about whether multiplayer/social/online components should be included. That's what Gibeau's quote is about. That's what the thread is about. He refuses to green light a game that is simply sold and forgotten.

Sold and forgotten, eh?  That's how you would characterize the single-player games that continue to inspire legendary devotion even a decade or more after they came out?  No one, absolutely no one, is objecting to the idea of substantive post-release content.  To say that Gibeau is misunderstood and what he really means is that is just misleading.  He got a chance to clarify his comments, and it's obvious from his clarification that that is not what he's talking about.

[PaulSX]

Addai67 wrote...

LiquidGrape wrote...

If you read his statement in a more elaborate context without putting a very particular slant on the discourse, you'll find that what he proposes is actually fundamentally no different from PC-darling Valve's policies.

They wish to provide a service.
Although when it's EA providing it, it is apparently an evil service.

If you've been following the thread, we already discussed his "clarification" and how it is worse.  Because he's basically saying all games should be an MMO.  To quote the article at your link:

"What I'm saying is if you're going do it, do it with an open-world game
that's a connected experience where you can actually see other players,
you can co-operate, you can compete and it can be social."

Basically, that makes me want to puke.  It's not comparable to Valve, at least for me, because I've never played any game made by Valve.  However Steam is my main digital platform.

How it's not comparable to Valve? Valve wants everyone to be connected on Steam and EA wants the exact same thing, plus BSN basically had everyting you quoted.

[Addai]

suntzuxi wrote...
How it's not comparable to Valve? Valve wants everyone to be connected on Steam and EA wants the exact same thing, plus BSN basically had everyting you quoted.

How does Valve want "everybody to be connected"?  They give that functionality if you want it, with Steam chat or whatever.  I don't use any of those functions.  Steam for me is a cheap and convenient way to host my digital games- that's it.

[Cultist]

He is the reason we can't have good things...

[Gotholhorakh]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
It's really quite simple. The thread isn't about multi or single player focus. It's about whether multiplayer/social/online components should be included. That's what Gibeau's quote is about. That's what the thread is about. He refuses to green light a game that is simply sold and forgotten. EA requires games to have some sort of online component, in order to continue to provide its players a service.

...<_<

The way you put this is not hilarious, because EA is famous in its multiplayer/online endeavours for "not selling you a game and forgetting about it" and "continuing to provide its players a service".

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 27 septembre 2012 - 07:57 .

[TwylaFox]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
It's really quite simple. The thread isn't about multi or single player focus. It's about whether multiplayer/social/online components should be included. That's what Gibeau's quote is about. That's what the thread is about. He refuses to green light a game that is simply sold and forgotten. EA requires games to have some sort of online component, in order to continue to provide its players a service. Multiplayer is one of those inroads. DLC support, leaderboards, etc. are others. DA2 qualified for the mandate, which really should show how loose the requirements are.

And therein lies the rub...

Just look at Spec Ops: The Line.  The entire game was built up as an introspection to post-traumatic stress disorder and the philosophical issues of obligations to duty vs obligations to morality - which can ONLY be explored in a single-player format. Lead designer Cory Davis describes the multi-player he was forced to include as "a cancerous growth" and "the mechanics were raped to make it happen".  Pretty strong words to describe something he himself made.

Some games are specifically suited for multi-player.  Some games are specifically suited for single-player.  Some few games are suited to doing both equally well.  The nature of the individual game itself should determine what social and/or multi-player element are included - and abosolutely nothing else!

But a well-made game does its own promotion and doesn't need some tacked-on virus to try to do the job.  If someone makes Zombie Rainbow Apocalypse and the integrity of the core game itself is solid, people are going to search out DLC, sequels, and merchandise all on their own - even if it's single-player and wholly-offline. 

By the time they toss out Zombie Rainbow Apocalypse II - Manhattan Madness, they won't even need to advertise it.  Fans of the first game will dive on it without any hesitation, while others will buy it just to see what it is that their friends simply will not shut up about.

The game doesn't need to spam FaceBook/Twitter/IM/eMail/etc about everything a player does in a game.  If the game is worth its salt, they wouldn't be able to stop the player from doing so themselves!  Legitimate word-of-mouth has always been - and will always be - the strongest promotion any product can ever earn.

In comparison, a game which diverts efforts from single-player elements for multi-player elements (or vice-versa) will leave both aspects lacking and the game will flop.  If a title which is traditionally multi-player has the multi-player portion stripped down so they can include a single-player campaign, fans of the series are going to be pissed off about it - and rightfully so.

If the game itself constantly spams everyone the player knows, well....   The people receiving the spam are liable to block anything coming from that person.  Those people will also be prejudiced against ever trying the game for themselves.  And the person who started out playing the game will quit doing so because they want their friends back.  It's a lose-lose-lose proposition for everyone.

Modifié par TwylaFox, 27 septembre 2012 - 08:46 .

[Rockworm503]

Karlone123 wrote...

All gaming developers and publishers want to make money, gamer opinion depends on how well the game turns out and how the makers and publishers are portrayed in the media. They all want to make money, that's one of the reasons they went into business and not for the goodness of their heart.

We may dislike them for being or appearing to be greedy corporations that will sell lower-than-value games in order to gain profit. So no matter of gamer opinion, profit overules all.

Its really all in the attitude.  Who says you can't make money and be good to your customers at the same time?  In fact that seems like common sense to me but eh what do I know.
Apperantly the creator of McPixel made a torrent of his own game and posted himself on pirate websites saying "here's my paypal send money if you want"
Sounds like a greedy ************ to me:P

[Rockworm503]

xsdob wrote...

Naughty Bear wrote...

suntzuxi wrote...

since most people like multiplayer games, I guess major publishers can not do pure single player games from now on except for some big brands of course, even your beloved Valve was done with Single Player games. 

Difference between Valve and EA is that Valve attempt to make multiplayer good. EA just tack it on for the sake of it and for that simply amazing online pass.

How do they make multiplayer good? 

All they seem to do is make their fans make the dlc for them and than rake in all the profits. That and sell you hats.

Its fun and those hats aren't required to have the fun....

[Gatt9]

LiquidGrape wrote...

With regards to Riccitiello's statements, while I think they are absolutely morally abject (although I wouldn't rule out the 'pay to reload' system being little more than a knowing hyperbole for the sake of argument), there's no denying that he's got a point. The average online gamer seems perfectly willing to consume whatever shred of DLC is pumped out, and until there is some clear indication that players en masse object to this practice, the current microtransaction-model is going to remain.
The AAA industry, as it exists today, needs that money. Do you think they will willingly abstain from that income when they have telemetry telling them to sell more content?
Personally I think a number of mutual concessions need to be made in order to resolve that conflict, but both sides seem adamant in sticking to their story.

Consider for a moment,  where do the statements that DLC is widely accepted originate from?  In general,  that statement is originating from a Publisher,  or from someone whose research consisted of things the Publishers have said.  There's no real figures for it,  NPD doesn't track it.  So the Publisher can say it's as widely accepted as they like,  and no one can disprove it.

It's in the Publishers best interests to portray it as popular,  because that's the direction the Publisher wants the market to go.  They want to ala carte games into the smallest possible parts,  because the total sum of parts would be several times the normal retail cost of a game.

Further,  I'd argue that their telemetry isn't telling them to sell more content.  I'd argue that it's often telling them not to sell DLC. 

For instance:

-EA bragged about how successful ME3's Day 1 DLC was.  They trumpted how they had a 40% attach rate.  What they should've taken away from that,  what a good business person would have read in that,  is that more than 1 out of 2 people found the DLC to be unacceptable.  A good business person would have said "Wait...This means we're at risk of losing more than half of our customers because they don't feel we're providing a product with good value".  Especially with the backlash telling them "Quit cutting games into pieces and trying to sell it",  followed shortly by the Worst Company of the Year Award.

-Similiarly,  Capcom's titles this year have suffered horrible backlash due to disc locked content,  and one could theorize their weak sales are a direct result.

I'd argue that the telemetry is actually saying that this practice is alienating consumers,  and that Publishers in their hubris and greed,  thinking they can force Gamers to give them increasing amounts of money per title,  are being less than honest.

Because honestly,  look at them,  EA...Bethesda...they make announcements about Units Shipped routinely instead of Units Sold,  and never correct the websites when they misreport it.  So if they won't be honest about Units Sold then why should we expect them to be honest about DLC?

Modifié par Gatt9, 28 septembre 2012 - 02:58 .

[Addai]

They're padding more numbers than that, Gatt9. They bragged about DAO's DLC sales when some of us, at least, got the DLC free with purchase of a new game. They trumpeted how many members Origin had even though a good number of those were people who had old accounts with affiliates that all got absorbed into the Borg. A Bethesda dev tweeted that he got an email about his new Origin account, when he didn't request membership, and realized it was because he had once bought and registered an EA Sports game.

And I'm sure a lot of these interviews and press releases are desperate spin to keep shareholders from bolting due to the falling stock price.

[Allan Schumacher]

Xewaka wrote...
I didn't say they were single player only. That doesn't deny the fact that the original drive of the game was the single player. Consider the critical praise Half-Life and Half-life 2 continue to garner through their narrative method. The fact that the option of multiplayer exist doesn't discredit the argument that those are mainly solo experiences.
Even admitting that the majority of Half-Life sales were due to Counter-Strike (which may or may not be true) it is accurate to state that Half-Life 2 and Minecraft are, mostly, single player experiences, even if they do allow for multiplayer. After all, of those counter as multiplayer several had elaborate single player campaigns, yet I didn't count them as single player.

As someone that is a Half-Life fanboy, I have to adamantly disagree with respect to what was the primary driver in Half-Life.  The game's moddability, and relative ease of MP connectivity is a huge driver in the success of that game.  Even though it's a fantastic single player experience, there was absolutely no shortage of people playing the game online, whether with a mod or without, that cemented the game's position.

While I do agree that Half-Life 2 doesn't have any overtly obvious MP push that HL1 did, ironically I think a large part of Half-Life 2's success still comes from people that picked up Half-Life for Counterstrike and ended up finding a pretty darned good single player game associated with it.


Although that list was just the PC games, and since my original "say what" was in response to a person stating that the most successful games aren't MP games, I think I'll just leave it as it is.

[Allan Schumacher]

What they should've taken away from that, what a good business person would have read in that, is that more than 1 out of 2 people found the DLC to be unacceptable.

Sorry, you can't conclude that. This is seeing what you want to see.

By retrospect, I could just as easily (and faliciously) claim that since 60% of the people didn't bother with From Ashes, it's clear that the majority of people do NOT consider the Prothean to be "essential" to the storyline.


Neither you or I have any idea to the reasons why someone did not pick up the DLC. They could just as easily be like me and not pick it up because normally I'm just oblivious to it.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 28 septembre 2012 - 06:52 .

[Xewaka]

I believe the commentaries of Spec Ops: The Line creators could be relevant in this post.
Specifically, the part in the aftermath. Which I'll paste quoted here:

Against Davis' wishes, development on the multiplayer component proceeded and was farmed out to multiple studios before ending up at Darkside Studios. The result, according to Davis, was a "low-quality Call of Duty clone in third-person," which "tossed out the creative pillars of the product." "It sheds a negative light on all of the meaningful things we did in the single-player experience," Davis said. "The multiplayer game's tone is entirely different, the game mechanics were raped to make it happen, and it was a waste of money. No one is playing it, and I don't even feel like it's part of the overall package — it's another game rammed onto the disk like a cancerous growth, threatening to destroy the best things about the experience that the team at Yager put their heart and souls into creating."

Now. Does this mean that I am against Dragon Age 3 having multiplayer? No. However, considering the experience the creators of Spec Ops: The Line were trying to deliver (and the full article linked earlier explains it rather well) was diminished  by the addition of a social component (the creators' words, not mine), I do believe that said online component shouldn't be - cannot be - mandatory by the publisher.
If Mike Laidlaw, Mark Darrah, and the rest of the boys want to add multiplayer or any other kind of social component in a way that makes sense to them and that they believe would improve the overall quality of the game, I'm all for it. If they have to do it to fulfill a checklist (as is happened to the creators of Spec Ops: The Line with 2K), then Mr Gibeau can eat his words with a shoe plant. And yes, I do understand a social component can be as little as the character import feature of DA:O. But again, it should happen because it enriches the game experience of the player, not because of roundabout ways to enforce online components.

Modifié par Xewaka, 28 septembre 2012 - 10:27 .

[mesmerizedish]

[inappropriate comment removed]

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 29 septembre 2012 - 06:55 .

[Master Shiori]

Brockololly wrote...

Of course, he could be simply referring to games needing some sort of online connectivity like Autolog with Need For Speed or something of that nature, like how you can upload your character in Origins to BSN.

But yeah, I'm guessing this kind of attitude all but confirms coop or some sort of actual multiplayer mode in any future Dragon Age game.

It also makes me wonder what kind of good games have been potentially shot down by EA since they couldn't force MP into them. Hell, by Gibeau's standard, they wouldn't have done Skyrim since its SP only, yet has probably sold better than any BioWare game ever.

Online feature /= multiplayer

Every Bioware games from DA:O onward had some kind of online feature, ranging from simply uploading your achievements to BSN, to buying DLC directly from the game itself (ME2).

Saying they wouldn't have done Skyrim is beyond ridiculous. Skyrim already has online features in fom of achievements that are uploaded to Steam, same as any other game brought through that service. Had EA published it, it would have the same feature, only through Origin. Also, didn't Bethesda say something about adding multiplayer to Skyrim at some point?