210 réponses à ce sujet

[FKA_Servo]

Except there is not exploitation going on. Remember, people out to play the game for the story or gameplay or exploration or what not are indifferent to the multiplayer. If it was exploitation it would prevent them from finishing the story, or locking out story-based content. 

 

So it again likely doesn't register at all for them, hence the choice you propose for not buying into the service. At worst, it's just annoying. 

 

They're out to play the single player game. Why should content that only confers benefits in the single player mode only be achievable via multiplayer participation?

 

And again, at worst, they're being denied story outcomes and single player content by this. It's not just annoying, and the dragon decor is a good case in point. It's the sort of thing that might offer very substantial RP value to some players. There's a perfectly sensible way to get it in the single player game. And yet, it's locked behind multiplayer participation (which let's face it, is different enough from the SP game that there's a barrier to participation even assuming you want to do it and have access to it. You'd have to be very lucky to just hop right in and score a dragon kill on your first try), something that might be distasteful to the very players who want it the most, or might not be an option flat out for console players who see no need to pay monthly for MP game access.

 

We're just going to have to agree to disagree, because I don't think I can ever be convinced that this is a good idea, or even a defensible idea. I have no issues with MP interacting with the single player game, again. If it acts as simply an alternate avenue for SP progression, for grinding out EMS or influence or whatever, I think that's a fine idea. But if I can't achieve the same outcomes by playing SP content, no. I can't agree.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I would guess that most people with a XBox One have a Gold Account.

 

I think multiplayer missions where you could take your single player character in on strikes would be great. And also a horde mode. And competitive multiplayer. I know these things aren't necessarily what Mass Effect started as, but after what happened in ME3, the multiplayer was the only thing that kept me from trading in the game in March 2012 because it was fun.

 

I'd even allow weapon unlocks in multiplayer to be brought into the single player campaign, but not be required to get the best results in single player because there are equal quality weapons in the single player game. And there are weapons in the single player campaign that aren't in the multiplayer, and make them not crap either. This stuff all has to be play tested and balanced so that neither side has an overt advantage over the other, yet there is a subtle encouragement to play both. AND you can play only the single player campaign and get the best results. It can be done.

[Odintius]

If this leak turns out correct I wouldn't mind it it be a MP Solo option were you take your squad in with you or NPC's from MP to level them up. If friends are able to join in game any conversation ect, would be separate were it doesn't impact your world or vs if in there's. The other thing to consider the AI better be pretty dam good or very customizable, also the hold command I would like to see it were your squad actually hold there position increased or no matter the distance to execute ambushes better and increased enemies distances that they follow you also IMO.

As for the microtansaction's, I generally stay away from them personally I tend to like grinding at something anyways.

[AlanC9]

Just going by anecdotal experience but I'd say the number is much greater than 5%. Being a regular of the ME3MP section, I frequently hear comments from MP regulars that they would have never even tried the mode (and many were actively opposed to its inclusion just as people in this thread) without the way it being implemented encouraging them to try it. I don't have the data, only EA/Bioware does, but I'd be willing to bet that tying the two modes together resulted in gaining a significant profit and marketshare that they otherwise wouldn't have. The design decision wouldn't have been made otherwise.

Sure. The tracking data will tell the real story. I'm actually quite OK with believing that lots of people don't understand their real preferences, thanks in part to the truly crazy arguments I see here.

Moreover, assuming that you automatically lose goodwill from the people who don't try it is reaching a bit.

Clarification: you can also lose goodwill from people who did try it and disliked it; they're more likely to be bothered than the purely indifferent. Iakus has provided an example in this thread. The interesting thing is that the effect gets worse the stronger the incentive is. The Dragon Decor doesn't bother me because I'm not really interested in decor. Powerful weapons would actually disincentivize me since I find the games easy enough as it is. This makes the whole issue theoretical for me until Bio comes up with an incentive that I actually like, at which point I'll move into the "annoyed" camp. Just how annoyed would depend on how big the incentive was.

Most people who play the game for SP are probably indifferent. Looking at SP statistics for ME3, most players didn't even manage to get anything but the really bad endings, let alone getting anywhere close to the breath scene. It's likely they didn't even know or care how the TMS/EMS system worked. This few dozen regulars on this forum aren't representative of the mass opinions of the playerbase of Bioware games even in the slightest. Moreover, it doesn't seem this feature is actually causing even many of those people whom are vehemently opposed to not buy the games.

True. The downside probably can't be a lost sale unless the player was on the fence about the whole series anyway. But you could very well reduce SP DLC penetration. After all, you've just given an SP fan a bad gameplay experience.

[Quarian Master Race]

Not if I play on Xbox and don't have a gold account, they can't.

Sure they can. Get a gold account or learn to read the box and don't make poor decisions that could result in things they don't want.

Or, just play the game how they want and accept the loss of inconsequential content lost solely due to their personal preferences. The developer has no obligation to cater to every single minority, and indeed doing so is detrimental to both creative freedom and business.

 

And still... not everyone plays on PC or considers a elite account necessary for their gaming, so they couldn't play MP if they wanted to without shelling out further. This is a lousy thing to do when we're talking a single player game from a developer that's been making single player RPGs (and cultivating that fanbase) for the better part of two decades.

Single player mode, not single player game. I fail to see how other games that Bioware has made are relevant. I wouldn't buy A VW Passat and complain simply because the company used to only make Beetles and it isn't the same car.

Moreover, this ignores the fact that you are mischaracterizing the developer in the first place. Baldur's Gate games even had multiplayer. It isn't Bioware's fault that you have rather unreasonable expectations of what type of games they should make according to your personal preferences, expectations that don't match up with reality.
 

The Single player campaign is purely single player.  I shouldn't need a second player to unlock anything in it.

 

And I did try soloing the MP.  I didn't get far.  Which only added to my frustration.

It isn't insofar as multiplayer affects it. You can choose to ignore that content, but the singleplayer mode in either game is not purely singleplayer (as in only affected by use of that mode) by design.

However, you don't need a second player. The same player can play singleplayer and multiplayer to get all content in either mode if  they want it.

That's a more legitimate complaint if the difficulty of MP is higher than the lower ones in SP, but even then difficulty based content or achievements is nothing new in video games, or even unorthodox (easter eggs or special equipment tied to higher difficulty levels are quite common in my experience). Ultimately, I seriously doubt you've a physical or mental disablity that prevents you from getting what you want in either. Routine (or bronze in ME3's case) aren't overly difficult by the standards of an average player. Moreover, it seems the more rational and easily achievable suggestion for you to get what you want would be to simply include an easier difficulty, rather than demanding EA/Bioware to radically change their design vision or business objectives simply due to your preferences.

[KaiserShep]

However, when you go to the galaxy map, when you're at 100% galactic readiness you constantly get the message that "we're holding steady and winning in key sectors." Really?
 
Ah yes, I know. It's like 1944 and it's your Field Marshals telling The Fueher that the Russian Front is in fine shape. "We are launching an offensive that will push the enemy back to Moscow!" "That's not what's happening." "But he'll have us shot if we don't give him good news."

Well, that goes to the pointlessness of the galactic readiness. You can fight reapers and collectors (and even CERBERUS!) on earth all day long, yet Hammer is still reduced to 50% no matter what.

[Iakus]

 

It isn't insofar as multiplayer affects it. You can choose to ignore that content, but the singleplayer mode in either game is not purely singleplayer (as in only affected by use of that mode) by design.

However, you don't need a second player. The same player can play singleplayer and multiplayer to get all content in either mode if  they want it.

That's a more legitimate complaint if the difficulty of MP is higher than the lower ones in SP, but even then difficulty based content or achievements is nothing new in video games, or even unorthodox (easter eggs or special equipment tied to higher difficulty levels are quite common in my experience). Ultimately, I seriously doubt you've a physical or mental disablity that prevents you from getting what you want in either. Routine (or bronze in ME3's case) aren't overly difficult by the standards of an average player. Moreover, it seems the more rational and easily achievable suggestion for you to get what you want would be to simply include an easier difficulty, rather than demanding EA/Bioware to radically change their design vision or business objectives simply due to your preferences.

Pre-release they promised that no SP content would be locked behind MP.  Several different people said so, in fact.  Now I will have to take future promises of that with a very large grain of salt.

 

The "git gud" argument really isn't helpful/

 

But hey, if they had a MP map balanced for solo play, or with the ability to bring along AI companions, so that all content could be soloed by design, that would certainly be better, at least (as it its, the only DAMP content I could solo was the tutorial.  WHich is...not exactly an achievement.)

 

But you know what would be a really awesome deign vision?  Keeping SP content in the SP game and the MP content in the MP game so people can enjoy the parts of the game they like without feeling pressured to participate in the parts they don't!  

 

Audacious, I know 

[AlanC9]

Moreover, it seems the more rational and easily achievable suggestion for you to get what you want would be to simply include an easier difficulty, rather than demanding EA/Bioware to radically change their design vision or business objectives simply due to your preferences.

Is Iakus arguing for a change in vision? So far we've had exactly two examples of SP content gated by MP, and one of those may have been an outright mistake. (Remember Bio staff telling us that MP wasn't necessary for everything in ME3 until players produced numbers proving that it was?)

[KaiserShep]

I don't mind some connection to MP like NPC's and such, and to be frank I couldn't care less about decor, but any story outcome being blocked out by it is kinda dumb. Like, if I fight the good fight in Rio and Thessia til my fingers are numb, why the heck would that affect the fate of a character light years away?

[FKA_Servo]

Sure they can. Get a gold account or learn to read the box and don't make poor decisions that could result in things they don't want.

Or, just play the game how they want and accept the loss of inconsequential content lost solely due to their personal preferences. The developer has no obligation to cater to every single minority, and indeed doing so is detrimental to both creative freedom and business.

 

Single player mode, not single player game. I fail to see how other games that Bioware has made are relevant. I wouldn't buy A VW Passat and complain simply because the company used to only make Beetles and it isn't the same car.

Moreover, this ignores the fact that you are mischaracterizing the developer in the first place. Baldur's Gate games even had multiplayer. It isn't Bioware's fault that you have rather unreasonable expectations of what type of games they should make according to your personal preferences, expectations that don't match up with reality.

 

Another option would be to take the developers at their word when they say, on a public platform, that they will not be doing something.

 

I'm well aware of Bioware's previous forays into MP, because that's how long I've been playing these damn games. To say they have next to nothing in common with dollar sign driven MP in 2015, or EA's approach in DA and ME specifically, would be a massive understatement. There was certainly no requirement that you utilize them to get the full SP campaign experience.

[Quarian Master Race]

Well, that goes to the pointlessness of the galactic readiness. You can fight reapers and collectors (and even CERBERUS!) on earth all day long, yet Hammer is still reduced to 50% no matter what.

That's more down to implementation and narrative/gameplay seperation. Me expecting that I can win the game simply because I have played so much MP and killed/ destroyed so many billions of enemies that there shouldn't be anyone or any geth platforms left for the Reapers/Cerberus to make husks out of due to the galactic population being limited is rather unreasonable.

If anything that's an argument that they should have reflected MP more. I'm a ridiculous turbonerd themed poster who plays with quarian characters 99.999% of the time yet I didn't see a single one in those cutscenes of Hammer. No geth, batarians, vorcha, drell or anyone else who isn't the Council species or krogan either even though Wrex/Wreav mentions the quarian forces by name in one of their lines to their troops.

I feel ripped off tbh. I never play with those species so why are they getting all the glory of ineffectually shooting their pewpew guns at a Reaper then predictably getting rekt?

[Iakus]

Is Iakus arguing for a change in vision? So far we've had exactly two examples of SP content gated by MP, and one of those may have been an outright mistake. (Remember Bio staff telling us that MP wasn't necessary for everything in ME3 until players produced numbers proving that it was?)

Iakus is arguing that all SP content should be achievable (by design) through SP play.

 

Twice Bioware has added MP into a game, and twice there has been SP content locked behind MP participation, either through error or by design.  WHich is going to make me deeply suspicious of any future claims.

[FKA_Servo]

Iakus is arguing that all SP content should be achievable (by design) through SP play.

 

Twice Bioware has added MP into a game, and twice there has been SP content locked behind MP participation, either through error or by design.  WHich is going to make me deeply suspicious of any future claims.

 

Still don't understand why this is at all controversial.

[Quarian Master Race]

 

Pre-release they promised that no SP content would be locked behind MP.  Several different people said so, in fact.  Now I will have to take future promises of that with a very large grain of salt.

 

Another option would be to take the developers at their word when they say, on a public platform, that they will not be doing something.

Actually, I'm curious as to the exact quotes and who made them here for context. Even if it were an outright lie by someone completely informed as to the actual design of the game as it would be released and maintained, ultimately, it would all boil down to PR and marketing speak anyway. I can't really have much sympathy for a consumer who doesn't research the product for themself beforehand, and that includes practices like preorders. You accept the risk of not getting what you thought you would by not doing so.

You should take the word of everyone who is trying to sell you a product with a "grain of salt" by default.

 

I'm well aware of Bioware's previous forays into MP, because that's how long I've been playing these damn games. To say they have next to nothing in common with dollar sign driven MP in 2015, or EA's approach in DA and ME specifically, would be a massive understatement. There was certainly no requirement that you utilize them to get the full SP campaign experience.

That wasn't really what you were arguing though. You were calling them singleplayer games, which they weren't. Also, assuming that the gaming industry isn't primarily "dollar sign driven" regardless of what content one is purchasing is incredibly naive. They aren't giving these games away. 

"Full SP campaign experience" is more a principle thing that is based upon an ridiculously strict interpretation as to what a "full" experience is. Does the 2 second breath scene in a single ending permutation of a 30+ hour game that affects nothing before or after, or a single piece of dragon whatever armor really change the way the games are played or their narrative functions in any significant manner? They're pretty much easter eggs, and ones that are comparatively easy to acquire at that.

[Iakus]

 

 

Actually, I'm curious as to the exact quotes and who made them here for context. Even if it were an outright lie by someone completely informed as to the actual design of the game as it would be released and maintained, ultimately, it would all boil down to PR and marketing speak anyway. I can't really have much sympathy for a consumer who doesn't research the product for themself beforehand, and that includes practices like preorders. You accept the risk of not getting what you thought you would by not doing so.

You should take the word of everyone who is trying to sell you a product with a "grain of salt" by default.

 

 

==============================================================================================
Mark Darrah ‏@BioMarkDarrah 1m
And no, singleplayer content is NOT locked behind MP.

John Epler ‏@eplerjc
To clarify, playing MP vs. not playing MP will have no impact on your SP experience.

Ability Drain ‏@AbilityDrain
Since the characters work for our Inquisitor, will some of the items we unlock in multiplayer become available in story mode?

Mike Laidlaw ‏@Mike_Laidlaw
No, they're separate modes.

@AarynFlynn @dragonage count for SP so my question is, IS the MP going to have ANY effect on the SP at all?

Aaryn Flynn ‏@AarynFlynn
@user @dragonage No gated content. But we do have some cool ideas for the future, even as we keep the experiences distinct.

=================================================================================

 

Edit:  SImilar claims were also made for ME3, how MP was simply "another path" to building up your military strength.  Of course, someone failed at math, it seems...

[Catastrophy]

So even if only, say, 5% of the players who are incentivized into playing MP actually stick with it, that's still enough of a plus to make the incentive worth doing? I suppose; depends on how much you want to count the goodwill loss from the other 95%.

But isn't this the exact same logic that led to day 1 DLC, except with worse numbers? Not that I have a problem with day 1 DLC myself, but it looks like they're getting away from that.

There won't necessarily be a goodwill loss and MP - SP interaction has nothing to do with Day 1 DLC.

[FKA_Servo]

"Full SP campaign experience" is more a principle thing that is based upon an ridiculously strict interpretation as to what a "full" experience is. Does the 2 second breath scene in a single ending permutation of a 30+ hour game that affects nothing before or after, or a single piece of dragon whatever armor really change the way the games are played or their narrative functions in any significant manner? They're pretty much easter eggs, and ones that are comparatively easy to acquire at that.

 

 

The two second breath scene is gamechanging for a lot of players. If it weren't, the outcry would not have been so intense. And characterizing Bioware's entire catalog as anything other than primarily single player RPGs is obtuse to the extreme. The way they're going, I feel that MP crossover has the potential to poison the single player game.

 

But fine. You win by attrition. This is a pointless conversation to have with you.

 

I'm loathe to bring this up as an example considering how tiresome I find it, but CDPR has mostly likely handily outsold DAI with TW3 -  a single player RPG with no tacked on MP component - in 2015. Numbers and profits are the only thing EA is going to pay any mind, so if anything, I hope that's one of their takeaways, and I hope they rethink this direction in future. Not every goddamn game needs multiplayer, least of all the kind of games that Bioware has historically made.

[KaiserShep]

Actually, I'm curious as to the exact quotes and who made them here for context. Even if it were an outright lie by someone completely informed as to the actual design of the game as it would be released and maintained, ultimately, it would all boil down to PR and marketing speak anyway. I can't really have much sympathy for a consumer who doesn't research the product for themself beforehand, and that includes practices like preorders. You accept the risk of not getting what you thought you would by not doing so.
You should take the word of everyone who is trying to sell you a product with a "grain of salt" by default.
 

That wasn't really what you were arguing though. You were calling them singleplayer games, which they weren't. Also, assuming that the gaming industry isn't primarily "dollar sign driven" regardless of what content one is purchasing is incredibly naive. They aren't giving these games away. 
"Full SP campaign experience" is more a principle thing that is based upon an ridiculously strict interpretation as to what a "full" experience is. Does the 2 second breath scene in a single ending permutation of a 30+ hour game that affects nothing before or after, or a single piece of dragon whatever armor really change the way the games are played or their narrative functions in any significant manner? They're pretty much easter eggs, and ones that are comparatively easy to acquire at that.

As one who is heavily focused on any story element in the games, big or small, the breath scene actually does make a big difference, because I actually care about the character and every little bit of the outcome of the story. It doesn't even matter if things get acknowledged in the future, or if it's just an Easter egg, because it at least happens in this game. I guess what bugs me is that one has nothing to do with the other, yet it affects it anyway, but I'm a stickler. Why Shepard would live because some faceless marine on Noveria fought tons of Cerberus is beyond me. It already bothers me that Anderson getting shot twice affects the final score.

[JamieCOTC]

Non-forced? Doesn't affect the story or ending?  Sure. Unlock any kind of decors, etc you want through MP into SP. (but not a cool leather jacket for the female charater. I want that in SP for free. ) As long as its key feature is that it can be completely ignored. For the record, I will probably play the ME:A MP. I just don't want to have to play it.

[Xaijin]

What does this have to do with the rest of your post? (Yeah, I know it's this board's version of Godwinning a thread, but why now?)

Time for the pro forma reply: The only player agency removed in the ending was the right to make a futile argument. -- a bad thing, but not nearly as important as people pretend it to be. And the narrative themes that were violated turned out to be ones that Bio didn't consciously intend in the first place.

It has everything to do with the rest of the post, and your opinion of the endings doesn't and never has defined the objective differences between the the two modes of play, modes of play which happen to directly overlap by design, by nice try at circumventing the point to over-argue.

SP

ME3 is not a soley single player game and never was, the argumentation thereof is worthless. Whether anyone likes or dislikes that is another argument entirely and smashing the two points together is irrelevant.

sales

The Witcher outsold DAI by a handy margin because it's a great game with a great story, that one had MP and one does not factor in; DAI's fractured story and "social justice nu-fantasy" offering simply do not appeal as much as BW thought they would. MP in DAI was hardly marketed at all, by contrast that DAI was an "epic conclusion" and had "redefined the genre" was very very heavily marketed particularly amongst social venues.

It simply didn't pay off, no more, no less. Does the end of ME3 factor into those flat sales? According to user polls at at least three rather huge websites, yes, yes it does. Will that also have effects on ME:A's adoption? Very likely.

Curious

The statement was made that DLC would shore up SP EMS, and it did. Is that mercenary incentivization? It certainly could be construed that way.

track record

MP combat is more enjoyable and funner than SP combat. Whether you chalk that up to Build Team expertise and synergy or social coloring over core mechanics is up to you, but that MP offers more varied challenging and deeper combat actually isn't subjective either. You also get to play as the other races present in the conflict, an option SP completely lacks.

[AlanC9]

Jeez... did you really have to play the "social justice" card there? I'm doing my best to take this seriously.

I still don't see what complaining about the ME3 endings had to do with the argument. Can you enlighten me? Actually, I'm having trouble detecting any argument at all in the 2:26 AM post.

[AlanC9]

There won't necessarily be a goodwill loss and MP - SP interaction has nothing to do with Day 1 DLC.

There's certainly a goodwill loss. We've seen it here. The question is the magnitude. Feel free to argue that it's infinitesimal; we don't have data which can settle that. (I'm coming around to the conclusion that Dragon Decor really is a research project for this question.)

And I didn't say that MP -- SP interaction had anything to do with D1 DLC. I said that they were the same type of decision; burning a little goodwill for a little money.

[Xaijin]

Jeez... did you really have to play the "social justice" card there? I'm doing my best to take this seriously.

I still don't see what complaining about the ME3 endings had to do with the argument. Can you enlighten me? Actually, I'm having trouble detecting any argument at all in the 2:26 AM post.

 

 

Not a card, you must have missed say, every interview by Gaider or the character advertising for Sera, it was presented as a reason to engage in SP aspects a player might overlook or ignore, aka an incentivization of base mechanics and replay value.

 

As for the endings, they're why you're engaging in gameplay to begin with, so if you don't understand why SP and MP are predicated on them; can't really help you any further. You keep trying to lawyer stuff into nice sound bite categories, when the crux of the argument is entirely a very broad and large subject, particularly in light of ME3MP's rather succinct success in both bringing new players to the ME franchise, and financially bolstering a product with decidedly mixed fan reception into definite long-term sustained profitability.

 

I guess maybe the naysayers believe that DLC and aftermarket production money just appears out of thin air from the EA store by entering a special "developer's code" into Origin.

[RVallant]

It simply didn't pay off, no more, no less. Does the end of ME3 factor into those flat sales? According to user polls at at least three rather huge websites, yes, yes it does. Will that also have effects on ME:A's adoption? Very likely.

 

I disagree with that, I think the sales between Mass Effect and Dragon Age are relatively separate, I don't think Dragon Age 2 had any impact on the buy-in rate for ME3. Dragon Age: Inquisition was already fighting an uphill battle purely on the fact it had to battle the negative feedback of Dragon Age 2 and the perceived view that no matter how bad or good the game was going to be, it would be spammed 10/10 reviews.

 

On top of that, people like Gaider had already spurned a lot of the player base - A lesson in poor community management - and finally DA:I suffered from poor word-of-mouth and revisionist reviews once the initial 'hype' wore off, and that wasn't surprising because the game was heavily front-loaded so the first few hours were 'amazing' and the rest fell flat. Go on any site, most people rate DA:I as stock average or crap, no where near the initial rush of 'omg awesome', particularly those players who have stuck it out and realised it for what it is.

 

Could the ME ending "fiasco" affect sales? Probably for the Mass Effect series yes, but Dragon Age? Nah, Gaider and his cohorts made that game fall on its sword ages ago. Andromeda will suffer the backlash of Mass Effect, and I might be a hypocrite here, but I think the game designs in DA:I will contribute to further wariness of the game as no one will want the Timer/Energy mechanics or the MMO fetch questing crap that plagued DA:I in my honest opinion - plus that's the general feedback over in the Andromeda "hype" thread.

 

On that note, I think really EA (since it must be them not Bioware) pushing for Multiplayer should take note that one of the most hotly received First Person Shooter games, one that appealed to the mainstream (their favourite audience!) was exclusively a single player experience - Hello, Wolfenstein. Curiously, critics were muted about it, but that just shows what everyone knows, critics don't always have their fingers on the pulse. 

 

So yeah, if they're going to shove a MP element in there, then that is fine, they need suckers people to pay money regularly through their MP leech system, but leave the single player people alone and stop intruding with MP stuff in the single player experience - this has been an age old debate, one that EA don't seem to appreciate has been decided upon time after time, the experiences DO NOT MIX WELL.

[LinksOcarina]

==============================================================================================
Mark Darrah ‏@BioMarkDarrah 1m
And no, singleplayer content is NOT locked behind MP.

John Epler ‏@eplerjc
To clarify, playing MP vs. not playing MP will have no impact on your SP experience.

Ability Drain ‏@AbilityDrain
Since the characters work for our Inquisitor, will some of the items we unlock in multiplayer become available in story mode?

Mike Laidlaw ‏@Mike_Laidlaw
No, they're separate modes.

@AarynFlynn @dragonage count for SP so my question is, IS the MP going to have ANY effect on the SP at all?

Aaryn Flynn ‏@AarynFlynn
@user @dragonage No gated content. But we do have some cool ideas for the future, even as we keep the experiences distinct.

=================================================================================

 

Edit:  SImilar claims were also made for ME3, how MP was simply "another path" to building up your military strength.  Of course, someone failed at math, it seems...

 

To be fair to both of these for a second.

 

One, the main game has no content behind any pay structure. It was additional DLC that added cosmetic bits from singleplayer to multiplayer. Now you didn't put timestamps on this but some of these questions read like pre-release, so I am going to presume that right now. So they did not lie to you at all. 

 

Two, the Elper tweet is correct, the game is unaffected by Multiplayer. In fact, the tweets pretty much talk about how the modes are distinct, which they are. 

 

Three, the tweet by Flynn that I bolded implies future changes. I suspect the extra content like the decor is one example of that.

 

I should also point out that Mass Effect had all but the Shepard-alive moment available to players before they lowered the ems score, so this is technically not a lie either, you can gain access to the endings (or have them chosen for you) depending on the score. 

 

See, the problem I have with this argument is that, like I said before, it's DLC that added that content, and it is a free DLC to boot. That kind of matters here when talking about the two portions of the game.