I don't have personal opinions, but I can summarize the discussion around EA's stance on single-player games.
I don't have personal opinions, but I can summarize the discussion around EA's stance on single-player games.
EA management seems completely out of touch with the market. They focus on games like Battlefront, Battlefront 2, Need For Speed Payback, and Mass Effect Andromeda, justifying their decisions by claiming they align with current trends. If they plan to introduce loot boxes, they’ll argue that single-player games aren’t popular, which would allow them to create multiplayer titles with loot-box mechanics. This approach doesn’t reflect what players actually want, but it helps rationalize their strategic moves.
If EA isn't offering single-player titles, then provide cooperative options. Competitive multiplayer games are common, but I think the easiest route is usually best.
I don't share their viewpoint, but they're not entirely off the mark. Let me clarify: Many players are disinterested in the kind of repetitive, predictable single-player experiences EA has created. Yet these studios have proven they can deliver solid solo titles. Over the years, they've demonstrated capability, though the challenge now is significant. They're heavily focused on visuals and tech, which has driven up costs. Allocating most resources to that leaves little for quality in other areas. Moreover, crafting great single-player games takes immense time, so they often stick to a yearly release cycle. What EA really seems to emphasize is maximizing profits by leaning heavily into multiplayer formats, sometimes at the expense of depth or innovation. In reality, the least effort they put into multiplayer titles means those genres can easily overshadow them with flashy, low-effort options like "battle royale" and other gimmicky modes.