-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Please stop removing single player campaigns!
- Thread starter JumpJeff84
- Start date
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
I did say they were casual, and as such, don't necessarily pour the most research into their game purchases. One friend in particular was shocked there was no SP and said he doesn't think he'll buy 'another Battlefront again'.
Of course, this would be completely mitigated by research, but... yea. It's something I think will hurt any future installments of BF. But if they're making more money doubling down on the core audience, then I guess that works.
And yea, now that you mention it, more and more games are offering either SP or MP and not both. I guess it's indicative of the rising costs and resources it takes to build these AAA blockbusters
This would tell you something about how Ubisoft assess the market, yes?
misses bull
Banned
Here's a solution. Mute them.
Me. I play pretty much every shooter I can get my hands on and the singleplayer for multiplayer focused shooters have always been terrible
Dangansona
Member
OP's wording aside, I agree that the amount of MP-only games worries me, and the fact is that for whatever reason none of them have the legs as games that come packed in with single player modes.
So devs should get rid of them? I don't ask for games to remove MP modes that I don't like.
And COD campaigns are pretty decent. Halo and Gears are great.
So devs should get rid of them? I don't ask for games to remove MP modes that I don't like.
And COD campaigns are pretty decent. Halo and Gears are great.
JumpJeff84
Member
Well yeah obviously. But when publishers know that a huge amount of consoles are not online, and then use online tracking to look at stats that show no one plays the single player, it seems like a pretty shortsighted assumption.
My consoles are online for the record, just making a point.
LOLCats
Banned
Lol, who asked for that?
Hyrule Warrior
Member
And you just like to act as if everyone is as informed and enlightened as you? No where on the front of Star Wars Battlefront does it imply that it's a online only experience.
And yes, while everyone on gaf might have the knowledge to understand this, when I worked at retail, you would be surprised at the number of people who DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT GAMES. They buy based on cover art alone. We informed gamers are the minority, and the games that sell bank and millions of copies sell mostly to the uninformed masses.
Garrett Hawke
Member
Are there a huge number of XB1/PS4 consoles offline nowadays? I imagine both the XB1 and PS4 experiences would be incredibly crippled if you didn't have your console online. No patches alone would wreck a lot of recent games.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
That's not exactly the fault of the devs if your friends aren't making informed purchasing decisions. It wouldn't even be research, you don't need to watch interviews or something, just a simple google search and article link.
I'm not against getting rid of single player, but at least have the decency of
1) Having lots of content, more than a SP+MP game! (i'm looking at you, Battlefront)
2) Less DLC, or something like Rocket League, that the DLC doesnt divide the player base.
The current batch of MP only games are keeping a SP+MP pricing model, and thats what makes me angry, the consumer sees no benefit.
1) Having lots of content, more than a SP+MP game! (i'm looking at you, Battlefront)
2) Less DLC, or something like Rocket League, that the DLC doesnt divide the player base.
The current batch of MP only games are keeping a SP+MP pricing model, and thats what makes me angry, the consumer sees no benefit.
Given that Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 has a campaign that is not only terrible, it robbed me of ~11 hours or so I'll never get back, I no longer feel this way. PS3/360 owners got a better deal of a discount w/o a campaign (well if the graphics weren't totally hosed on those platforms anyways).
They're obviously not trying to sell the game to everyone in the market.
Similarly, SP only games aren't trying to sell to people who only play games online, or consider online play a critical part of their purchase decision.
Steverulez
Member
Publishers/developers can remove single player campaigns if they want, but then I won't be buying their games 99% of the time so
its up to them to decide if my $60 (and many others) are worth it against the cost of making those campaigns.
I look at EA as a particular example who is doing it more and more and think that their reasoning for not including a campaign is hilarious. Perhaps if you got your studios to make better campaigns people would play them more?
I look at EA as a particular example who is doing it more and more and think that their reasoning for not including a campaign is hilarious. Perhaps if you got your studios to make better campaigns people would play them more?
PeskyToaster
Member
It's so much harder to justify spending 60 bucks on a single-player only game than a mp only game. I don't get the attitude around here. SP games are an easy rent, beat, return.
Mr Fahrenheit
Member
I never understand when people talk about the campaign in Battlefront like it was some beautifully crafted story mode that they took out. What are you guys talking about? The vaguely strung together series of instant actions?
You can make the argument for R6, the campaigns were usually kinda ass but there was substance, but Battlefront never had a real campaign and ya'll gotta stop talking like it did.
You can make the argument for R6, the campaigns were usually kinda ass but there was substance, but Battlefront never had a real campaign and ya'll gotta stop talking like it did.
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
Research = Google. That's what I meant. But again, the casual audience still has people who think Xbox still can't play used games, so I don't expect much from them.
AgentLampshade
Member
Eh. Each have their own audience and I'd rather one really polished section than one tacked on version.
JumpJeff84
Member
I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I recall seeing something recently that showed how many consoles were offline, and it was way higher than I expected it to be.
Devilgunman
Member
Maybe OP should change to "Please focus on making good mp campaigns instead of mp" then I can get behind. It's ashamed, many of these mp games look so good but I just don't like to play a competitive shooter so I will never experience them.
The Elite
BOSS
I don't understand this. There are plenty of single player games being released every year that you could by yet you chose to complain about multiplayer games because they aren't single player?
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
It's a bit disheartening.
So what...? A single player game will have different "problems", like a crappy AI that will never be as good as human opponents. There's no hard rule that says "this feature is worth 60$".
CosmicQueso
Member
But this is just false. Over 95% of new gen consoles are connected. This isn't 2005.
Spring-Loaded
Member
If a game is fun to play and is best when it's a multiplayer game (Battlefront, CoD), I'd rather have single player that's structured like multi rather than some campaign that chases after Uncharted (and fails).
Flame Lord
Member
Not every game is for everyone.
spawnsniper
Member
I think that if they sell an online only multiplayer game for 60$ then I damn right better get all dlc and "map packs" for free.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
You play a singleplayer game once over for ~15 hours and pay $60 for that game and it's worth the price. You play a multiplayer only game for ~15 hours and pay $60 for that game and for some ridiculous reason it isn't worth the price.
Hyrule Warrior
Member
I never really played the original Battlefront games, but I personally would simply have loved SOMETHING of a single player campaign in Battlefront with the look and feel that that game has. Even if it was simply a loosely tied together set of missions, that maybe followed the order of the original trilogy. Have a level where you're escaping the Death Star as Luke, Han and Leia, followed by a death star run level where you destroy it...then the hoth level...then an asteroid belt...escape from cloud city...darth vader duel....etc... Even if there weren't cutscenes in between, just something a single person could enjoy.
Everything about Battlefront feels rushed to me, like they focused on the graphics and presentation so much, but really didn't have time to make a lot of content.
I mostly play single player games but I'm fine with this trend. I'd rather have games allocate their resources wisely. Not every game needs both single and multiplayer.
If I'm buying a game that has an obvious emphasis on MP, I'd rather have them put as much effort into that rather than wasting it on a lackluster SP campaign. Likewise, I'm not interested in shoe-horning multiplayer in a game that has a clear focus on the single player campaign. In both cases, I inevitably end up ignoring the secondary mode if it's merely included to make the game appear more "complete".
If it makes sense to have both and the developer has the means to pull it off, so be it, but I don't expect or even want that from every game I buy. I'd rather have the developers capitalize on their strengths and avoid spreading themselves too thin.
If I'm buying a game that has an obvious emphasis on MP, I'd rather have them put as much effort into that rather than wasting it on a lackluster SP campaign. Likewise, I'm not interested in shoe-horning multiplayer in a game that has a clear focus on the single player campaign. In both cases, I inevitably end up ignoring the secondary mode if it's merely included to make the game appear more "complete".
If it makes sense to have both and the developer has the means to pull it off, so be it, but I don't expect or even want that from every game I buy. I'd rather have the developers capitalize on their strengths and avoid spreading themselves too thin.
I kinda like it because any developer that would drop a single-player campaign has very different priorities than mine and probably wouldn't make a very good campaign if they were doing so by compulsion. So this helps me weed out games that aren't going to satisfy me and understand which developers are going in directions that don't interest me.
family_guy
Member
I'm just wondering why Star Wars Battlefront exists. It's like a remaster of some of the maps from the old games. You're not getting any new worlds other than Jakku I guess. There's nothing really new here. Not having a story mode in this game is okay because I don't need to have the original trilogy retold to me for the hundredth time. I would have preferred they just focus on releasing a completely new game within a few months of the movie.
SomedayTheFire
Member
Yeah, that's why I say bot matches should have made it...
Ummm I also am a single player gamer because the things that I like in videogames (story, exploration, puzzles, beautiful environments) can't really be appreaciated in a multiplayer competitive environment.
But you should consider that there's also room for multiplayer only games and the games you mention are simply in that category. And if a developer wants to make a multiplayer only shooter it's better to focus just on that and make a better game in that genre.
Of course it would have been great (for us) to have a Star Wars game with the Battlefront graphics and production values applied to a great single campaign but that would have simply been an other game compared to what DICE decided to make and adding a bland 5h sp campaign just to check a feature list wouldn't fix the issue.
Dangansona
Member
Yes there are, or at least console owners with such awful internet that it takes them days to download a patch. I remember one guy writing in to Giant Bomb saying he has to go to the public library to download the podcasts.
Proponents of the "digital future" just don't get it. A big portion of this country lives with shitty internet because the ISP business is an oligopoly and the greedy companies like Comcast don't bother to provide infrastructure to areas they can't make as much money with.
Connected != Being able to play online at any capacity. But I know that's not what you were addressing. Do you have a source for 95%? Because I was having trouble looking for one just now before I saw your post.
I dunno man, Bad Company 2 was a seriously good time.
It was self-aware to the point you felt like giving the writers a slap on the back.
Seventy_X_Seven
Member
Adding multiplayer to a single player only game gets frowned on and viewed as a tack on, while single player games that don't do multi will get praise for keeping the focus on the important parts of the game.
Meanwhile, single player campaigns in multiplayer player focused games are often viewed as poorly done and not worth the time, yet people then complain when they forego it to keep the focus on the multiplayer.
Meanwhile, single player campaigns in multiplayer player focused games are often viewed as poorly done and not worth the time, yet people then complain when they forego it to keep the focus on the multiplayer.
PeakPointMatrix
Member
No it's not. If you have the total number of tracked online players, you can subtract that amount from the total number of units the game has sold, and reasonably deduce the remainder that was offline was for single player only. Seems perfectly reliable to me.
LQX
Member
Yeah, I'm hating this trend also. I hate even more seeing so many consumers agreeing with it as if it means the multiplayer will than be much better than it normally would, but we see that is not the case with Battlefront as its seemingly has no longevity or more maps to make up for the lack of single player. And from the beta I have played of RB6 I think it is also the case there so stop fucking encouraging these publishers to do it. Moreover its sort of fucked up to charge full price and give the same amount of multiplayer maps you normally would. If you are going to drop single player you damn better make up for it with more maps.
well yeah if you want to play two games you wont just get one of those for free thats nothing new
-tetsuo-
Unlimited Capacity
I am aware, and that is a pretty scummy thing for EA to do. The game actually lists it can be played 1 player on the back.
exmachina64
Banned
I did.
Gemüsepizza
Member
This is just greed. Publishers take a popular IP like Rainbow Six or Star Wars, create a cheap and rushed MP game around it and then slap the 60€ price tag on it (+ season pass).
It's hilarious that people are defending this. Big publishers like EA could easily create breathtaking SP and MP experiences, they have all the resources. They just don't want to, because it will result in less profit.
It's hilarious that people are defending this. Big publishers like EA could easily create breathtaking SP and MP experiences, they have all the resources. They just don't want to, because it will result in less profit.
Hoho for breakfast
Member
Depends on the game if I care or not but in general I agree. The CoD campaign apparently sucks, so I didn't buy it. I may still pick it up if I can get it for $30, but I'm not paying $60 if the content/quality I want isn't there.
At least Tomb Raider went the opposite direction and removed the multiplayer crap. Good for them. Except the sales were apparently shit so they probably wont be so quick to do the same thing again even though that wasnt the reason for low sales.
At least Tomb Raider went the opposite direction and removed the multiplayer crap. Good for them. Except the sales were apparently shit so they probably wont be so quick to do the same thing again even though that wasnt the reason for low sales.
Similar threads
- Poll