Support NeoGAF

[JumpJeff84]

I think my least favourite trend of 2015 is the whole 'we're focussing on multiplayer, there's no campaign. $60 please!"

Rainbow 6 and Star Wars Battlefront are the two this year that I know of, and I find it annoying, because they're both games I would have interest in if they had a campaign of some sort. Multiplayer only though? GTFO.
I rarely play multiplayer. Sometimes I do, but I like to play games at my own pace. I find a lot of multiplayer games make me play at a different 'style' than the campaingns do.

Anyone else that just flat out refuses to buy a multiplayer only game? The publishers seem to think that we're a small minority. Maybe that's true, but I want campaigns back.

 

[lensoftruth]

How can you remove something that doesn't exist?

 

[ViewtifulJC]

"removing" makes it sound like they had designed, built, playtested, polished, and QAed an entire single player mode and said, "...nah tho".

More realistic situation is they decided to focus on the multiplayer, because its a multiplayer game. You might not like that. That is ok. Not all games are made for you. Get over it.

 

[MaDKaT]

Just the way things seem to be going. As disappointing as it is, I'm saving a good deal more money this gen because of it. Pretty much write off anything that is Multi or Online Only.

 

[-tetsuo-]

Please stop inserting single player campaigns into multiplayer games.

 

[collige]

$60 multiplayer only games have just as much a right to exist as $60 single player only games.

 

[JeffGrubb]

I think my least favourite trend of 2015 is the whole 'we're focussing on multiplayer, there's no campaign. $60 please!"

Rainbow 6 and Star Wars Battlefront are the two this year that I know of, and I find it annoying, because they're both games I would have interest in if they had a campaign of some sort. Multiplayer only though? GTFO.
I rarely play multiplayer. Sometimes I do, but I like to play games at my own pace. I find a lot of multiplayer games make me play at a different 'style' than the campaingns do.

Anyone else that just flat out refuses to buy a multiplayer only game? The publishers seem to think that we're a small minority. Maybe that's true, but I want campaigns back.

Dude has a point. I hate when they removed the single player campaign for chess.

 

[Massa]

They built the game they wanted to build. Go ahead an play some other game instead, you have thousands of options.

 

[KeyChainDude]

First some people asked to remove the campaigns on these shooters and focus on the multiplayer because the story mode usually sucked and only consumed resources that could make the competitive modes better; now it's the opposite. It's impossible to please everyone.

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

It's a strange and annoying trend. Even weirder is how even my more casual friends all pick up on this already, and are very disappointed, since they lead busy lives and have no time to "get gud" at multiplayer modes, and just want to sit and enjoy a single player experience

First some people asked to remove the campaigns on these shooters and focus on the multiplayer because the story mode usually sucked and only consumed resources that could make the competitive modes better; now it's the opposite. It's impossible to please everyone.

Who asked for the removal of modes?

 

[Takamura-San]

They don't make these decisions out of thin air. Data is out there indicating that the cost to invest on a campaign don't usually translate to sales numbers. Achievements vs online players alone is a good tell.

 

[SomedayTheFire]

A Battlefront single player campaign would have been utterly terrible. Awful even, much like the Battlefield campaigns. Now bot matches? they should have made it.

 

[RoadHazard]

Yeah, multi-only games very rarely interest me. Except Rocket League.

 

[entremet]

You can't remove what wasn't there in the first place.

 

[Crossing Eden]

How can you remove something that doesn't exist?

"removing" makes it sound like they had designed, built, playtested, polished, and QAed an entire single player mode and said, "...nah tho".

More realistic situation is they decided to focus on the multiplayer, because its a multiplayer game. You might not like that. That is ok.

You two beat me to it. Removal isn't the right word, and since the gameplay has been incredibly polished. Super linear set piece filled 3-5 hour SP is honestly a bit boring annnnddd it's probably not even worth it to make since so little in reality actually start them, let alone complete them.

It's a strange and annoying trend. Even weirder is how even my more casual friends all pick up on this already, and are very disappointed, since they lead busy lives and have no time to "get gud" at multiplayer modes, and just want to sit and enjoy a single player experience


Who asked for the removal of modes?

Then why are they buying games that are specifically made with MP in mind and/or paying for MP focused titles with lackluster 3-5 hour SP campaigns? There are plenty of SP focused titles. More so than ever in fact since the fad of:
-tacked on MP in SP focused titles
-tacked on SP in MP focused titles
is going away.

 

[Tertullian]

It's reviewers' fault. A game with great multiplayer and mediocre single player will score worse than a game with the exact same great multiplayer and no single players.

 

[Hyrule Warrior]

Please stop inserting single player campaigns into multiplayer games.

Right, because Star Wars is a franchise that doesn't have a lore and narrative that warrants any type of single player campaign. /s

As pretty as Battlefront is, nothing in it warrants a $60 price + $50 for a season pass.

 

[CastorTroy]

It's really getting embarrassing.

 

[DownGrader]

$60 multiplayer only games have just as much a right to exist as $60 single player only games.

Except single-player game can't just die because they are not popular or because the publisher decided to do so, EA online DRM games aside.

 

[SomedayTheFire]

Right, because Star Wars is a franchise that doesn't have a lore and narrative that warrants any type of single player campaign. /s

As pretty as Battlefront is, nothing in it warrants a $60 price + $50 for a season pass.

You're getting a single player game next year.

 

[JumpJeff84]

Both the examples I listed in the OP are series where there have been single player campaigns in the previous games in the series.

In the case of Rainbow 6, they HAD a single player game that they showed off, then scrapped to make Siege.

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

You're getting a single player game next year.

The Amy Hennig game is 2016?

 

[Garrett Hawke]

How can you remove something that doesn't exist?

.

Stop removing multiplayer modes from single player games!

 

[-tetsuo-]

Right, because Star Wars is a franchise that doesn't have a lore and narrative that warrants any type of single player campaign. /s

What does that have to do with the game that DICE made?

 

[PantherLotus]

I'm with the OP. Not everyone wants to get crushed by children yelling profanities.

 

[Hyrule Warrior]

You're getting a single player game next year.

For an additional $60. So...if I want a single player and a multiplayer Star Wars game, I'm supposed to dish out $120 + $50 for season pass is what you're saying. Let's not forget what other paid DLC they might wanna add for said single player game next year also.

Edit: I never thought I'd be using Call of Duty as a positive example, but at least in that case, people are getting a pretty decent single player campaign with a bonus one, the multiplayer, the zombie mode for $60. And yes of course the $50 season pass, but at least there's a base game there that feels worth the price of $60.

 

[A Sentient Keyboard]

I don't see why game has to have both a single-player and a multiplayer component. I'd rather see the devs commit their resources to one mode (Bioshock, Titanfall, Wolfenstein: TNO) than split their budget across two (Bioshock 2, Battlefield 3). There are franchises that do both well and that's awesome, but not all games can achieve that, or are interested in doing that.

There's so ungodly many games out there nowadays, I am looking for focus and depth over quantity and breadth.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Right, because Star Wars is a franchise that doesn't have a lore and narrative that warrants any type of single player campaign. /s

As pretty as Battlefront is, nothing in it warrants a $60 price + $50 for a season pass.

If only EA was making an SP focused title, with a good writer, Amy Hennig specifically.

 

[Crankshaft]

I'm fine with Multiplayer only games, BUT they should be cheaper at release. Like 40 bucks.

But we all know that isn't going to happen.

 

[Machina]

"removing" makes it sound like they had designed, built, playtested, polished, and QAed an entire single player mode and said, "...nah tho".

More realistic situation is they decided to focus on the multiplayer, because its a multiplayer game. You might not like that. That is ok. Not all games are made for you. Get over it.

 

[Give War A Chance]

Tell people "please start playing singleplayer campaigns," instead!

That's why they disappear.

 

[John Caboose]

"removing" makes it sound like they had designed, built, playtested, polished, and QAed an entire single player mode and said, "...nah tho".

More realistic situation is they decided to focus on the multiplayer, because its a multiplayer game. You might not like that. That is ok. Not all games are made for you. Get over it.

This post, especially bolded, is very true. Knowing all the campaigns DICE have put out in the past... they should really stay away from those in the future like they did with Battlefront.

 

[liquidtmd]

I keep hearing this but looking at the PS4 release schedule as a whole over the year, I see far more dedicated single player experiences than multiplayer only at AAA level * shrugs

 

[ViewtifulJC]

For an additional $60. So...if I want a single player and a multiplayer Star Wars game, I'm supposed to dish out $120 + $50 for season pass is what you're saying. Let's not forget what other paid DLC they might wanna add for said single player game next year also.

Yes, if you want to play two totally separate video games, you'll have to pay for both of them.

 

[JumpJeff84]

They don't make these decisions out of thin air. Data is out there indicating that the cost to invest on a campaign don't usually translate to sales numbers. Achievements vs online players alone is a good tell.

I find this logic flawed. What about people that don't have their console online, and play only the campaign? They're not tracked, and don't stats show that even in 2015 a huge number of console players aren't online?

 

[The Elite]

How can you remove something that doesn't exist?

That's my question.

They haven't removed anything. They are selling you a product that is multiplayer only. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple.

 

[Kelegacy]

I would rather games remove multiplayer from more games than vice versa for sure. Multiplayer games are playable and possible only for a limited time and expire once the community is inevitably gone. Singleplayer games are playable forever.

 

[SentryDown]

To be fair though, the number of people who actually finishes the story is most of the time very low.

 

[Wulfram]

Surely the issue is that there doesn't seem to be much sense that the absence of Single Player has resulted in more MP.

Though personally I regret losing SP because SP gives me an opportunity to privately become less terrible before inflicting myself on team mates.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

I find this logic flawed. What about people that don't have their console online, and play only the campaign? They're not tracked, and don't stats show that even in 2015 a huge number of console players aren't online?

Well generally I would recommend not buying MP only games if you don't play online. :/

As someone else said:

"removing" makes it sound like they had designed, built, playtested, polished, and QAed an entire single player mode and said, "...nah tho".

More realistic situation is they decided to focus on the multiplayer, because its a multiplayer game. You might not like that. That is ok. Not all games are made for you. Get over it.

 

[ArchedThunder]

Battlefront 1 and 2 didn't have actual campaigns either, and considering how bad Battlefield 3 and 4's were I'm perfectly fine with the fact that DICE decided to not do a campaign. Why does a game need a "full fledged single player experience" to be a full game?

 

[mikestrife]

If they don`t want to make a campaign I`d rather they don`t instead of mashing together a worthless campaign.

I`d go so far as to say that multiplayer and single player campaigns should be completely separate offerings for any game.

 

[Machina]

For those who are still complaining about Battlefront not having a campaign......WHEN have single player campaigns from DICE EVER been worth even the time it takes to play them?

 

[Stoze]

Right, because Star Wars is a franchise that doesn't have a lore and narrative that warrants any type of single player campaign. /s

As pretty as Battlefront is, nothing in it warrants a $60 price + $50 for a season pass.

Just because the franchise has plenty of story and lore up for grabs doesn't mean they can wave their magic wand and make a good, full-fledged single player game. It's DICE/EA we're talking about here, the Battlefield campaigns have ranged from mediocre to shit.

I agree with the latter though.

 

[Crossing Eden]

I find this logic flawed. What about people that don't have their console online, and play only the campaign? They're not tracked, and don't stats show that even in 2015 a huge number of console players aren't online?

The majority of people who buy MP focused titles in the first place is not offline come on man really? The amount of people who only play the SP campaign in a MP focused title and stay offline the entire time is an incredibly small amount of data compared to the overall consumer base for these titles in the first place.

 

[Josephl64]

I pretty much never play the multiplayer in games, so I guess this just saves me a ton of money

 

[pizzacat]

All games should be mp and cost like $20.

That's the life

 

[-tetsuo-]

I find this logic flawed. What about people that don't have their console online, and play only the campaign? They're not tracked, and don't stats show that even in 2015 a huge number of console players aren't online?

I would ask those people not to buy an online only game.

For an additional $60. So...if I want a single player and a multiplayer Star Wars game, I'm supposed to dish out $120 + $50 for season pass is what you're saying. Let's not forget what other paid DLC they might wanna add for said single player game next year also.

You typically have to pay for 2 different games if you want them both, yes.

 

[Gamezone]

A Battlefront single player campaign would have been utterly terrible. Awful even, much like the Battlefield campaigns. Now bot matches? they should have made it.

Every other Battlefront games had bots.

 

[Mauricio_Magus]

I actually like that they are just building the game they want to make and not just build a MP or SP mode for the sake of it.