• 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.

Battlefield 2042 won't have a campaign, will feature paid seasons

JayK47

Member
Maps, guns and specialists will be free ......... you only pay for COSMETICS IF YOU WANT TO LOL
Thanks. I read into it some more. Not even sure what you get with seasons then. New specialists?

I don't get the hate for no single player. Maybe I am too old, but BF was never about single player originally. 100% pure multiplayer for the first several games. Then Bad Company changed that. Then they added it in to the main games and they should have never done it because look what happens when you take it away. WAHHHH!!!!
 
This thread really shows the age of some members in here lol

Winging that the game is full price with no single player

Battlefield games pre-Bad Company had NO single player and were still full price AND were some of the best PC games ever warranting the full price tag.

Battlefield is a MP only game and always will be.

The single player crap in recent BF games was that…. Crap.
To be honest the older versions of Battlefield had single player mods which were basically multiplayer maps with bots. I think since BF3 they have removed them, but I am not sure.

just burn your money man, it's a better experience than buying this crap.
Imagine playing the games that don't have multiplayer. You are paying for one-off experience :messenger_tears_of_joy: 70$ for one single player movie ticket.
Multiplayer games can be played for years, single player games - not really.
 
Last edited:
so i don't play these type of games, for those who do, a question: is this smart of them to not have a campaign mode? i mean, is there enough potential content that players would enjoy without it? just wondering.
 
Why have 10 maps when you can just have one?

This is a free to play game being sold as a full priced game.

I'm not shocked you're supportive of this, it's the future you've been advocating for a while.

Why have 10 maps when you can have just 1?

For fun. Any other questions?

EA invested a ton of resources into this game. They're allowed to charge customers for the product they made. If it's fun enough, it'll be a commercial success.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Why on earth would they slash the price for their multiplayer game just because they cut the single player campaign? People don't buy Battlefield for the campaign. Nobody has ever stood in line at midnight for a Battlefield launch just chomping at the bit to play the single player.
Why the fuck would I pay premium prices for a product that is 1/3rd smaller? Why would I pay more for less?

I’m sure EA doesn’t want to slash their prices, but I’m not worried about EAs stock price NI
 
If there's no campaign, why are they charging anything at all upfront? This should be free to start and pay for seasons whenever they're out.

What exactly are people paying $70 for?

Why is a commercial entity charging customers for a product they invested hundreds of millions of dollars into? Hmmm...

The tables are flipping as we speak. Multiplayer provides more value to consumers than single player. It took these giant publishers long enough to realize that fact.
 

oagboghi2

Member
so i don't play these type of games, for those who do, a question: is this smart of them to not have a campaign mode? i mean, is there enough potential content that players would enjoy without it? just wondering.
No, it isn’t in my opinion.

People drastically underplay how popular these campaigns are. People want them, and they want them done well. Ask Activision
 

jigglet

Gold Member
Jesus christ what a misleading thread title. It's got a cosmetic-only battlepass. OP obviously avoided using a very well known term to generate anger. I refuse to believe OP doesn't know what a "battlepass" is and accidentally referred to it in the wrong way.

I'm not even a Battlefield player but this blind hatred towards online-centric games shits me.
 
Last edited:
No, it isn’t in my opinion.

People drastically underplay how popular these campaigns are. People want them, and they want them done well. Ask Activision
ok, just wondering, there must be a reason the publisher thought it was not needed, seems like an odd decision but i don't know enough about the appeal of these types of games to understand it.
 

Danjin44

The nicest person on this forum
Is it that strange? Their SP haven’t been good for very long time, it just waste of resources at this point.

Majority of people play this for MP not SP.
 
Last edited:

Excess

Member
Some of the cope in this thread from others saying they don't care is truly baffling, especially for gamers, where we complain about everything.
 

Rambone

Member
Why do paid cosmetics trigger people so much? You get the full game and all maps/weapons/specialists with that $70.
I can't really speak for anybody else but I always assumed it has to do with people feeling uncomfortable having to spend additional money to get a fully encompassing experience from their game, so petty stuff like skins being locked behind a paywall might be upsetting. Excluding expansions it just feels better if everything is included to reasonably earn or unlock without the need to pay for it. Personally it doesn't bother me any as long as what they are putting on offer appeals to me and is priced within reason or whatever is within my comfort level.
 

ManaByte

Gold Member
I can't really speak for anybody else but I always assumed it has to do with people feeling uncomfortable having to spend additional money to get a fully encompassing experience from their game, so petty stuff like skins being locked behind a paywall might be upsetting.

This is literally how every major MP shooter works these days.
 

Haggard

Member
Going back to focusing on the multiplayer whilst scrapping the mediocre campaigns completely is a good decision.
Just from the numbers though I don't see where the campaign budget went. I mean...7 maps, no matter the size, isn't much in terms of level diversity.
 

Sygma

Member
Thanks. I read into it some more. Not even sure what you get with seasons then. New specialists?

I don't get the hate for no single player. Maybe I am too old, but BF was never about single player originally. 100% pure multiplayer for the first several games. Then Bad Company changed that. Then they added it in to the main games and they should have never done it because look what happens when you take it away. WAHHHH!!!!

Seasons are for cosmetics, thats it. And free core content in-between. Again when it comes down to me I will never understand the business around skins, that's not content for me. Yet people are crazy about it

Edit :
Free to play btw
 
Last edited:

fersnake

Member
on fps games i really dont care the single player campaing straight to mp been doing that since cod4 and i rock that game like 1000 hrs and played the single player just because mw2 was around the corner and it was like a chore try to beat it so that's why i dont play sp on fps games.

just hoping they ditching the sp for a really ground breaking expirience on mp give some results cuz i dont really want another bfv bs.
 

Ezquimacore

Member
To be honest the older versions of Battlefield had single player mods which were basically multiplayer maps with bots. I think since BF3 they have removed them, but I am not sure.


Imagine playing the games that don't have multiplayer. You are paying for one-off experience :messenger_tears_of_joy: 70$ for one single player movie ticket.
Multiplayer games can be played for years, single player games - not really.
yeah, usually they have a single player and a multiplayer, imagine getting content for your money, imagine that.
 

Hestar69

Member
The only good BF campign were Bad company 1/2. BF3,4 5 were all pretty meh So I don't mind them dropping SP. but 70,Season pass and all this BS.. The gameplay reveal better be amazing because BF 1/5 were OK but nothing great IMO..

give me BF3 gameplay please!
 
If games like this make good content and gameplay then I'm all for paying a seasonal battlepass. If they just go for rip off skins and low effort or price gouging only they can fuck off. To clarify Apex Legends for example has fresh characters, maps, tweaks, events, guns, balancing, modes and the things they sell don't affect the gameplay so I choose to support the devs by paying for the seasonal battlepasses. I don't really care about digital barbie widgets but I'll gladly support games with the quality of Apex. Hopefully Battefield delivers brilliant content worthy of the same investment by players.

I'd far prefer to support a specific game/dev with battlepasses and receive story and multiplayer updates regularly for years over a game being launched and then waiting for another game developed over 3-4 years with little content/change between.
 
Last edited:
Battlefield never had a campaign until BF3. It never needed it. When they had it the MP fell short upon release. Now, it sounds like they're ahead of schedule.
 
Last edited:

Digity

Member
If they do an Escape From Tarkov mode, the hype will be justified. That's the next logical step from BR's and Call of Duty is behind in this, Battlefield taking the reins might be cool.
What aspects of Tarkov do you think they'll bring over? I'd love a weapons handling system like in Tarkov. Checking mags for ammo count, no bullet pooling, could be done easily.
 

Neolombax

Member
In the past I would most likely be angry about the exclusion of a single player campaign. But in recent FPS games, the quality of single player campaigns are showing a decline. I thought the single player portion of BLOPS Cold War was abysmal. And BF has not had a good single player campaign since BF3 (which I thought was just average at best). I don't think its that much of a loss shipping a BF game without single player. According to Jack Frags, this new BF game allows solo mode with all AI to fill up the slots with MP progression enabled, which I think easily makes up for the exclusion of a single player campaign.

So as I understand it, this BF game will follow the recent trend of COD games? A seasonal format with free maps and weapons gradually added? I think this is fine. Maybe they should also offer the premium battle pass for the first season as part of the full priced game?
 

Justin9mm

Member
so i don't play these type of games, for those who do, a question: is this smart of them to not have a campaign mode? i mean, is there enough potential content that players would enjoy without it? just wondering.
My personal honest opinion is no.. It's a mistake in my eyes and many consumers are excluded.. Contrary to belief there are a lot of people that still crave a good single player fps. How can you charge $70 for a game in this economy that is online only when you have COD Warzone for free.

Fuck EA!
 
Last edited:

Justin9mm

Member
Single player campaigns in Battlefield games are almost entirely worthless and a waste of time.

Edit:

I'm just glad there is no one armed ladies sporting katana's in a WWII setting. LOL
Sorry, but that's such a silly comment. You are basically saying Battlefield is known as being online so keep it online only. Yeah ok.

Just because you don't care for a campaign doesn't mean others don't.
 
Last edited:

MiguelItUp

Gold Member
My personal honest opinion is no.. It's a mistake in my eyes and many consumers are excluded.. Contrary to belief there are a lot of people that still crave a good single player fps. How can you charge $70 for a game in this economy that is online only when you have COD Warzone for free.

Fuck EA!
They've said there's going to be a F2P mode and there's going to be crossplay, but it hasn't been addressed yet. They said they'll be talking about it later. Makes sense though, they don't want to blow their load all at once. Especially with E3 being so close.

so i don't play these type of games, for those who do, a question: is this smart of them to not have a campaign mode? i mean, is there enough potential content that players would enjoy without it? just wondering.
Personally, I think it's incredibly smart for them. It allows them to focus more on what the Battlefield series is known for, multiplayer. When it comes to development costs, campaigns are always more expensive than multiplayer components. Both in time AND finances. To completely cut that out, means that all the time and money that would be going into that, can just all go into multiplayer now. Which is something they haven't done in a long while. So I think it's exciting to see them go back to the series' roots, and do it again. Especially after BFV's gameplay was handled so poorly. Is there enough potential content? It's subjective, it's all up to the person of course. But again, having that freedom from development time and campaign costs will allow them to focus harder on a roadmap that features free seasons that will last until the next Battlefield iteration. So I think there will be, for sure. It just depends on their release schedule. Can't be too soon, can't be too late.
 
Last edited:
Nah, I’ll pass. No campaign is definitely enough for me to skip this. I actually enjoy the COD and Battlefield campaigns. Paid seasons? What are they thinking? Didn’t they already experience enough controversy with BF5?
 
Last edited:

MiguelItUp

Gold Member
Nah, I’ll pass. No campaign is definitely enough for me to skip this. I actually enjoy the COD and Battlefield campaigns. Paid seasons? What are they thinking? Didn’t they already experience enough controversy with BF5?
Again. The "seasons" are free, all content that comes with them like specialists, guns, maps, etc. Basically gameplay related components, will all be free. The "battle passes" that are released with ever new season are paid for, but they're solely cosmetic based.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom