EA have said that "data suggests not many people play the single player campaign" in shooters. Are they right? Where does their data come from? GamePlayersReview takes a look at EA's controversial statement.
EA there soo called stats yes multiplayer is huge perhaps Less are playing SP experiance to MP. But a very large install base will still be playing that SP.
Most people will still play the single player but now its just a cookie cutter 5hr campaign at most for these Mp focused fps.To get moneys worth you would need to play the multiplayer, so if people want a great fps campaign check out a game like STALKER on Pc.
I care about it if it's good. Resistance still has the most meaningful campaign in any fps to me.
I play CoD mostly for the single player hollywood style crazy ride! I can't deal with the [email protected] online experience though, but Titanfall has crazy smooth online gaming so I don't care about the campaign there. I think just make it a good experience, and people can choose if they care or not. I'm fine either way just make it awesome!
If that were true, games like Mirror's edge wouldn't exist. EA's GPS studio DICE simply creates terrible stories. So no one really spends time playing the single player because it's practically a rinse and repeat of last years.
people just dont care about cod or bf single player because they suck. If they made a good sp then people would like it. just because it is a fps doesn't mean it needs to have a worse sp mode than all the other great sp. bioshock didnt even have multiplayer.
Battlefield Bad Company 1 had an awesome single player campaign.
Exactly this...they are basically admitting that if they actually did it, they would half-ass it. A quality campaign will get gamers, but if companies keep funneling all of the resources into the mp, gamers will quit playing the sp...pretty simple really. I'm fine w/ Battlefront not having it, if they want to cater solely to the mp crowd then good on them for not including another half assed campaign in order to trick sp gamers into purchasing...but if they are basing these decisions off of the devs track record, then Visceral's Amy Henning penned Star Wars title better be sp only, because we know Dead Space 3's mp mode didn't necessarily blow the doors off. As long as EA utilizes the Star Wars license for all kinds of gamers and doesn't just stick solely to mp titles I understand their decisions. Just don't want to move to a future where offline sp campaigns are nonexistent, which is a fairly real possibility at this point.
I will always prefer singleplayer, really cant stand online at times also hate online trophies. I would say take the star hawk and kill zone path, buy single and multiplayer together or separate.
A man only keeps games that stay entertaining. They are always single player centric games because MP gets BORING so fast on almost every game. Half-Life 2 and Resistance 3 are the only 2 a man has kept.
Hey no problems with these stats. EA can add the option for us to buy SP and MP separately at $30 bucks a pop.
Say what you want about them, but EA's stats are more valid than your opinion. I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, of course a lot of people will be playing single player, but their ratios of MP / SP probably show a much larger install base are into MP. I play campaigns. If the recent SP campaigns in FPS weren't so cookie cutter, I would play more.
I agree, as long as the single player is worth playing, lots of people do. Badcompany 2 single player was the best I played in a while. There were so many laughs and searching for the gold bars was challenging also.
Im not sure why people are giving EA and DICE a hard time over not including a SP story mode. This series never had one to begin with. If Id announce a new quake arena game or epic, a new UT game, or valve a new CS, are gamers suddenly going to whine about those games not including a mode that those games never really catered too? SW:BF always has and always will be a MP game first and foremost. If that disappoints you, than this simply isnt the SW game for you anyway.Nor should it be. Im sure there will be plenty of SW games that are single player over the years anyway.
Hard Time? This isn't Jail bro *Joke ...nah I think Peter Moore assumed wrongly (his data sucks), that everyone is content to just pay for MP only. Many still have no internet or crap internet...so they should at least have the option of a 'good' SP Campaign. Don't be selfish Flex ;)
Assumed ? No they made decision based on history of how much people trashed SP of Bf3 and Bf4 and Hardline , and games really dont require beast connection , if u can download their 40gb games u probably have internet that can play muliplayer with stable ping . DICE as a team doesnt make good SP , fact , let them do what they do best .
Frankly, I do not want people living in the boonies with no internet access to hold back gaming. They and another group of people already held back gaming when they prevented MS from going all digital on the Xbox One. I want online only experiences too, and the people that do not have proper internet can play other games that are suited for them. Why gimp a game so that a smaller group of people can play? I want Crackdown 3 destruction/Xbox Live Cloud Compute technology to appear on other games in different forms both in campaign and multiplayer. Let's not hold back gaming and jump in to the future!!!
@thatPSguy I hear what your saying. At the end of the day, the data would always be skewed towards MP, if we are looking at time spent on each gams SP VS MP modes. And here's another thing I been thinking about....If YOu showed somebody a random youtube vid of the old SW:BF three years ago and suggested to people that they should bring it back, most people would have said something along the lines of "No..we already got enough online shooters" This game made its name as a MP shooter. Im sure it has some SP bots mode, but who really spends any real time on that? gets boring...and predictable, fast. In the grand scheme of things I think we will see a steady stream of star wars games of both the SP and MP variety. Then next star wars game might be something along the lines of a force unleashed type of game; Third person, jedi fights. story focused, NO MP..and Ill be cool with that..or better yet ressurect that starwars 1313 concept. Or how about a republic commando style game that does both well? or a new tie fighter game? Or a han solo, or some other character in the universe getting their own game with different playstyles? Such games would be made by different teams. And given DICE track record for SP games, I think we can all agree that, that sounds better than EA trying to get them shoehorn a story into the game. We might even see some sort of rotation. A starwars game every 2-3 years, who knows. Different teams, different experiences, same universe. Its early days, for disney's aquisition, EA/DICE involvement and this console gen. I am optimistic that we will all get the star wars games we want. Maybe even some we didnt expect. sorry If my first post sounded selfish. But as I said, as this gen rolls on we will be playing all types of starwars games. Patience gamers!
I guess EA never played a FarCry game
I'm only against it becauseI feel they do not replace the single player with enough content to justify its removal. Whats your reason?
If the game isnt buggy turd like Bf4 was on launch then its worth it , its not quantity its the quality that truly matters
Quality and quantity can coexist. If they already created quality multiplayer all they need to do is add more of it.
I actually play SP campaigns ONLY... never been a fan of multiplayer, just wanna get through the campaign and move on to the next game... so many games so little time.
I agree too, if a game us MP only, like Titanfall or PvZ:GW, I just skip it. And if they just throw in a small SP campaign, I'm not interested either. Don't care about online MP at all.
Probably because most of them are garbage. At least IMO...
I care ....
sp add longevity. once ea cut down online pretty much you a$s out. 60$ down the drain.
Story and gameplay > pointless running and gunning for online stats.
I love the occasional fps but i almost never play multiplayer, im a single player / coop gamer despite who makes the game if its a mp only game im out
No... They are far from right
That's actually the only thing I care about!!
well they would know. but if they, perhaps, had better shooters with actually good stories, perhaps people would care more. It's more a reflection of their bad single player experiences--not necessarily about the market's desire for them.
Guess I'll wait for the complete edition to go for under $40. I'm not a sucker for obvious DLC cows.
I have to say I am completely for this. I, like many modern gamers in agreement to this, don't have the mental capacity to process a story beyond flashing lights and explosions. I would gladly throw money at a system designed to rape me for every dollar. I am so glad to be a part of the vision EA has for how we should game, and pay for gaming.
I care. I'll at least start the SP campaign before trying multiplayer, and sometimes I don't try multiplayer until the story is finished. Hell sometimes I don't look at the multiplayer at all. That said, I don't mind multiplayer only games either. EA's single player modes don't seem to get the emphasis multiplayer does anyway, which they should probably take into account if they're only using their own numbers as evidence for that statement.
I only play offline multiplayer in split screen or if it has bots like Call of Duty's latest entries etc. I am dissapointed i would love a campaign in Battlefront but i am happy it has the offline mission mode. I will be playing this mission mode only won't even touch the online. There are some of us who like that offline single player/co-op experience.
Only cause EA single player games sucks!!!! They do better gamers would play
As much as you guys hate it they are 100% right. People who say they buy games like CoD and Battlefield for singleplayer are stupid as 99% of the replay factor is in the MP and it's always better. This comment section is so one sided with people crying. You want a SP Star Wars game wait for the one that is being developed and bugger off talking crap about a game you were never going to buy in the first place since it was never marketed or has ever been said to have a SP. They have facts to back up what they say you just can't deal with it.
I am right with you, bro! Thinking about stuff is just too hard. We proudly support EA's model to take more and more money from us with less and less return on quantity and quality. Besides, EA is in the primary business of marketing, not making games...wait......
"We proudly support EA's model to take more and more money from us..." EA has never TAKEN any money from me. If I decide a game looks good enough with FOR ME interesting gameplay I buy it (if not I don't - if you buy anyway - don't blame EA) Actually I think EA has tried to release some FPS with SP focus. Battlefield Hardline and Medal of Honor: Warfighter I think were in this category... Success!? The thing is they can never make a good enough AI for these open scenario games. There are just too many options. AI behaving as humans in an "open" world is a really difficult problem. Mindless Zombies are a lot easier... It is "open" since you and every NPC should have the option of creating new paths by blowing holes in walls. Should I go round or should I lob in an handgranate, CarlGustav on wall from distance and then shoot through the hole, walk up and plant C-4, run around to right or left... Your options. People against people will almost always be the better game if you PTFO. And you know what Frostbite games look almost as good in MP as in SP (not all games do that...)
Because they suck lol. If they don't know how to do proper single player, then yes, Dice shouldn't waste time on SP. Look at Halo, people love both SP and MP portions of the game because they're both well maid, interesting and fun. Unlike BF's or CoD's.
I think all games should come with a singleplayer campaign as standard if not then it should be half price. There seems to be a lot of cutting corners with games in this day and age it's worrying tbh. I do wonder wether it would have had a campaign if it wasn't for the film releasing this year??
Are the multiple Worst company in America award winners right? No. They think that because no one plays the single player portion of their shooter. Doesnt mean no one plays single player Shooters. Even Call of Duty and Halo started so strong because they had great Single player campaigns. The MP was a bonus which sadly took over. The day MP gaming kills off SP is the day I quit gaming.
I personally jump straight into MP, but I do complete SP eventually.
A single player FPS works if the story is up to scratch and it's fun to play - while divisive, the new Wolfenstein titles prove that SP can work (at least to me and many more). EA only think single player is dead because Medal of Honor died on its arse and can't come up with a decent idea. It doesnt help CoD over developed the MP and neglected the SP so it became the same bland, angsty, bullshit. At the end of the day I want to be able to carry a decent selection of guns and blow stuff up. I don't need every FPS to have a new gimmick, otherwise known in the industry as "innovation". We've praised realism and that gritty look but I'm sure plenty of us just want someone to take a risk and make something a bit different again. It won't happen though cos the casuals only buy CoD/FIFA/GTA and ultimately they are the biggest market. Nobodies gonna put up a big budget for an untested title trying something new these days and it's really frustrating cos the need to please the shareholder is really holding things back.
I really hate EA. The idea that they can make such a pretentious statement and it goes unaddressed is mind blowing to me. Some of the more ambitious titles that have released lately and have been successful don't particularly owe their success to their multiplayer component, The Witcher 3 being one of them for example, Arkham Knight the games people are eager to play like Metal Gear V (Yes, there's MGO, but MGO isn't whats selling MGSV) FFXV that will have no multiplayer, Fallout 4 no Multiplayer, the list goes on. I don't like when people try to state their opinions as if it is a fact in an attempt to hide their own shortcomings or rather use it as an excuse as to why you make trifling business decisions. When I saw the article about Mass Effect Multiplayer rreturning or w/e I simply rolled my eyes...Let Me Guess, We'll be going through waves of enemies trying to obtain some pointless loot or currency which we could access easier by coughing up some sort of cash the amount of cash I have to spend to open up whatever tier pack; uh loot crate, will ultimately determine if what I obtain at (Random) could be considered worth it or not...oh if I don't want to spend money I could just grind for 12 hours right. Of course that'll be the experience...no, real TRUE multiplayer experience in sight. You probably wouldn't be able to make any money off of that in a game like ME anyway, or Star Wars Battlefront for that matter.
@donthate No disrespect intended but ... You seriously contradict yourself bro. I read your 2 comments and it's confused. 1st comment (Part) 'I play CoD mostly for the single player hollywood style crazy ride! I can't deal with the [email protected] online experience though....'. 2nd comment (Part) 'Frankly, I do not want people living in the boonies with no internet access to hold back gaming. They and another group of people already held back gaming when they prevented MS from going all digital on the Xbox One....... I want online only experiences too, and the people that do not have proper internet can play other games that are suited for them'. Say What?? ...and are you a Don Matrick Sympathizer? /s
If EA is right, then investing in AI enemies would be useless!
It is VERY difficult to make great AI enemies that do not follow one of several scripts prepared in advance. You actually try to simulate human behaviour - that problem is not solved yet... Trying to make matches against bots is actually a bigger AI investment than a scripted SP experience...
Single player games are GREAT when they're great. But when you fart out a single player and then act like people just don't want to play those anymore then you're doing a disservice to real gamers. Multiplayer is GREAT but some games are great with an excellent single player campaign. I played BF3's campaign and I couldn't tell you a damn thing that happened. Just...meh. I do remember laughing my ass off and enjoying Bad Company 1's campaign and loving that one's mp, too. It's the QUALITY of the campaign that people want. Not a cookie cutter story and game that nobody will remember. I still remember and love the bioshock games. Just sayin.
$120 for the prestige edition or whatever the valentine's day bundle is called this year? Hell no but I would spend that cash on a highly refiNed mp fps.
When was the last time EA put any real effort in making a decent singleplayer mode in a FPS? It's always been the afterthought.
I don't mind not having a campaign. I would be happy with bot matches on the MP maps. I wonder if this game has those?
Yes, as reported in April http://www.vg247.com/2015/0...
If there's no story, then it becomes a pointless grindfest like Destiny. I really want games to have meaning and purpose behind it. I want to care about what I'm doing, and know why I'm doing it when playing a game. Running around shooting people just to unlock a new gun just isn't fun and down right boring after a while.
EA is simply ding dong wrong.
the only people that hate multiplayer on fps are those that don't enjoy a challenge. the point of multiplayer fps is playing against a player of equal skill if not better. its sorta like fighting games theres no story to it really but we all enjoy beating the crap out of friends. mario kart no story to it but we enjoy racing its competitive nature only those who cant stand taking a beating or the fact that there are better players out there don't enjoy most multiplayer games.
If this is true i have completely lost interest in fps altogether
no they are not right, i like my single player and i bet so many others
MP is huge, but there is no excuse for no SP.
ea claims nobody cares for the single player in fps games lets see halo,gears,bad company 2,the cods that were set in WWll,medal of honor,bioshock,metro all had amazing campaigns people will love fps with campaigns if they are more like those & less like bf 3 & 4,cod,crysis meaning lazy campaigns
The thing is, a shooter can be specialized in either offline or online and still be successful. Both categories have a lot of fans.
I think EA has the word 'campaign' confused with 'Battlefield campaign.' im happy if they never include a SP in BF again unless it's bad company (Which were good). i mean come on, a big part of BF is vehicles and you control ONE tank for about 5 mins. anyway GOTY last yr was Dragon Age (which was predominately a SP experience) and that's published by EA. so i don't think he meant what he said literally
Dragon Age was not a FPS... :) Full quote is “Data suggests that few people actually player the single player in these types of games.”
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.