It turns out the rumors were true, and that the latest Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 will be ditching a dedicated single player campaign in favor of multiplayer only. Coin-Drop explains why that's a bad idea.
Seriously, why not, CoD spends so much money on actors appearing in their SP when all the majority cares about is the MP portion. They should have been did this a long time ago.
Whatever COD campaign is awesome or not, it was part of COD DNA in first place. Sure, Black Ops 4 will sell a lot of copies without SP mode, but it will get bad rep for this.
"They should have been did this" Says everything, doesn't it?
They extracted the CoD DNA and replaced it with wild stallion DNA code. And now it's running on pure stud power. It won't get a bad rep, it will be played and people will rejoice that the developers focused on MP instead of some cut and paste SP campaign starring Vin Deisel and Curtis Jackson.
"...paste SP campaign starring Vin Deisel and Curtis Jackson." Now that I think about it, that wouldn't be that bad. Throw in Nick Cannon as the wise crackin international spy/terrorist and we may have the best CoD SP campaign ever.
Man how far CoD has gotten away from what the original creators wanted when they made CoD. They wanted a realistic war shooter depicting the true struggles & hardships soldiers faced during WW2 is now a sci fi online only shooter with realism being thrown out the window
@Gangsta_Red Sounds like the plot of Fast 9
Nobody will care outside forums like this. Activision can see how many people actually play the single player, it’s almost nobody.
UCForce is exactly right. Sure it will still sell, perhaps not quite as much, but the main drag will be it will have lower review scores and some bad PR. Myself I won't be buying this like I have all the others, I'm not a COD MP person.
Blame Kevin Spacey and the BR trend.
I agree it's not a great move. And it's also same price for less effort. But the 3/4 who pick up the game for MP are still going to get it, especially since it's Treyarch
It should still be part of the standard package or maybe be $40 to reflect the loss of content. And no, Battle Royale mode doesn’t make up for lack of campaign. As it stands, once the servers go off, you’ve got nothing more than a paperweight.
It shouldn't cost $40 you lose a 5 hour campaign but get sp missions and a Battle Royale mode called Blackout. That is arguably more content than a short campaign. Name the last CoD servers to shutdown. CoD servers stay up for years and years. That's why Black Ops 3, Infinite Warfare, Advanced Warfare, and even Ghosts are all still active.
You have CoDs from two years ago still active. I wouldn't worry about servers being turned off for any CoD so soon after purchase.
The single player was worthless since nobody played it, so I can’t really agree. I think they should charge whatever people are willing to pay, not what some random guy on n4g thinks.
How many maps are there going to be? Unknown at this point? If it's 9 maps then yes that's a lot less effort for them to replace SP with a BR mode. If it's 15 maps then maybe that means a more robust MP package, which is a plus for the people that pick it up for MP only (majority)
No they shouldn't of. They are doing it now because they are adding Battle Royale aka Blackout and there will still be sp missions. Technically there are 4 modes now, so diminishing the campaign into sp missions isn't as detrimental considering there is so much to replace it. But if they just dropped sp years ago with no replacement, that would've been terrible.
No one really talked about the sp campaign mode and if I'm not mistaken they always had missions that could be played sp. CoD in recent years has had more focus on the MP portion with it's rise in popularity in the esports arena. I'm sure the SP missions in this game will be on some tutorial level type stuff and nothing more.
So what your saying about COD and Activision is ......"take more and give less", maybe they should re-sign a deal with Microsoft as corporate greed continues to be put first. When you are paying full price for a game, you should get a full game, period.
But they're giving more. They're adding more modes to the game. So not really sure what you mean about the whole take more give less part. But you are getting a full game. I seriously have no idea what you consider a full game? Have you seen what they added for the game...seems pretty full to me. I wonder though, should SP games not cost the full price...I mean since it's missing all sort of modes and all.
@ gangsta Now I could be wrong, and feel free to correct me if I am, but it seems blackout mode is mostly reused assets. From what I gathered from the presentation, past killstreaks, characters, and maps are just mashed together to make a large black out mode. With the exception of vehicles, what's really new about it? They are adding the mode, but reusing the content... Is that really adding anything new? The game looked like black ops 3 just with minor tweaks. I see no reason, other than to increase their profit (knowing they could get away with it), why they couldn't do black out mode and SP mode. They have the money, they have the man power, they have a 3 year cycle now,and they have a majority of the assets already. So what gives. They could have made a SP campaign without paying for well known actors (they have done so in many past CoD games).
They're cutting out a sp campaign which probably costs about 10-15 million on its own, with game modes which probably reuse assets and likely cost maybe half a million each to build and test. Continue.charging 60.bucks with the mt and did later, and its Ok? It probably won't affect COD sales that much, but I don't get the gamers who say less is more. If people.want sp games to stop getting pissed on, don't accept it when stuff like this happens
Or, and here's a great idea: stop spending ridiculous amounts of money on A-List Hollywood celebs to appear in their game and scale back production and budget to a realistic scale. You know how much they spent getting Conor McGregor to show up in the campaign for Infinite Warfare? And it was a CAMEO. SMALL appearance as a muscle guy who coulda easily been anyone else in the world. AND Kit Harrington, AND Kevin Spacey in Advanced Warfare, and the list goes on, to say nothing of the star-studded live action commercials. CoD's biggest problems are they waste money on stupid, trivial things AND they've lost focus. WWII was the first sign they were starting to get their focus back, but even then, EVEN THEN they wasted money on A-List hollywood actors when it really wasn't needed. It's more than possible for them to do a good campaign without breaking the bank, they just chose not to.
Its their "player expectations" feedback driving them into the ground and every AAA publisher. They keep blowing hundreds of millions on useless things then complain when they don't make that money back because the game failed in some other way, and no amount of overpaid overpriced celebs will fix it.
Maybe if they stop trying to hire a famous actor for name recognition and hired some better writers to write an actually good story then people would want to play it more. But have fun paying full price for half a game then another $60 for maps that are locked behind a paywall.
What next ? Is Halo 6 going to remove SP mode as well ? How would you react to that ?
No, they should not have been did done this a long time ago. You shouldn’t even stick up for Activision paying actors. It’s not like they can’t afford it. I like single player campaigns. I won’t be getting this game. I’m in no way trying to get into a situation where companies take me for monthly fees, and going online only. Online only games can get ended whenever they feel like it
But MS/Sony done did take you monthly anyways by paying for their services. None of these guys are forcing you to pay monthly, pay 60 for the game, play what comes with it and .... I don't know...not spend a dime on anything afterwards. Past CoD games are still up and running, time to set this fear of "bububu muh online" to rest.
@gangsta_red Sony respect their first party developers and let them do whatever they want, not impose them. If 343 remove SP mode and add BR in the next Halo, how would you feel about that ?
Because it's a money making scheme to get more from a customer. Fornite is free so I expect COD to have a free mode with the rest as optional charges. Sounds fair.
Ok then since they are cutting all that spending on SP as you put it, are they going to cut price to $30 dollars as well? No they are not in fact they will add MT and nickel and dime players. People like you are why they are doing this BS making excuses for a company that makes billions of dollars on COD alone.
Why would they cut the price? Has the production cost gone down? Is it a smaller development team? Are the graphics worse? Are the maps smaller? Should SP only games be cut to 30 since they too are missing a MP mode? (And no one has yet addressed that) OR maybe they're putting that SP cost back into MP and refining it for the millions and millions that enjoyed it more than anything the SP provided. It's the gamers who spent more time and money on CoD that these devs are catering to not the person who spent less than eight hours on the sp portion. Or the people who found something new to complain about CoD.
Yes MP player games are popular among the casual gamers because they only buy one game and that's all they play so spending money on stupid MT is no big deal to them. It's the same reason EA get's away with murder with FIFA but that doesn't apply to gamers that buy games yearly and are seeing this trend that EA, Activision, WB, MS, Ubisoft to a lesser extend are trying to push in the industry. Which started to bleed over into single player games MP only games have a place but when these greedy mofos push the line you end up with games like Star Wars Battlefront pay to win BS.
Nah. OT: I know quite a few people skipping this because of that omission. I'm still interested to check it out, but I don't know about buying.
It's a really smart move. Cutting out the single player that the majority of people don't play is the equivalent to a restaurant no longer selling a dish no one orders. They should just focus on what sells
I rather play a replayable Battle Royale/Multiplayer mode than a 5hr campaign.
Cod 4 had a 5 hour campaign and it was amazing, this is laziness
No it’s called knowing what their customers want, if you don’t like it vote with your wallet. I know most n4g goers have a weird fetish for single player games, but not every shooter needs a campaign!
@kevnb No, that called lazy and ignorant. Removing it just hurt the game reputation.
It may not even be an every year thing. There are three CoD developers. This might just be one distinguishing themselves from the others. It's very possible one or both of the others might still make campaigns starting next year.
@movefasta1993 You literally had to go all the way to 2006 just to say a COD had a good SP. That tells you a lot right there. I haven't bought COD since COD 4 (because of great MP). Seeing how they are ditching SP, makes me think that the SP will be deeper and more fun (we will see). I also want to see on the 23rd what Dice has planned for BF V.
I prefer the Multiplayer mode also and by FAR, but MW1-2 and Black ops 1 had amazing campaigns. Plus with the amount of copies they sell every year, pretty sure adding the SP is worth the investment.
You actually get more content than you lost in this game. The sp isn't entirely gone either, it's been changed from a cinematic campaign to a series of sp missions. Then Treyarch is including a Battle Royale mode called Blackout. So you lose a 5 hour campaign, but you gain Battle Royale and sp missions which in actuality will be much more content than just 5 hours of gameplay. In actuality Black Ops 4 will have 4 modes and arguably more content than ever. Zombies Battle Royale SP missions Multiplayer
You get less. Every one thing that is added on comes at the cost of two. What is a battle royale mode, really? They remove the class system and make one big map - oh wow, that extra dev year went a LONG way. And that's ignoring just how many assets they're reusing from previous entries. You get skins now! Old skins; Skins of old characters who exist already!
Well...another one scrubbed of my list. Interested to see how it's sales go. I know they'll be huge still, but will they be bigger or smaller than previous iterations...and will the discrepancy be explainable if it's smaller...
Senor Pubg is an entire retail game featuring Battle Royale. Battle Royale is 1/4 of Black Ops 4. Are you really questioning Battle Royale now that it's in CoD? A Battle Royale map in Black Ops 4 is 1500 times larger than Nuketown. It's massive and it features so many elements from the entire series. It is not a small undertaking. I'm not a CoD or Battle Royale fan, but to say it's less content isn't true. A CoD campaign is roughly 5 hours of content. You think you will get less than 5 hours of gameplay from the Battle Royale mode and the SP missions? C'mon. I'd rather have a SP campaign because i prefer SP games, but the content is there, it's allocated into Battle Royale and SP missions rather than a campaign.
PUBG is £20 to buy. It also has enough content to cover at least one game mode.
Battle Royale? Don't you mean 'Last man standing'. I love how every game incorporates this as a new idea.
@IamTylerDurden1 "So you lose a 5 hour campaign, but you gain Battle Royale and sp missions which in actuality will be much more content than just 5 hours of gameplay." you do know that Fortnite BR is free, right? saying BR is a good replacement for a proper SP campaign is exactly what Activision is hoping gamers will say to justify still selling this at $60! I'm not a CoD fan per say but MP only games should not cost $60 period!
@tkcmuzzer Battle royale isn’t just last man standing, but you probably have never played it.
"I'm not a CoD or Battle Royale fan" yet your putting in a lot of effort in saying how great the addition of BR mode in this game, so for someone who isn't a fan of either you sure are acting like a fan
What is a battle royale mode? It's a completely different game. If you are the type that jumps into tilted towers you may not know this. Battle Royale is a thinking mans game. That's why I routinely get to the top 10 of fortnite without the aid of my squadmmates (morons who usually jump to towers or some other KNOWN populated place and are dead before I hit the ground). Battle Royale is not chopped liver. It's a completely different way to play a shooter. COMPLETELY.
Maybe it's just me, but wouldn't it be more prudent asking them to make better more involved campaigns instead of rationalizing that there is more content because of a couple of game modes which you may spend more time playing. If they included a sp campaign, it was almost a guarantee they'd want to cash in on the BR craze, so what is lost is a sp campaign. Replacing a sp campaign with a game mode and sp missions is not equal trade. Gt sport taught us that. The idea to not include a sp campaign came early in production I'm sure, so they intended to do this from the start. It's not like they planned years in advance to give you more in this way.
Good to see people like you endorsing corporate greed at the expense of gamers.
“They didn’t make the game exactly how I want, how greedy of them!”
I'd rather play a different BR game then CoDs paltry attempt at it.
So you know the future?
@jmc Yeah, I know the game won't even have 100 players at launch and I know it's just a trend that already has established games for it. Kids won't bother with CoD since fortnite is free and colorful for them and the reputation this is getting atm isn't a good way to drum up that big interest. Red flags everywhere.
Activision knows what there doing the current and future marketshare of game is online. There will be som single player experiences but nothing that will mess with the multiplayer on a percent basis. The 3 modes is more then enough to satisy the fanbase. The biggest portion of the game has always been multiplayer. Battle royale mode in COD sealed its success.
Actually it's 4 modes. Battle Royale Multiplayer SP missions Zombies
I love people disagreeing with pure fact just because of the misplaced hatred for CoD. I'm not a huge CoD fan but i have to represent the truth and try to break up the mob mentality. Even the title is misleading, read some articles, BO4 will have SP missions. It is also adding Battle Royale mode which it calls Blackout. That's just true.
Dont even bother trying to be rational. Lol We know heres lots of value and the userbase does too.
@IamTD1 Not disagreeing with you for hate of COD. I have most of them. It can have all the content in the world but if it's not content I want to play... And SP does take a lot of effort to write, script and create. So it is "half" a game compared to previous releases. I guess SP is more important to some people than it is to you. Interested to see what numbers are for this compared to previous version. And how many transactions are hidden away in it. I guess Activision are eyeing up GTA online and wanting some of that action...
That’s just lazy, ignorant and disrespectful to traditional COD game. So you want publishers like Activision to modernize you guys ? Are you nut ?
So are you a shareholder or a gamer? As a gamer you should be disappointed that Activision is just looking to maximize profit... I get it they need to earn money, but at least give us a good and complete experience! Ripping out the single player campaign and adding a few maps and battle royale mode is just a rip off. they are still charging the same amount for the game but they didn't need to spend nearly as much to complete the game. (No actors, no writers, no motion captions etc.)
No I think what they are trying to do is maximize the value of the money they spend. They are charging the same amount, but the same amount of money buys 1/2 the stuff it did when they first started charging it. It's called inflation. Battle Royale will create hype and excitement for Call of Duty. Far more then the campaign that a good portion never play, and a few more only play the first mission or two. This might bring in a few million more sales. It was inevitable. Call of Duty needed to do SOMETHING to get people back who have been fleeing the series, this might be it.
I agree it's probably not going to hurt sales much. I just get a kick out of the people trying to rationalize a company taking out a staple game mode from a game....even if it was not much to write home about. Gamers should always think before they justify this kind of stuff, because it just further promotes the things the publishers want to make more money, while not always being what a lot of us on here say we want. Not saying people can't enjoy mp only games, but I don't know many people who only play mp, and almost everyone here has complaints about greedy publishers in some way. Personally, I'm not invested in COD at all, and I even understand why Activision is doing this. But I knew by coming in here I'd witness people justifying this, instead of asking Activision to do something better with the campaign to make it a worthy contender, instead of just something you do to get a few trophies.
Bruh they can't even do a 5 hour sp like they've always done?
minimum investment expecting maximum profit!
Aka laziness, just less for them to copy/paste