Black Ops 4 is Better Off Without a Single-Player Campaign

Author Writes "For the first time Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 doesn't include a single player campaign, but the game certainly doesn't suffer for it."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Alek8394d ago

Every game should have a good single player campaign, but whatever.

TheDriz94d ago

All single player games should have multiplayer. See what i did there.

Alek8394d ago

And I agree. All games should have both options.

Gaming10194d ago

Not every publisher and developer has the budget to create good AI for a great single player experience, that takes massive time and manpower. Just look at the 100 hour weeks Rockstar employees are pushing to get Red Dead Redemption 2 out the door. When your budget is only so big and you can only afford so many employees to work so many hours in so many disciplines, you sometimes have to decide what you want to be - a single player or multiplayer focused game, depending on your expertise in design. It's lazy and entitled to say every game should have X when there are plenty of good examples of games that don't have single or multiplayer.

TheDriz94d ago

At gaming101. Exactly my point. Let them do what they want and if you don’t like it don’t buy it. Welcome to capitalism

94d ago
TheDriz94d ago

@Noonions better than what you have to say which is nothing at all. I’m glad to listen you just have to say anything

UltraNova94d ago (Edited 94d ago )


There are two games being discussed here, the very thread you choose to leave the above comment. Both games made by the biggest and 3rd biggest game company in the world, respectively.

Rockstar is notorious for having 500 employees work on their games, with what has to be an unlimited time and budget (I shit you not, check it out). Activision needs no introduction, they have multiple COD teams numbering in nearly 1000 devs on COD alone working on yearly releases in a 3 year release cycle for each team. COD generates billions of dollars for Activision on a steady stream while Rockstar's games generate billions each entry! Not only that but GTA Online is a real life money making machine, then there's RDR Online coming. Additionally COD always had a SP campaign so people have come to expect this from them.

Now take all that information under consideration and tell me that these companies can't afford to make both a great SP and MP game and that removing either mode its not a slap in the face of the consumer.

That said, it goes without saying, if smaller devs or indies have to make a choice, it should be one that fits their vision and budget to choose between SP and MP or both.

bouzebbal94d ago

Couch multi-player I will agree.. Online multi? That's a brain dead message right there..

MasterCornholio94d ago

You can't just add multiplayer to any single player game. How would a David Cage game work with multiplayer? And I'm talking about a traditional multiplayer mode not an option to look at other people's choices.

Heck God Of War and Spiderman wouldn't really work with multiplayer either.

AnubisG94d ago

That is the dumbest "see what I did there" I have ever seen.

Every game should have a good single player campaign to tell the story of the game and give value to gamers. However, not every game needs to have multiplayer. Just how many God damn multiplayer games can you keep up with? While I'm able to play even up to 4 single player games at a time and give it proper attention, I am only willing to invest into one multiplayer game at a time.

Also, most of you are too young to know that one day, you will look back on these games and want to play them for nostalgia sake. You won't be able to because servers will be down and these mp only games will be unplayable. Than you will be bitchining and moaning. GaaS is not a good thing for gamers.

gamer994d ago

OMG people he wasn’t actually suggesting all single player games have multiplayer, he was proving a point – why on earth would anyone need to explain this? Lol

TheDriz94d ago

LMAO its so funny how dumb the user base is here. America!!!!!!

Skull52194d ago

“Every game should have a good single player campaign to tell the story of the game and give value to gamers. However, not every game needs to have multiplayer.“

Not true in the slightest. Would the NFL benefit from a good story mode? How about poker? Or Candyland? Games can be whatever they want to be, single player isn’t some prerequisite that makes a game better. In fact I think the best games throughout the course of history include many people.

I bet your love life is a single player experience as well.

rainslacker93d ago


It's not really about if they can afford it, it's about if they feel it's worth it. If they spend $10-20 million on making a SP campaign, but they feel they only gain $5-10 million in revenues from that, then it's not worth it.

Or, they feel that they just make enough on a MP game, that they don't need to expend more money on a SP campaign.

I don't believe every game needs a SP campaign, or not every SP game needs MP.

For the most part, COD hasn't really had a lot spoken about it's SP campaign. It acts more like a really long tutorial. I'm sure there are those that brought it for that, because they may not play MP, but I don't think that is anywhere near the majority of the player base.

OTOH, the sales of the game seem to have taken at least at retail, so maybe it was more important than they think. Not sure if the lack of a SP campaign is the main reason for that, but if you consider people who don't play MP with these games may still prefer retail, then maybe it is something to consider.

Gaming10192d ago

You're misinformed if you believe anything in business is done with "Infinite budget and resources"

There is always a finite amount of money being spent. Activision spends roughly twice the amount of money on development on marketing. For instance, Modern Warfare 2 cost 30 million to make and 60 million was spent on marketing alone. People are working in tight time frames with massive teams, and if more focus is placed on Multiplayer, bug testing, balance testing, to ensure we get fewer overpowered weapons, attachments, perks, spawn points etc, then multiplayer will be that much better on day 1. Sure, from your armchair it's easy to shout out complaints that "Call of Duty makes tons of money, it should have every feature that we could ever expect" but that's not how business people operate. They operate on Return on Investment, and if data shows fewer and fewer people are playing Multiplayer only, then the modes played the least get axed and new trends (like Battle Royale) are followed.

Remember when GTA 3 game out and everyone hopped on the open world gaming trend? Then Gears of War became popular and every game had cover mechanics after that? The industry follows trends more than anything else, and Battle Royale is the new trend, whereas CoD single player has been trending out. It's all data driven, and sure it sucks for people who actually bought CoD for just single player, but Activision is hoping new trendy modes will make up for those lost sales. I played CoD just for single player for quite a while, as MP was becoming too boring and repetitive, so I hate this move the most, but who am I to Activision? Just a number on a balance sheet, that's it.

+ Show (12) more repliesLast reply 92d ago
Baza94d ago

Every game? Com’on get real. Some games are not designed for a single player campaign and they can still be successful. Fortnite, Overwatch.. just to name a couple you may have heard of

Alek8394d ago

False. You can easily tag on a side flee player tutorial mission to both.

All games should have both options. Lazy developers are just calling it in.

neutralgamer199294d ago (Edited 94d ago )


A single player campaign done by billazrd within over watch universe could be amazing

What you talking about?

And FN does have single player

I agree not every game needs SP or MP. Rainbow six patriots could have been amazing but ubi chose a different route

Poopmist94d ago

Treyarch hasn't made a good single player campaign since Call of Duty 3 and they have a finite amount t of time to work on the game. I'd rather that they spend time toward content that is worth playing.

execution1794d ago

Haven't been a fan of their campaigns since WaW, but I like their MP and Zombie modes

annoyedgamer94d ago

Black Ops 1 and 2 were good.

NikeKiller4Life94d ago

there is no rule that says a game should have single player... The last Black Ops Campaign wasnt that good so why make another one when you can put in a mode in the place of it that can be played for more than 5 hours.. Im fine with this temporarily but in the future I would like to see a campaign.

UCForce94d ago

What about Black Ops 1 SP mode ? I know BO3 SP mode wasn’t good and I was expected Treyarch can improve it, not removing it.

Jrios35594d ago

So I guess MMORPGs like World of Warcraft, A Realm Reborn, and Guild Wars 2 should have a single player campaigns too?

RabbitFly94d ago

I don't really have a horse in this race, but that I can't help, but point out bad logic when it is being presented.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

MMOs have an expectancy of content that shooters like COD will never reach.

But I digress. When people are talking about single player and multiplayer in COD they are talking about a story based campaign and multiplayer game modes. The difference is not technically that one is multi and the other is single. It is that one is a story based experience and the other is a mechanical one.

Take Gears of War f. ex. The campaign is technically still multiplayer, but the experience it is offering is not the same as that of it's more competitive modes.

MMOs like the ones you mentioned have both of those experiences already. They have plenty of story based experiences that can be completed with or without other people.

Having another that is seperate would be pointless and is not what people here are arguing.

Profchaos94d ago

I played wow in the vanilla era and hit level 60 purely from running quests solo which I consider to be the single player equivalent in a mmo. I had alternate characters for different purposes like most players

rainslacker93d ago (Edited 93d ago )

Most of those games do have a significant portion of content that can be played alone. I'd even say the bulk of the content can be played off line.

I think when I first started playing wow, I spent about a month with minimal interaction with other players. Mostly just social, or the occasional person coming along and interjecting themselves into my questing.

Z50194d ago (Edited 94d ago )

I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with you.
Tomorrow there will be some random story and everyone will say "The more options. The better"
Make up your mind N4G/internet.
*none of those 'more option' topics mentioned budget or work hours. it was simply, more options are always welcome with no caveats attached.

watchem93d ago

CS:GO single player campaign xD

NapalmSanctuary93d ago (Edited 93d ago )

Whatever. Single player in COD is crap anyway, and has been for years. I'd be happier with the original COD/MOH devs doing a remake of the original ps1 Medal of Honor games like Activision are doing with Crash and Spyro. Those guys have been working with EA recently, anyways, so why not.


That's just not true. If game developer puts all their assets towards optimizing the more important feature of their game, and they succeed, that's smart. Some games can pull off both, but I'm fine with some games being solely multi-player or single player focused.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 92d ago
Jinger94d ago

They replaced it with more content in my eyes. More MP and zombie maps at launch than previous entries and they included a BR mode which is something extremely new for CoD with 100 players on a large map and vehicles. Plus there is still a story in the game, just not a traditional campaign.

UCForce94d ago

You mean those are tutorials mission. Single Player is COD stable for decade and it should never remove. This is just money grabbing and I know many publishers would “love” to abuse it. People want a proper single player mode, not this crap.

gangsta_red94d ago (Edited 94d ago )


"Single Player is COD stable for decade and it should never remove."

Hardly anyone played CoD for it's single player story. There are no single player tournaments, updates or DLC to add to it's story, unlike the MP which for most COD games are still being played this day. The SP for CoD was useless and the devs could spend their time crafting a much better MP experience for the many users who play it for just that.

"People want a proper single player mode, not this crap."

Who? Wasn't it like less than 9% that actually played the COD sp portion? I've been hearing for years that CoD is the same copy and paste crap, that it's killing other games chances of success and now people are mad because there's no single player campaign in CoD? Stop it, go play another SP game if you want but stop crying about a SP game that most CoD fans hardly cared about.

I keep hearing about tacked on MP, but who wants a tacked on SP too?

Godmars29094d ago (Edited 94d ago )

" Plus there is still a story in the game, just not a traditional campaign."

Something just there apposed to anything that might engage players. Those take work. Creativity.

"Hardly anyone played CoD for it's single player story."

Because any real narrative value has removed with each succeeding entry.

cell98994d ago

Some extra maps does not equal campaign

UCForce94d ago (Edited 94d ago )

@gangsta_red Really ? COD SP was and will always stable in COD franchise. It is important just as MP. I knew I get disagree from left and right. You twisted my word and it’s shameful really. I stopped playing Rainbow Six Siege because it feel boring and hollow. I guess you don’t want to respect the legacy of it and want to erase it out of existence.

94d ago
AnubisG94d ago


I keep hearing this idiotic excuse that only 20% of CoD players completed the story. Let's look at this in context. CoDWWII sold 12 million copies. So that means 2.5 million people completed the campain. Thay is not a small number. Also, the most sought after activity in Destiny is the raid. The latest raid has been completed by less than 1% of people. So should they take it out? If they do, people would be very upset.

So how about we as gamers stop justifying that corporate idiocy that only a minority completed the sp mode so it's ok not to have it. You have to be an idiot to think that it's ok to get less for the same $.

Lostbytes94d ago

I don't play zombies...i don't play BR. One is Horde the other free for all -- I stopped playing horde modes a few years back. They are never challenging enough, And i never have liked any Free for all mode. So for me they stripped enough out of COD to not warrant a purchase. First COD in 10 years i'm skipping. Just because YOU see more value ,does not mean it holds the same value for others.

Jinger94d ago

Actually it's only 9% of people who completed the BLOPS 3 campaign, But in that 9% (A little over 2mil players) who bought the game ONLY for the SP? I bet that number shrinks down to less than 4% of people who buy it only for campaign, probably less. So you're looking at a tiny fraction of their player base here, and with them taking it out and focusing on more of the content that 96% of the playerbase plays the most, they are selling pretty damn well breaking digital records over Destiny and CoD WWII.

So you still play the MP though, right? The mode I'm sure you spend 99% of your time in after you're done with the 4-6 hour forgettable campaign.

rainslacker93d ago (Edited 93d ago )

Surely one could take the available trophy data across the platforms, and see how many people played past games primarily for the SP campaign, or played it about the same as the MP game. Aren't the MP trophies tiered to give a reasonable approximation of how much time they spent playing the MP?

About the only real deviation in the statistics would come from not knowing the percentages of people who wanted both, or brought it primarily for the SP, but still partook in the MP quite a bit, even if it wasn't their primary reason for playing the game.

I don't care to do the work myself, as it would require more research into the individual trophies, and I don't really care that much, but obviously, the data is there for Activision to know how many sales they'd lose for the people who brought the game primarily for the SP campaign. With today's tracking of trophy percentages right on the platform, it should be easy enough to do more than just make hyperbolic statements about it.

So, for my own hyperbole....didn't they just have one of their weakest retail launches for the series in a very long time? I'd think the SP people may be more prone to buying retail, since it's possible they may not have good internet, which is why they may not play the MP as much.

That thrown in there, without knowing the actual numbers, or even the numbers from digital which apparently are strong, its hard to extrapolate any kind of conclusion on just how much of an effect it had on sales, or if its really that important.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 93d ago
gangsta_red94d ago

It actually has the same content, plus more modes.

94d ago
zackeroniii94d ago

I'm sure you have a blast with just overwatch and rainbow six siege though right?

But let's just hate cause you of cool you guys are

AspiringProGenji94d ago

Never played Rainbow 6

And It’s been a year since I last touched Overwatch

Razmiran94d ago

Well, since you bought overwatch then I guess that you are okay with full priced multiplayer games after all

AspiringProGenji94d ago (Edited 94d ago )

No I am not okay with that. My bro game shared Overwatch with me on console ans I did buy the game on PC laterr, but on PC iir’a still $40 so for an MP only game that’s fair

fathertime446493d ago

Hell even battlefield 5 is getting a campaign mode with mp and a battle royal mode.
So if dice could do this I'm hard pressed to believe that tryarch couldn't

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 93d ago
daBUSHwhaka94d ago

Don't mind no single player but the price needs to be adjusted...

DarkVoyager94d ago

Should’ve been $40 or even F2P like Fortnite.

aconnellan94d ago

*major triple-A game that cost millions of dollars to make, releases to 9/10 scores across the board*

“Doesn’t have single player? Should have been FTP”

Lol get outta here. No one’s saying that God Of War should have been cheaper because it doesn’t have multiplayer, so why the double standard?

Such a small percentage of people play COD single player anyway, and it’s multiplayer always gets more praise, so why aren’t they allowed to cut the single player and put that time towards perfecting the multi?

mkis00794d ago


God of war doesnt have microtransactions to keep the money flowing.

A great single player game is way more difficult to develop than multiplayer arenas...

Ragthorn94d ago

If someone can explain to me how a game needs to be price adjusted for missing a single-player component, then I would really like to hear it. I am not trying to say I don't want one or do not like single-player stuff, I just genuinely want to see why people see this. From what I see, singleplayer games (e.g., upcoming Sekiro which I am extremely excited for) should be price adjusted for not having any multiplayer at all like the previous Soulsborne games. I don't personally see eye to eye on this, so now what I say is that just because a certain part is eliminated does not mean the price should change NECESSARILY. Obviously if it is like Fortnite or Overwatch, then it should either be F2P or charged less. Treyarch even said that the single-player team worked exclusively on Blackout (Battle Royale for CoD). This does not mean that any less resources or effort was put into the game. This is how I see it anyway, I just don't see how people think the game should be lowered in price. HOWEVER, I do wish I could buy Blackout by itself for a reduced price and possibly buy the other parts as "modules" per se. That might be an interesting development for the PC versions at least.

93d ago
rainslacker93d ago

Games aren't typically priced based on the amount, or quality of the content. There are some instances where they're cheaper because they're cheaper to make, but games are priced at what the publisher feels they'll sell for. History has shown that more often than not, games will sell for that price, and that they wouldn't necessarily sell better if they were cheaper. Even if they sold better at say $50 instead of $60, they'd still have to sell 17% more copies at a lower cost, and that may not happen, so they'd end up losing money.

The pricing of games is where it's at mostly across the board, because of this notion that if a game isn't priced at the $60 norm for a AAA title, then it's somehow less of a game. It's a psychological thing among the consumer.

Jinger94d ago

Then Spidey and GoW and all SP only games should be adjusted as well.

UCForce94d ago

That’s a different story and it’s depend. Spider Man and God Of War have production value that worth 60$.

AspiringProGenji94d ago

Neither of those games had MP to begin with and dropped it for not reason, so bad example

TheDriz94d ago

Agree with you 100% its funny how everyone ignores the other side of the coin lol. NO SINGLE PLAYER!!!! No multiplayer could easily be complained about for a ton of games as well. Lets all complain instead of being productive humans.

gangsta_red94d ago

"Spider Man and God Of War have production value that worth 60$."

And this CoD doesn't?

So because SP isn't in the game it should cost less? Even though new modes and the Zombie campaign are added? How does that make any sense?

GoW and SM are perfect examples if you want to use the OP's logic.

94d ago
Poopmist94d ago

Yeah they aren't worth $60 imo. Imma wait for $25. $1 per hour at a minimum of entertainment with a game is my rule.

rainslacker93d ago (Edited 93d ago )

I'm not saying you believe what you say, as you're showing the absurdity of the OP, but I want to expand on the topic.

$60 is the expected price for both SP and MP games with the amount of content they have. Even if they have less content, or lower quality content.

In this case, people are assuming that because there is less content than there was before at the same price, that it isn't worth as much. I feel that is a logical argument on the surface, as they've removed content to what people have come to expect. However, it also ignores any and all real market conditions, and what these games are valued at by the people actually buying them.

Any number of games release with less content. RDR2 is going to be a huge game. If we went solely on content, we could say that that game should be twice the price. But that's not how the market works.

If people really wanted to fight for this lower costs based on dev costs thing, they should extend that to markets of scale. Where a game that sells much more, should sell for less, because this type of thinking assumes that the publishers will be happy with a set amount for return on investment, and anything after that is just a bonus. But that's not how things really work.

Jinger93d ago


No I don't actually believe that Spidey and GoW should be adjusted. I was just using it as a reverse argument to his baseless comment. I am fine with a game being full price with SP or MP ONLY as long as that package includes enough content that I deem worthy of full price.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 93d ago
NikeKiller4Life94d ago

Why would the price be adjusted? You still have 3 game modes to play... and an additional specialist mode.. thats enough content..

94d ago
Thomaticus94d ago

They can keep the price the same, but I think we should have gotten more MP maps at launch.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 93d ago
PhoenixUp94d ago

I’d still prefer a single player mode

Nothing you say can convince me otherwise

TheDriz94d ago

Closed mindedness for the win!