Few Would Play Star Wars Battlefront Single-Player Campaign, Says EA COO

[Sheo_Dagana]

Just one of the many reasons I stopped looking into this game. Once I heard there would be no campaign and would basically be a Battlefield game with a Star Wars skin, they lost me.

Also, you can't compare how things turn out with an MMO with how things would be for a Shooter because they are vastly different styles of games that attract different flavors of gamers. That they both happened to be Star Wars themed is incidental. EA claims they want to put players first - why wasn't a formal marketing poll put out for something like this?

Frankly, I just liked playing the campaign and Galactic Conquest modes in Battlefront II with my one friend and that was it.

 

[Kajin]

Show of hands: how many people complaining about BF not having a single-player campaign play TF2, an online team based shooter with no single player content other than playing against bots?

Getting somewhat weary with people complaining about EA doing something and getting slammed for it because EA, rather than what they are actually doing. And people wonder why companies tend to shut out a good portion of communication with "gamers".

You're comparing apples to oranges. Team Fortress wasn't built on a history of games that were primarily single player. I didn't even know Star Wars Battlefront 2 HAD an online multiplayer mode until I bought it off of Steam last year. That didn't stop me from having dozens (if not hundreds) of hours of fun playing the single player modes (plus the campaign) when it first came out.

Also, I fail to see how complaining about EA because EA is inherently a bad thing when they're prone to pulling dip shit shenanigans ALL THE FUCKING TIME. Seriously, it's basically they're entire business model at this point. I will be SHOCKED, fucking SHOCKED, if Battlefront, under their "tender ministrations", turns out to be anything but a shit Call to Battlefields of Duty knock off. With a Star Wars theme.

 

[Lightspeaker]

It's as if this guy is a saboteur sent by another company just to make everyone dislike EA more, and to make their games suck.

To: Agent M
From: Ubisoft Black Operations Division
Subject: Now is the time

Agent,
After the disastrous year we had in 2014 it is crucially important that we stay ahead of at least one other evil company. You have served faithfully, infiltrating the very highest levels of EA, for a number of years now without detection but we must now ask you to risk all to save our company from being outed as the Devil incarnate by bringing EA to an even lower point.
We have absolute faith in your abilities, godspeed.

Show of hands: how many people complaining about BF not having a single-player campaign play TF2, an online team based shooter with no single player content other than playing against bots?

Getting somewhat weary with people complaining about EA doing something and getting slammed for it because EA, rather than what they are actually doing. And people wonder why companies tend to shut out a good portion of communication with "gamers".

"Show of hands: how many people complaining about Silent Hill being turned into a pachinko machine play pinball, a similar ball-based game with no horror content other than, in some cases, the table design?"

You really want to go down that road, hmm? Just because people like one thing being one way doesn't mean that they'd like everything to be that way. They're using the Battlefront licence which comes with certain expectations; you can't just randomly compare it to TF2, because there are previous games to compare it to. They are CONSISTENTLY FAILING to meet any of those expectations, instead every piece of information coming out of them tends to be along the lines of "well the game isn't going to have X or Y which were in the original two games".

"Would you play a single-player campaign"

WOW! That is one HUGELY misleading question/answer spectrum!!!
It should be "Would you mind it if the game had no SP?" or "Would you rather buy this game with it including a SP mode, or knowing they focused 100% of effort on MP?".

THEN you could see what people really think... Because SP in THESE games is just a training for the MP. You finish the SP and then spen d about 10+ times that much hours in the MP!

Speak for yourself. I had BF1 and BF2 on the PS2. Played hundreds of hours single player, never played a single game multiplayer.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

I apologize for my faulty comparison. I was under the impression that people kept playing Battlefront for a decade because of the multiplayer. I didn't realize so many thought of it as a single player game with multiplayer. I retract my comparison.

And for the record, a Silent Hill pinball game would rock. We need more horror pinball cabinets.

 

[SilverHunter]

... Does he know anything about The Old Republic? That isn't an example of planning things well in advance...? The market WASNT calling for the game to be free to play, the terrible design choices, barebones system and any real lack of... Anything, really, is what called for the free to play switch. Subscriptions work if you actually put some work into the game. The Old Republic LANGUISHED in developer hell post release, because Bioware thought it more important to bloat out the mid-game and completely ignore any and all concept of end game content. That isn't how MMOs work. You don't make the string holding the carrot thicker and let the carrot sit there rotting, you get fresh carrots and string them up, while also checking the line and stick.

But no, like a cat with ADD, Bioware kept playing with the goddang string. And now? You got an anemic single player game that likes to pretend it's an MMO, but realizes it's so filled with pointless bloat it actually throws enough experience at you to ignore ALL of it aside from your personal quests just to hit 50.


Mr. Moore. Go to Zynga, please, with the rest of the trash... Or join Mr. Mattock and Sir "Deal with it" in the bad persons corner.

 

[SilverHunter]

I apologize for my faulty comparison. I was under the impression that people kept playing Battlefront for a decade because of the multiplayer. I didn't realize so many thought of it as a single player game with multiplayer. I retract my comparison.

And for the record, a Silent Hill pinball game would rock. We need more horror pinball cabinets.

Pachinko. Not pinball. There is a painfully blatant difference between the two, starting with one actually has you interacting with the game in some manner. I'll let you figure out which is which.

 

[Something Amyss]

The problem is that Peter hasn't exactly got a good track record for having his finger on the pulse in the first place.

Only if EA could make a good Single Player campaign. Not just something tacked on as an afterthought.

So no?

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

... Does he know anything about The Old Republic? That isn't an example of planning things well in advance...? The market WASNT calling for the game to be free to play, the terrible design choices, barebones system and any real lack of... Anything, really, is what called for the free to play switch. Subscriptions work if you actually put some work into the game. The Old Republic LANGUISHED in developer hell post release, because Bioware thought it more important to bloat out the mid-game and completely ignore any and all concept of end game content. That isn't how MMOs work. You don't make the string holding the carrot thicker and let the carrot sit there rotting, you get fresh carrots and string them up, while also checking the line and stick.

But no, like a cat with ADD, Bioware kept playing with the goddang string. And now? You got an anemic single player game that likes to pretend it's an MMO, but realizes it's so filled with pointless bloat it actually throws enough experience at you to ignore ALL of it aside from your personal quests just to hit 50.


Mr. Moore. Go to Zynga, please, with the rest of the trash... Or join Mr. Mattock and Sir "Deal with it" in the bad persons corner.

Are you saying that the only MMO's with any work put into them are WoW and EVE Online?

I'm not completely disagreeing with you on TOR, by the way. It was released way too early, without nearly enough endgame stuff. They've added quite a bit more content in, but first impressions make a big difference, something that TOR botched about as badly as you can.

My comment was more in reference to you saying that any MMO can make a subscription model work with just a bit of effort when all of two MMO's have actually done so. By saying that, you are saying that Everquest II, ESO, and pretty much any MMO still around just weren't trying, which I find dubious.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

I apologize for my faulty comparison. I was under the impression that people kept playing Battlefront for a decade because of the multiplayer. I didn't realize so many thought of it as a single player game with multiplayer. I retract my comparison.

And for the record, a Silent Hill pinball game would rock. We need more horror pinball cabinets.

Pachinko. Not pinball. There is a painfully blatant difference between the two, starting with one actually has you interacting with the game in some manner. I'll let you figure out which is which.

Oh, my bad again. That's...yeah, why are people railing on EA when Konami is doing that? At least EA sticks to video games and makes things interactive. No sarcasm, that is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of. A Silent Hill pachinko machine...*facedesk*

 

[sonicneedslovetoo]

Leave it to some random ass on the internet to tell this guy how to do PR:
You don't say "nobody would play a single player campaign" even if you think that.
You do say "Fans have been waiting long enough for a Battlefront sequel so we're focusing our development time on the multiplayer"

This has been common sense theater where people think before they talk.

 

[Kajin]

Leave it to some random ass on the internet to tell this guy how to do PR:
You don't say "nobody would play a single player campaign" even if you think that.
You do say "Fans have been waiting long enough for a Battlefront sequel so we're focusing our development time on the multiplayer"

This has been common sense theater where people think before they talk.

Except we don't want a multiplayer game. We want a singleplayer game. So people (and also me) will complain regardless.

 

[The Enquirer]

Yea, I'd most definitely play single player in the game. Though here's the thing that I do feel people are getting confused about; I think Moore is referring to an actual campaign mode, not just instant action single player mode which the game has according to the article. So I'm not totally enraged because I see myself playing the instant action modes far more than a story based campaign.

So for me a lack of campaign isn't necessarily a bad thing. Unless they would really put a lot of effort into the story and design of it, I would rather it be left out than me left disappointed. A total lack of offline gameplay though would be another thing entirely.

 

[Bat Vader]

Yet every Call of Duty game has had a single player campaign in it. They keep making SP campaigns for them which means other people besides myself must be playing the SP campaigns.

Leave it to some random ass on the internet to tell this guy how to do PR:
You don't say "nobody would play a single player campaign" even if you think that.
You do say "Fans have been waiting long enough for a Battlefront sequel so we're focusing our development time on the multiplayer"

This has been common sense theater where people think before they talk.

Except we don't want a multiplayer game. We want a singleplayer game. So people (and also me) will complain regardless.

Why not both? People loved the MP in the older Battlefront games too.

 

[ecoho]

... Does he know anything about The Old Republic? That isn't an example of planning things well in advance...? The market WASNT calling for the game to be free to play, the terrible design choices, barebones system and any real lack of... Anything, really, is what called for the free to play switch. Subscriptions work if you actually put some work into the game. The Old Republic LANGUISHED in developer hell post release, because Bioware thought it more important to bloat out the mid-game and completely ignore any and all concept of end game content. That isn't how MMOs work. You don't make the string holding the carrot thicker and let the carrot sit there rotting, you get fresh carrots and string them up, while also checking the line and stick.

But no, like a cat with ADD, Bioware kept playing with the goddang string. And now? You got an anemic single player game that likes to pretend it's an MMO, but realizes it's so filled with pointless bloat it actually throws enough experience at you to ignore ALL of it aside from your personal quests just to hit 50.


Mr. Moore. Go to Zynga, please, with the rest of the trash... Or join Mr. Mattock and Sir "Deal with it" in the bad persons corner.

I got to disagree with you on part of what you said, end game content is not the most important part of a MMO its the social aspect, nad SWTOR does that very well. I would expect your a hard core raider in the games you play but you have to remember with a few exceptions your the minority, so expanding story content that makes you want to play all 8 classes is the right thing to do. Now did they fuck up on post launch? yep no denying that, but not because they lacked end game it was due to the lack of legacy and the long wait for HK that caused them most of their problems.

 

[josemlopes]

Show of hands: how many people complaining about BF not having a single-player campaign play TF2, an online team based shooter with no single player content other than playing against bots?

Getting somewhat weary with people complaining about EA doing something and getting slammed for it because EA, rather than what they are actually doing. And people wonder why companies tend to shut out a good portion of communication with "gamers".

Do I want a story mode of Team Fortress 2? Eh, kind of, could be fun, the characters are interesting.
Do I want a story mode of Battlefront? Fuck yes, I want to have a parallel story to the original trilogy or a long term campaign like Galactic Conquest, just bots isnt exactly bad but from what we have seen it isnt even that, its survival horde mode.

 

[llubtoille]

Well he's not entirely wrong. I wouldn't buy titanfall for the 'single player' because the single player is just vs bots (as far as I'm aware) with only the briefest hint of a story.
It's not really any different to the tacked on PvP element in some single player games, just the reverse.
Yes they probably could make a good single player experience if they wanted to, but it's not their priority, they (and we) know it's not their priority, so why bother ham-fisting one in there for the sake of it.

Keep in mind, we're not talking about a CoD quality solo-experience (which is a huge resource sink, that shit is nuts), but more like a Titan Fall, Unreal Tournament series of bot matches with next to no actual storyline.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I would like to point out that I would play the living daylights out of a Star Wars Call-of-Duty-style campaign. No, not Dark Forces or Republic Commando. Both good games in their own rights, but I want the game where I am playing a Rebel Soldier holding the lining at Hoth while things rapidly fall apart around me. Huge action set pieces where the battle is scripted to a degree as it rages around me. One of the Walkers goes down, and for a brief moment it looks like victory is ours, but then a hail of blaster fire wipes out half the front line. Imagine frantically fighting through Echo Base, trying to get to the last transports as waves of Snow Troopers swarm the base.

Ugh, I drooling just thinking about how much fun that would be. Why hasn't someone done this yet?

 

[SilverHunter]

... Does he know anything about The Old Republic? That isn't an example of planning things well in advance...? The market WASNT calling for the game to be free to play, the terrible design choices, barebones system and any real lack of... Anything, really, is what called for the free to play switch. Subscriptions work if you actually put some work into the game. The Old Republic LANGUISHED in developer hell post release, because Bioware thought it more important to bloat out the mid-game and completely ignore any and all concept of end game content. That isn't how MMOs work. You don't make the string holding the carrot thicker and let the carrot sit there rotting, you get fresh carrots and string them up, while also checking the line and stick.

But no, like a cat with ADD, Bioware kept playing with the goddang string. And now? You got an anemic single player game that likes to pretend it's an MMO, but realizes it's so filled with pointless bloat it actually throws enough experience at you to ignore ALL of it aside from your personal quests just to hit 50.


Mr. Moore. Go to Zynga, please, with the rest of the trash... Or join Mr. Mattock and Sir "Deal with it" in the bad persons corner.

I got to disagree with you on part of what you said, end game content is not the most important part of a MMO its the social aspect, nad SWTOR does that very well. I would expect your a hard core raider in the games you play but you have to remember with a few exceptions your the minority, so expanding story content that makes you want to play all 8 classes is the right thing to do. Now did they fuck up on post launch? yep no denying that, but not because they lacked end game it was due to the lack of legacy and the long wait for HK that caused them most of their problems.

Sorry to tell you, but your expectation would be let down severely. I don't raid hardcore, much less raid. So please... Don't try and stereotype me and base your entire post on that weak fallacy. They screwed up at launch because, AS I SAID, they lacked any end game. That doesn't mean just raiding, sorry to tell you. It means anything of value, or anything at all really, to do once you've finished leveling a character to 50. Legacy and all the mid-game bloat they added was to try and get people to ignore that and play other classes in order to unlock "perks". And again, when the leveling path is so stilted and bland as it is in the game, nobody is eager to replay the same story over and over again, with minor variations along the way from Story class quests. Champions Online had the same exact issues with leveling as well.

They spent six plus months doing nothing but bug fixes and adding distractions. They didn't add anything for players AT 50 already to do, which is a mistake. That does not,and I will emphasize it, DOES NOT mean they can't add to other parts of the game. And I find it funny you say Star Wars does social very well. I played the game, and the last thing I'd call it is social - but that's what happens when you create a single player game within an MMO. I had guilds I was in, casual included, breaking up because they got bored. Nobody wants to level more than one or two characters on either side, and nobody wants to just sit on a lvl 50 with absolutely nothing to do.

You don't keep subscribers for more than a month if you DONT give them anything to do.

... Does he know anything about The Old Republic? That isn't an example of planning things well in advance...? The market WASNT calling for the game to be free to play, the terrible design choices, barebones system and any real lack of... Anything, really, is what called for the free to play switch. Subscriptions work if you actually put some work into the game. The Old Republic LANGUISHED in developer hell post release, because Bioware thought it more important to bloat out the mid-game and completely ignore any and all concept of end game content. That isn't how MMOs work. You don't make the string holding the carrot thicker and let the carrot sit there rotting, you get fresh carrots and string them up, while also checking the line and stick.

But no, like a cat with ADD, Bioware kept playing with the goddang string. And now? You got an anemic single player game that likes to pretend it's an MMO, but realizes it's so filled with pointless bloat it actually throws enough experience at you to ignore ALL of it aside from your personal quests just to hit 50.


Mr. Moore. Go to Zynga, please, with the rest of the trash... Or join Mr. Mattock and Sir "Deal with it" in the bad persons corner.

Are you saying that the only MMO's with any work put into them are WoW and EVE Online?

I'm not completely disagreeing with you on TOR, by the way. It was released way too early, without nearly enough endgame stuff. They've added quite a bit more content in, but first impressions make a big difference, something that TOR botched about as badly as you can.

My comment was more in reference to you saying that any MMO can make a subscription model work with just a bit of effort when all of two MMO's have actually done so. By saying that, you are saying that Everquest II, ESO, and pretty much any MMO still around just weren't trying, which I find dubious.

Quite the opposite really. Everquest and Everquest 2 were subscription games for the longest time. Even after World of Warcraft came out. Those games had a player base willing to pay to play, and continue to do so. That was earned. My comment was in reference to games that have to switch immediately upon release in the market now, or at least up to a good few years ago. Work is a little vague though I'll admit...

Subscriptions work, as long as the developers work to keep it engaging and easy to stay with the game, making it 'sticky' so to speak. Wildstar failed spectacularly at that. Elder Scrolls Online stumbled, yes, but they managed to turn themselves around. They also aren't strictly free to play either. While people were sure to buy ESO, you'd have a difficult time selling them on a subscription. It's a game that has gotten by for quite a while by its own modding community to an extent along with a set of systems that people love to play in, especially with said mods. And while they have been doing good, they are still missing the point on some things... Especially with the Veteran Rank system. It's been railed against since day one, and even after claiming they were going to remove it years ago it's still in place and being used to hate content. Which people hate. I'd be much more happier to sub to that game in particular if I wasn't required to practically go through every other starting area and then some just to get to a point where I may be able to do new content. That's easily as bad as Wildstars absurdly done raid attune meant mechanics they expected 90% of their player base to want, when it was really just the same 5% who think something akin to WoW Vanilla is top tier raid content.

 

[Fijiman]

Would I play the single player campaign if it were included in the game? Fuck yes. Would I play it multiple times? Only if it's really good/gives me good reason to do so.