Titanfall Team Decides Against Single-Player Campaign

[Anatoli Ossai]

"We make these single-player missions that take up all the focus of the studio, that take a huge team six months to make, and players run through it in eight minutes,"

"And how many people finish the single-player game? It's a small percentage. It's like, everyone players through the first level, but five percent of people finish the game."

but honestly I play more singleplayer in dedicated multiplayer games (Call of Duty, Halo, Battlefield) than I play multiplayer in dedicated singleplayer games (Tomb Raider, FarCry)

So your counter argument to his "bogus stats" is assuming your preference single handed counts against their observation? that doesn't even make sense. They never said people don't play singleplayer, they said compared to multiplayer the investment isn't worth the pay off

 

[Taurus Vis]

This is shocking, I never expected too see multiplayer focused titles too just drop the pretensions and come right out with the fact that they don't give a single shit about single player, but wow, just wow.
Now I'm just waiting for this too happen in the next COD and Battlefield and for these types of games too diverge into their own very specific genre.
That'll only happen if this gambit is successful though.

Battlefield never had single player when it was on PC. The only reason it changed this policy is that console gamers were still largely offline and DICE wanted to be on console. I fully expect Battlefield to go this way because they were always multiplayer focused. And honestly, nobody buys Battlefield for it's SP anyways.

 

[Anatoli Ossai]

Hmmm... I understand the reasoning, but I personally prefer to have some context for why I'm doing what I'm doing in shooters. This game doesn't interest me nearly as much without a story mode.

If you need a Shakespearean anecdote or deep character development before you can jump into a Mech warrior or strap on a jet pack with guns blazing then

a. you never wanted to play in the first place

or

b. you expect way too much from the world

 

[Anatoli Ossai]

Well atleast they're being honest. Not all games need singleplayer, I hope that it's reflected in the price though. A multiplayer only game shouldn't really be more than about £20-£30.

Interesting point. But remember they aren't spending half their resources on it. Absence of single player doesn't equate to half a product. Same way single player games without multiplayer add-ons are still priced competitively.

 

[HellbirdIV]

So your counter argument to his "bogus stats" is assuming your preference single handed counts against their observation?

No, my preference counts for me being disappointed in seeing an interesting scifi premise wasted. That's the kind of thing you miss when you quote things out of context.

Also, why are you so defensive? Are they paying you to spindoctor for them or something, 'cause I don't see a good reason to go double-posting flimsy justifications otherwise.

 

[beez]

They should actually scrap the game too, just sell the box for 60e because making the game doesn't justify the actual costs, as it might totally flop.

Seriously, I knew this, as they hinted it at e3 but why create a cool game IP if they don't push the limits? Companies are really going to be this lazy from now on? MS just lost their only usable launch title. As far as games being worth 50-50% of the 60$, euro price. Well, by the time they are done with the single player, all the elements are in place, they just snap together a few maps with objects and stuff from already in the single player and since all the elements of the game are already programmed, multiplayer is more of an addon than single player.

I know this discussion is really played out by now, but still, games are less and less about innovation, art, more of how to get the retarded players to throw money at you as a developer... and it really pisses me off. I mean really, just when the possibilites to make all these good ideas come true, most devs are wasting time on copying the one who copied the one who copied the one who copied...

I digress tho, but looking at Respawn's past, hoping they will have a good time trying to get that quake 3 engine running on the APU trololol.

So I'm personally skipping this.

 

[shrekfan246]

So, I find this news to actually be kind of hilarious.

Here, Titanfall was looking to be the one and only Xbox One exclusive title that was actually good, that actually had the potential to move units and sell Xbones all by itself...

It's not exclusive.

I don't know where that rumor keeps coming from.

It's releasing for PC as well (and Xbox 360, apparently, but that's beside the point).

OT: Guess I know which game I don't have to pay any more attention to. Funny thing, a single-player FPS with jetpacks, parkour, and mechs could've been something truly unique and innovative both for narrative and gameplay reasons in this current market. Nope. Throw it all away because "Waaaah waaaaah, single-player isn't popular!" By whose standa--Oh, right, these are the guys who were previously working on Call of Duty. I guess they're expecting this to sell twenty million copies in the first week as well.

 

[Ickorus]

I'm disappointed in the escapist community here.

You complain when a singleplayer centric games shoehorns in multiplayer but when a multiplayer centric game decides to forgo the shoehorned singleplayer you get up in arms about it, that's just not fair.

Way I see it, all developers should focus their resources in this way, make the main aspect of your game better rather than splitting your resources to add something else just 'cause.

I see a lot of people praising them for this decision and saying they respect it.

I would respect them far more if they also made sure to lower their price tag accordingly.

But no. They'll expect us to spend 60 dollars for a purely multiplayer game. Which means they don't get a lick of respect for this decision, at least not from me. They'll be overcharging for a game that can't possibly deliver 60 dollars of value in just its multiplayer mode alone.

Guess that's one less game to care about.

I spent £40 on Bioshock infinite and I played that a hell of a lot less time than I have most of my multiplayer only games, still think it was worth every penny.

 

[AwesomeDave]

I fully support this... if only more companies would reveal their stupid plans during development, I could pass on their games that only care about their multiplayer audience as well. No big loss, saves me 60 bucks

 

[shrekfan246]

I'm disappointed in the escapist community here.

You complain when a singleplayer centric games shoehorns in multiplayer but when a multiplayer centric game decides to forgo the shoehorned singleplayer you get up in arms about it, that's just not fair.

Way I see it, all developers should focus their resources in this way, make the main aspect of your game better rather than splitting your resources to add something else just 'cause.

A lot of people are saying "fair play" to them, actually.

Also, I like to generalize too, but much like with everything else it's not always the same people complaining about either side of the issue.

Personally, I'd rather the game weren't multi-player focused to begin with, though I know that's asking a lot from the people who made their fame off of Call of Duty. I don't care that the game will be multi-player focused, but the simple fact that it's not going to include single-player means I know I won't be purchasing it, because I don't buy games for multi-player (outside of World of Warcraft).

EDIT: Also, I'm more offended by the tone rather than the message. If they want to make a multi-player-only game, then fine, whatever. But the fact that they're trying to justify it by claiming that "only 5% of people finish the campaign" is just astoundingly arrogant.

 

[poiuppx]

And in one shot they killed any fledgling interest I had in the title. Maybe if they spent the money they wasted on that giant statue at E3 on single-player, we wouldn't be here. But here we are. No worries for me. Destiny looks much better anyway.

 

[Oskuro]

I don't mind multiplayer focused games... as long as they give the tools to enable players to keep playing the game in the future, once the online matchmaking services are inevitably turned off.


And single player or coop options are a good way to make the game playable when there's no one to play with (as will inevitably happen with any game), even if its just a bot arena mode.

Anyone who releases a multiplayer focused game that does not meet any of the above criteria is just telling me "We only want you to play this game for the specific period of time where we consider it profitable, and then will force you to buy something else even if you still like the game"


I don't buy games from developers/publishers that say that to me. Which pretty much sums up my feelings about Steam/Origin.

 

[Araksardet]

Meh. I wasn't super interested in this, but now it's off the table even if it ever goes on sale on Steam or whatnot.

Still, more power to the multiplayer folks, they'll benefit.

I hope that devs continue to acknowledge the potential of single-player-only games too, though. Every now and then big names start talking about how single-player is passé or not worth the effort, and I don't like that one bit.

 

[Frezzato]

This Titanfall announcement is good news as I was initially interested in the game, and the elimination of a single player campaign allows me to spend my money on something else.

I wonder what the game box will say though. Any gamer will understand what "online only" means, but I fear for ignorant parents this coming holiday season.

In retrospect, who am I kidding? These are the same types of people who buy Call of Duty for their 10 to 15-year olds.

 

[TheFriskySpatula]

When I saw the e3 trailer, I honestly thought that I was watching footage of a single player mission, given you start out in an airship then drop in to an NPC "directing" forces. It looks like they're going for a multiplayer/singleplayer fusion to give context to the firefights. Given that most multiplayer games have no such context, outside of vague references in team names, this could be a very cool game if they pull it off (dropping a tacked on, unnecessary, and most likely shit single player campaign allows more dev time on the multiplayer). Definitely on my radar for 2014.

 

[wooty]

GREAT NEWS! This is exactly what Battlefield 3 should of been like. Things like what Titanfall are trying to redo with the multiplayer only aspect are exactly what got me so drawn towards shooters in the past.

I'll be keeping an eye on this one for the future.

 

[Yuuki]

It's funny because MMO's and MOBA's are essentially multiplayer-only RPG's, but when you talk about an FPS being multiplayer-only then people...don't like it...? What kinda standards are those lol? Ever heard of Tribes Ascend or Planetside 2?

GREAT NEWS! This is exactly what Battlefield 3 should of been like. Things like what Titanfall are trying to redo with the multiplayer only aspect are exactly what got me so drawn towards shooters in the past.

I'll be keeping an eye on this one for the future.

Sadly it seems they're shoe-horning a singleplayer campaign into Battlefield 4 despite the fact that fuck-all people played the BF3 campaign.

But I guess when you're DICE and backed by EA with a budget roomy enough to buy a small country, you can afford to have a team working on a campaign that almost nobody will finish. Oh well, I'm not going to complain as long as the multiplayer is top-notch.

 

[VonKlaw]

I would support them for being honest and upfront about this, but I cannot happily buy this game knowing it will be completely useless in a few years time when nobody / hardly anyone is playing it anymore.