Titanfall Team Decides Against Single-Player Campaign

[NiPah]

Single player isn't popular enough but I guess the Xbox 1 is (rimshot)

But in all honesty I can understand this move, while insulting single player fans is a pretty dick thing to do the reason is more that your game was already multiplayer focused and a few unthoughtout tacked on single player additions would only serve to annoy. Also there might have been some investors who were promised the original Xbox 1's planned DRM requirements, this would be the only way to appease those clauses.

Still whats with all the assholes working with Microsoft these days? Would it have been so hard to come up with a PR statement that didn't insult and belittle your audience? Instead of focusing on the positives they chose to say how much singleplayer was unneeded, as a fan of single player I guess it's more pertinent to insult me then actually tell me why I should play your little multiplayer game...

 

[Weaver]

I think its good to stick to their strengths, but how does A4 games (the metro team) make a single player campaign 3x longer than any COD with a team 1/10th the size and at a budget of a Final Fantasy cutscene?

Something is wrong in the AAA industry.

 

[ciasteczkowyp]

single player in a game focused solely on multi is pointless so their decision makes perfect sence.

 

[Genocidicles]

Nothing wrong with that, but they should adjust the price accordingly.

No purely multiplayer game is worth full price, especially when you have to pay for an XBL subscription to be able to play it in the first place.

 

[Yuuki]

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.

But that's not really doing justice to different business models. There's one scenario where you pay $60 for a game with a 10-20 hour singleplayer (you have the ability to replay it 5 years from now, but the odds of people doing that are fairly slim)...and there's another scenario where you pay a one-time $60 "subscription" to a multiplayer game that a lot of people are going to play anywhere from 50-500+ hours.
The importance of being able to play a game years down the road honestly shrivels in comparison to the sheer number of hours so many people are willing to sink into multiplayer right now.

I mean christ, I remember buying Crysis 2 for the singleplayer alone, and after playing the ~10-12 hour campaign I said "yay, story finished, that was nice! Oh what's this, there's a multiplayer? Might as well check it out...". Next thing I knew I had clocked a total of ~450 hours in that fucking game and became an established forum veteran making guides for newbies. Yes, that really did happen.
So after what happened above, can you really blame me if I didn't particularly give much value to the singleplayer campaign or hardly even remembered it in retrospect? It's something which Crytek blew most of their budget on! Seems a little unfair on them (or at least strange), doesn't it?

Alright I'll admit it definitely varies from person to person and game to game, there's a lot of preference involved. Someone might ditch the multiplayer 1 hour in after deciding it wasn't for them...but I did EXACTLY THAT with the Battlefield 3 campaign, ditched it 1 hour in because I decided it wasn't worth my time and I'd rather play the multiplayer that everyone was screaming about.

It can give a rather obvious (but at the same time disturbing) message to upcoming development studios, can it not?

Going full-on into multiplayer is no joke, I can respect them for that. As a developer they're literally setting themselves up to get DESTROYED by endless waves of criticism and feedback regarding balance issues and gameplay tweaks, the kind of shit which they would hardly see come back from a singleplayer game.
I've done my fair share of dumping entire essays of complaints/feedback on developers regarding delicate topics like balance and gameplay elements, watching forums fill-up with page after page of that stuff is enough to kill a developer if they don't know how to handle it.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Well then they've decided against me ever playing it. Not that they probably care.

 

[WashAran]

Respect.

Tak'd on SP is as bad as tak'd on MP

However considering they are saving costs on writers, voice actors, cinematic cutscenes shouldn't the game also be a bit cheaper?

From the trailer and bits of gameplay they do have voice acting and cinematics.

well I'm not that fussed about the lack of a single player campaign, wasn't really expecting one from this anyway, it did seem more like a multiplayer focused game.

Still got some concerns:

Firstly the price: hopefully they won't charge full price for it

Secondly: Hopefully for the PC version they'll allow gaming communities to host dedicated servers and not rent it like Battlefield 3 did.

Other than that, well lets see what you give us then Respawn.

Nothing wrong with that, but they should adjust the price accordingly.

No purely multiplayer game is worth full price, especially when you have to pay for an XBL subscription to be able to play it in the first place.

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.

You mean like games that are only singelplayer and are priced lower than normal?
How do you guys determin that they are not putting all the resources they save on sp in to the mp?

 

[Meatspinner]

Aww, but I wanted a tacked on feature that nobody else wanted.

PANDER TO ME GAHD DAMEET!

 

[neppakyo]

Welp, that scratches that game off my list for the PC.

Fucking tired of multiplayer games, and half assed single player. GIVE ME MORE DEEP IN-DEPTH SINGLE PLAYER GAMES DAMMIT!

Settle down. Didn't you read? It won't have a half assed single player because it won't have a single player at all. If you don't like multiplayer, then don't buy it.

You didn't read. I scratched it off my list BECAUSE it's all multiplayer.

It looked like a good game, but I am sick of multiplayer games.. so boring.

captcha: box of chocolates..

 

[Genocidicles]

You mean like games that are only singelplayer and are priced lower than normal?
How do you guys determin that they are not putting all the resources they save on sp in to the mp?

Well I mean, you don't have to pay extra to play singleplayer.

Plus a singleplayer game will last as long as the disc does (or forever if it's digital), whereas a console multiplayer game will last only as long as the servers are kept up.

 

[Terminate421]

This is kinda of a good thing.

Though their reasoning sucks, the result isn't bad. It's better to go all-out in multiplayer than have some half-baked versions of both.

 

[Broken Orange]

I approve of this. Now, tell this to the folks at Dice and their QTE rat stabbing antics.

 

[WashAran]

You mean like games that are only singelplayer and are priced lower than normal?
How do you guys determin that they are not putting all the resources they save on sp in to the mp?

Well I mean, you don't have to pay extra to play singleplayer.

Plus a singleplayer game will last as long as the disc does (or forever if it's digital), whereas a console multiplayer game will last only as long as the servers are kept up.

Okey, I went into this with the mindset of a pcgamer, not a console gamer.


So I have to lower myself on to the level of a console gamer! harharhar

Sorry could not resist.

 

[Adam Locking]

I love the rage on display here, people complaining about the lack of tacked-on single player in the same way they rage about tacked on multiplayer. We all know that any campaign mode based around this would be rubbish (like almost every fps campiagn this gen) yet people still cry out for it? And people think it should be cheaper because of it?

Should Final Fantasy games be sold for less because they don't have a stupid online death-match option? Then why should it be the other way around?

 

[Frostbite3789]

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.

Gambit? Until 3 this was every Battlefield game. There was no singleplayer campaign.

 

[MrWunderful]

They'll be overcharging for a game that can't possibly deliver 60 dollars of value in just its multiplayer mode alone.

No purely multiplayer game is worth full price, especially when you have to pay for an XBL subscription to be able to play it in the first place.

I don't understand comments like this. How do you know it won't? What exactly is 60.00 in value? It it a finite time amount, or gameplay depth/graphics/story?

Throughout all the COD's, Halos, and BFs, my friends and I have logged easily over a thousand hours on multi-player alone. Of course, that is just us, but still we got our money back many times over- just in online play.

 

[cikame]

so new players have no way to get adjusted to your games main focus bar jumping into random matches and having to listen to a bunch of whiners calling then noobs, GREAT PLAN GUYS!

I'm with this guy, playing through a 6-8 hour cod campaign is a great intro to the multiplayer, also i really like those campaigns.
Don't suppose this won't be full price will it?

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Hey, Titanfall devs?

Borderlands 2 runs great as a single-player game. It's designed for team play at its core, but you're entirely free to play on your lonesome if that's your personal preference or if connection woes are keeping you from logging on.

Just sayin'. As, honestly, from my point of view, a multiplayer-only title is an always-online title. Ergo, it's not for me, either technologically or ideologically.