EA Doesn't Think You'd Play a Star Wars Battlefront Single Player Campaign

Only one word for his data and its unprintable here. If anything, single player campaign interest is only increasing from everything I read. Plus, just make it optional co-op and you've got a winner.

I call profit margin as the main concern.

I would. But I know for sure that most people only talk about online play. In any game. That has one anyway. I blame people's tiny brains, they don't want a story, they wanna yell about your mother and harass little children. I'm kidding of course, or half kidding. There are many who wanna do that, but there are almost as many people playing for the story in a game. It's stupid not to give those people what they want too.

I wish online multiplayer would disappear. It has basically been the only thing that has caused me to play games less and less over the past few years.

And crap like this is why I don't bother with EA games anymore. They halfa$$ everything and for the last decade can't even make a semi-decent Madden game which used to be among my most anticipated releases each year. I worry about Mass Effect's future.

I'm really suprised at these complaints! None of the other main games have had a campaign. Its just not what battlefront is about!

@Gamer83 yup, what you said. EA sucks lately.

Simply put, why bother making a single player campaign when they can invest 30% of the effort and resources, churn out a game where the entertainment value props itself upon people playing together to make the experience as opposed to them actually developing it, and then cite "statistical analysis" to gamers who are actually upset about being shortchanged.

Besides, so much money and advertising will be mainlined into this entry it could be a Jar Jar Binks Dance Competition and it wouldn't make much of a difference. People are going to buy it so in the end, they get away with it.

Problem is, once a company knows they can get away with doing less, does anyone honestly think they're going to choose to do more out of their own voluntary free will?

@Of_Folsense
Yes, but as it's been explained to me this will have even less content available for those who choose to play alone than past entries offered. But not just that, times have changed. Single player games of yesteryear are now packed with online modes on the side to expand the audience. Even when people don't want an additional multiplayer mode they still forcefully tack them on in nearly every game. So why doesn't it work the other way around? Here we have a historically multiplayer focused game- so why is it they aren't forcefully tacking on a single player campaign regardless of whether we wanted or not? People are practically begging them to give us a single player campaign and they still refuse.

This is the right move, divert all resources to multiplayer. Remember how much time we spent on the Battlefield 4 campaign? Exactly.

"Between when a dev team starts work on a game, and when it finishes, the world becomes a different place,"

Even EA are having a pop at square-enix now.

"And with Treyarch delivering three separate major modes in Black Ops 3 this year, we don't think that we're being unreasonable either."

For all the hate COD has content. I know where my moneys going if I need a fps.

@JaxonH Yes, there's definitely less single player content, but I would think that longtime fans would rather have an updated galactic conquest mode, something the series is known for, than an all new mode that is very unlike battlefront. That's why I believe most of the angry complaints are from people who have never played a battlefront game before. I have nothing against new features to attract newcomers, but complaining because its not there? It just doesn't make sense to me. If fans really want to play a dynamic campaign in the Star Wars universe, there are other games for that. Why not beg for a sequel to, say, Republic Commandos, instead of begging for a single player campaign in a game series that isn't known for them?

Next time on EA "Our data sugests that players doesn't play Mass Effect for the story, so no single player on Andromeda, enjoy, And by the way we removed the story to make a better game for you, we don't care about money, only about make a good game"

Dice don't have a good track record with the story modes in their games to be honest. Battlefield 3 and 4 had laughably bad story modes to be fair.

If single player ever died off I would just stop gaming.

@Of_Folsense There are other Star Wars campaign type games available? Heh...

It's for the players.
(Hopefully Sony does not support this game to much or I see people making fun of this game using Sony's slogan)

Most likely a time constraint seeing as thier is a tie in book coming in October.

@JaxonH
Great points. I actually don't mind the existence of multiplayer-only games, what bothers the hell out of me though is like you said, EVERY game these days has some sort of tacked-on, bs multiplayer. The most annoying being the multiplayer in the Tomb Raider reboot. Great single player campaign, garbage multiplayer. Now imagine if all the time and effort spent adding on that nonsense multiplayer nobody asked for, had been spent on expanding the campaign? Could've made an already-awesome game even better. But we'll never know because people apparently have to have multiplayer, no matter how sh*tty.

@Frank90
Wouldn't shock me at all. Mass Effect 3 already brought the multiplayer aspect to the series and not surprisingly, from a single-player perspective, 3 was easily the worst of the Shepard trilogy with one of the most pathetic endings I've ever seen in a game. Years of building up and for what? No pay off at all. One of the worst things to ever happen to this industry was EA getting ownership of Bioware.

Well yeah if they're the quality of battlefield 3,4 or the medal of honour reboots yes people will not desire to play the single player.

Guess majority of gamers love their PvP and developers for FPS games know that. Single player or co-op campaigns usually feels like its a secondary focus from their point of view on games like COD and BF.

Ahhh no ugh i was so excited about this game. Battlefront 2 is the only shooter ive ever enjoyed, and i dont wanna play online.

I'm just going to pretend that this wasn't a thing.

@get2sammyb You may well be right, and the argument therefore is concentrate all resources into a great multiplayer in that time limit, rather than put in a single player and make a not so good experience. But if that's the case, just say that! Who knows, I have no statistics of my own to combat this, so it's hard to argue with the man, but I would find it astonishing if true. Certainly I spent more time in single player on the PS2 versions (back when multiplayer was very novel and new experience), and I very rarely even bother with the multiplayer versions of games now - not even in Destiny!

It's a shame, I love Star Wars, this game looks amazing, but I'm beginning to think I won't bother getting it now, at least until it's cheap in a sale, as I just won't play it much if it's multiplayer only. And there's too many other great games out there I could play instead (I've not even bought Arkham Knight yet!).

I'm leaning towards agreeing that this is probably a smart move. DICE aren't exactly known for delivering great SP experiences, so just focus the attention on making the MP as good as possible.

@sonicmeerkat Thank you was going to say the thing, people will play the single player if the quality is good, if it is some slack rush job people won't but I assume £A didn't factor that in.

The Battlefront series is one of the only games that I enjoy the multiplayer of, but the fact that they're diverting a lot of resources to it and not really having a single player puts me off. Still not buying it

Maybe it just me left. But i only play single games. Oh well star wars is not for me.

I played Battlefront II's campaign at least 8 times.

Like heck I wouldn't - let alone thousands and thousands of new and old fans - play a new campaign.

@Gamer83 They released statistics for mass effect 3 and pretty much said only 30% of people finished the single player game.

Each to their own, but I prefer solo campaigns over PvP multilayer. COD ruined the whole MP thing for me, particularly with the first Black Ops, where not only did you have the usual mix of idiots ( very) young and old screaming obscenities and bile throughout the match, but we where also treated to some of the most disturbingly horrific and frequently racist player emblems after giving these cretins the ability to design their own. The last of us, Far Cry 4, Borderlands Handsome Collection are games which I've played over the last year which have both, and because they have that choice I bought them - SW Battlefront leaves me no choice, so no sale for me.

I don't think he's saying this against single player games in general, he's saying it against single player components of games that are clearly designed as multiplayer from the start, like this and CoD.

I can say that most people I know prefer single player over multiplayer to a large degree, yet those same people would never buy Battlefield or CoD because they know there's a tiny little campaign tacked onto what's really a competitive online game. The statistics Moore's referring to are objectively true. That said, I'd say a Star Wars game would have a lot more interest in the single player element than the traditional online FPS where the storyline is just gonna be "America fights foreigners, part 2354".

I guess if EA look at Dices track record with Single Player experiences, then it would certainly show a decline in those that play and finish the campaign. I doubt many finished BF4's compared to those that played BF2BC for example!

I was really looking forward to a great SW:BF campaign - especially after 1313 was cancelled. Titanfall (I and many others felt) lacked a lot of content and in particular would probably have benefited from a SP campaign. I also complete all CoD campaigns too.

Maybe I and many others spend a fraction of the time playing the campaign compared to the MP overall but often its the most memorable and personal experience. The MP by its very nature can allow for many more hours worth of game time and keep the game in the disc drive long after release but its the campaign that lives longer in my memory. I can still fondly remember the missions in CoD4 (for example) but my memories of the MP (great as it was at the time) are more around the laughs and all-nighters I had with online friends rather than the actual game itself.

MP games rely heavily on the community that play them. If the numbers drop significantly, the game suffers as a result - regardless of how 'good' it is. If you end up in a lobby with players all over the world, there will be 'lag' regardless of 'dedicated' servers or not - the signal has to travel. Its also not so much fun playing 'Team' based games with strangers who don't even speak the same language!

And that's why I'm not picking this game up straight away, I'll wait for it to be on sale. Without a single player campaign it feels like half a game and so shouldn't cost full price. I thought the same for Titanfall.
I enjoy the CoD campaigns even if I spend more time in Multiplayer.
I wonder if their data relates to BF4 and how everyone had their data deleted/corrupted, the people I know IRL played the first two levels a few times over then gave up on it.
and Battlefront is pretty much a re-skinned Battlefield anyway, surely they're already saving resources...

@themcnoisy I'd say the comparison is void though. ME3 is a massive RPG which takes ages to complete and holds less appeal for casual gamers, so it's no surprise that a lot of people have started but not finished it. On the other hand, I reckon far more people would be inclined to finish a comparatively short FPS campaign. They're just too different to make them worth comparing I'd say.

@themcnoisy
That's probably not a bad percentage. I'd assume for every game that most buyers don't finish the single player campaign. Hell I know there's some games I haven't finished. That doesn't mean people don't want single player. And the statistic you never hear about is how many people are buying a game for single player vs. multiplayer. Obviously Star Wars Battlefront will be bought more for multi. I'd say chances are good however that most people bought Mass Effect for its single player component. This is EA though, it won't publish a game without some form of multiplayer and it halfa$$ses single player. It is what it is. I stand by what I said that EA owning Bioware is a travesty, especially for somebody like me who prefers good single player campaigns. It sucked that I couldn't Bioware games on PlayStation when MS was publishing its games, but that's when Bioware did its best work with games like Knights of the Old Republic, Jade Empire and the first Mass Effect. Once EA came into the picture, things went to sh*t. Just like everything EA gets involved with. I expect Star Wars Battlefront to be a very average at best game, but it'll sell like hotcakes and EA can continue to not give a damn about putting out quality products because people line the company's pockets anyway.

You know what? FU EA.

@Gamer83 I actually felt mass effect 3 was the best in the series. By a mile. But I will give you that the ending was just terrible. I even saw the revised version.

@ztpayne7
The combat in the first was clunky, and the Mako was freaking awful. But it had a charm to it that I thought was lost in the following games and was more of an RPG where as 2 and 3 seemed like typical third person shooters. The story was the best in the first.

I'm out. Can't het high speed internet. Also I don't like playing with people I don't know.

@Splat same here

I vastly prefer sp, so I do not like this. Give us choices instead of deciding for us. Add as DLC later on, whatever.

And "usually likeable Peter Moore"? Are we talking the same Peter Moore? I hate that suit since the Dreamcast days, and things like this are proof of why.

I would, and hence I won't be buying it. Not interested in yet another run-round-like-a-headless-chicken-shooting-everything-that-moves online FPS game - even if it is set in the Star Wars universe.

Still, since no single-player means it's half the game Battlefield is, will it be half the price? No, thought not.

Not online, so if a game doesn't have single player then zero chance I'll buy it.

@SouthTippBass
True, but think about the reason for that: because it sucked. Like most FPS single player campains do. Except Halo. And why is that? Exactly.

A (good) SW single player, especially with co-op, would be awesomesauce.

I remember playing Multiplayer for Battlefront II a couple of times. It was an annoying experience. Singleplayer, on the other hand, was fantastic! One of the only shooters I've ever enjoyed, much less finished.

@SteveButler2210
But on the other hand, the only reason people would buy a game like ME3 is for the story whereas the majority of people that buy CoD or BF are doing so for the online competition.

According to the article linked below, in which a guy just looks at the achievement percentages for various games, very few people completed the BF4 story. 25.4% did so on Easy, 19.3 on Normal and 5.7 on Hard. Bear in mind that that's not additive, the 5.7% that completed it on Hard also got the trophy for Normal and Easy. Therefore the only number that matters there is 25.4%.

http://ourcadegames.com/2014/02/20/fun-with-numbers-fps-single-player-vs-multiplayer/

Still, I do think going back to my earlier point that more people would play through the story if it was set in a world they were invested in like the SW one. Though going off ME3, it's more but not much more.

Also, since I'm playing it right now as I type, I looked at SAO Hollow Fragment's trophies. In the two weeks (on average) since it released in the West, 60% of people haven't even beat the first boss (not the tutorial boss, the first actual boss).

I've beaten every single-player mode in all of the battlefront games. :L

"because "data" suggests that "few people" actually play them"

My data suggests that Peter Moore is a muppet. His company should cater for gamers that play SP campaigns so his products appeal to more people, me included. As it stands I doubt I'll buy this for MP only which is a shame as it's Star Wars.

His company forgot to put half the game in Rory McIlroy PGA Tour too. Remember Peter you need to add actual content to your products and SP campaigns are part of that.

@SouthTippBass Long term Battlefield player and completely agree ,I've owned some BF games for a couple of years before touching single player only due to having no internet access !! Although not called Battlefield it certainly is Battlefield and thank God for that .

Typical EA, taking out content to charge you more later on. screw over their fanbase, very typical.

Also, Peter Moore is nothing more than a weiner.

Thanks for the heads up! You just saved me $69.95 I was going to pre-order this game. More multiplayer map pack PVP you make the story because we have no clue BS. They just don't make real games anymore with both great single and multiplayer modes. That's a real epic game not the 50% games they do to cut cost and double the profit.

After reading the whole interview, I can sum up Peter Moore's EA attitude towards all gamers, "Kneel before Zod."

This is probably why I don't have any games made by EA and guess what most of my games are single player only. Has he not seen the reaction to Uncharted 4's single player? I haven't played many fps games in the last 10 years or so because they see single player as an optional extra and not the other way round

I'm getting tired of Pvp multiplayer shooters these days,anyone can buy a modded controller for the same price as a legit one..Just one example - with little danger of getting banned.Devs can't seem to design balanced pvp gameplay -with certain weapons that are just stupidly op,used by 9/10 players..Terrible input lag,low tick rate -and a whole plethora of glitchy bugs and different issues that -if fixed cause a new issue for each one fixed.On top of that,its addictive leading to more and more frustation while you could be enjoying a nice single player,engaging in the game more the way its meant to be played -(hopefully) play tested for fun and quality.*rant over (mainly referring to battlefield and cod)

Solo. I get it.

I appreciate the fact that they are putting a lot of effort into the part that fans of the series care about. However, the lack of single player in any game will be a red flag for me to avoid it at all costs. If I buy it, I'll never touch it. It's not the developer's fault, it's mine. The only co-op games I play are on-couch like the old days of SNES and N64.

Id be interested to see how he cane uo with that demographic.

Did they survey every video gamer to get it?
Did they base it on whether a person is connected to the internet?
Did they assume more time spent in meant the single player was in part ignored?
Ive spent more time in TLOU MP than SP but I still absolutely love the story.

And if this is such a true statement, why are the likes of The Witcher, Batman and the like selling souccessfully?

EA is right. I wouldn't play a battlefront campaign. I would go straight to the multiplayer.

I've been waiting years for a good-looking SW campaign. Why would they purposefully place an expiration date on all their hard work by making it rely entirely on servers?... Makes no sense. 😕 Must be planning it as DLC

Maybe there are secretly developing an IMMENSE Single Player game other than Battlefront. To be released with the Second Movie in this new Trology. Or maybe they will read this and do it. Either way it would be great!