Battlefield 2042 Doesn't Have a Campaign, But It Is Getting a Short Film

Im letting this one for what it is no campaing no money. If you release a multiplayer game without a campaing it then it should be half the price atleast.

I don’t believe this should be full price, though i’ll likely still buy it which makes me part of the problem.

Online only games should be using the F2P model. The implementation of the season pass is something that is very appealing and surprisingly addictive. Plus with the use of cosmetics and skins can also be incredibly profitable.

I’m scared to think how much i’ve spent in Fortnite and Warzone. F2P games that dropped their £40/$60 price tags, for hundreds spent in cosmetics and passes.

But as I said, if people (including me) buy for £50/$70 and then more so in microtransations, the problem will persist

@Flaming_Kaiser Not really, no
If they go all out on the multiplayer aspect and genuinly work on it and polish it in all the developement years, then no it doesn't.
They already remastered 3 older games (iirc) vehicules and guns (all of them) and added some of their maps.

@Flaming_Kaiser Yeah, me too - I only play these kinds of games for the campaign. Should be F2P when it’s just online only or at least half price like you say.

You lot do baffle me sometimes. Why should a game be half price just because it doesn’t have a four-hour campaign?

@LiamCroft
.. Maybe because it's missing half of the content?

Understand if they don't want to add a campaign (as long as multilayer is well polished) but shame there Is no campaign as the way they have pre-contexualised everything could have set up a really good and impact full campaign.

@Mauzuri No it's not, EA DICE never developed Battlefield 2042 with a single player campaign in mind. It has literally never existed for that game. To suggest the campaigns in previous Battlefields was "half of the content" is utterly absurd.

Should a single player only game also be half price now? That's what this logic suggests.

@AdamNovice
I think with certain games though there is an expectation of what it provides. For example a CoD game usually provides a Campaign/Multiplayer/Zombies (or some other special mode)
The removal of one or two of these modes and charging full price for something that we got as standard and more of in previous titles is bad practice I'd say.
Also when games shoehorn in multiplayer modes (looking at Tomb Raider) where there was no need is a joke when they charge the player base for it.
However at the same time it is up to the players whether they pay full price for something they don't really want.

@LiamCroft I think it’s a case of perceived value. I only really play the SP campaign so without one, the game has little to no value to me personally. I might have tried the MP and really liked it but I won’t take that risk if there isn’t a SP campaign to fall back on.

I’ve always considered MP to be the thing that’s tacked-on to the SP experience. The main draw being the SP and the MP being the throwaway experience to kill a few hours when I’m in the mood.

When you look at the effort and creativity that goes into SP games like GTA V, TLoU2 and Ghost of Tsushima and then you look at a game like Battlefield 42, it seems absurd that the latter would release at the same price point.

It just seems greedy/lazy. Especially if there are micro transactions too.

@fR_eeBritney Are you saying that effort and creativity hasn't gone into making Battlefield 2042? Did you know that one of the maps is the same size as PUBG's biggest map? And there are another six on top of that? DICE has also remastered six old maps and created an editor mode for it all. A lot of time, effort, and creativity has gone into Battlefield 2042.

The single player campaign in the last few battlefield games where so bad that removing it should be considered added value.

I seriously cannot ever fathom why anyone would play a Battlefield game just for a 4 hour mediocre single player campaign ?? Battlefield games focus have always been multiplayer only large scale battles since the first 1942, Vietnam, 2142 games on PC. To moan about no single player is baffling to say the least. In Battlefield the MP isn't tacked on its the main part of the game ! It's the single player that's tacked on

@LiamCroft no not at all. But I imagine there’s a lot more effort involved in building a fully fleshed out world with an incredible story, dialogue and characters we care about compared to building a few maps and plonking a load of players into them. I may be doing them a disservice saying that but it isn’t the first Battlefield game they’ve made. They’ve got the experience and the groundwork from previous games to build on. Not meaning to cause any offence, that’s just how I perceive it.

Oh DICE, a short film to watch in place of a fully fledged single player mode? You are just TOO KIND.

I originally wasn't very interested in this game without any single player options but I must say the team has done a good job showing the value that focusing strictly on multiplayer has brought with how much content they are packing in.

I understand folks perspective that no single player means they are not interested but I also understand the perspective that the focus on multiplayer means a more robust multiplayer.

@LiamCroft i’m clearly referring to the multiplayer microtransaction era we’re living in. I thought that was clear from what I wrote and its also a pretty common consensus on various threads just in the past few weeks on this site.

Not quite sure how you’re confused

@LiamCroft despite, for SURE, agreeing there was certainly creativity in the new BF game, I don't think remastering or remaking maps (using the same assets and giving it a visual boost) is that much work. Also, yes the maps are big, but size does not mean quality. And yes, they were lazy! No campaign=lazy.

Saying Multiplayer-only games should be half the price is the craziest boomer thing I've heard lately

@AFCC Please don't bring the "developers are lazy" criticisms onto Push Square. That's just insulting.

@fR_eeBritney you seem to have no idea or clue as to how a game is made, that it can be created in a week or two with no effort involved

@AFCC lol you come across as utterly ignorant and completely clueless

@KingPev Christ on a bike! I’m not saying there’s no effort in a game like Battlefield 42, I’m saying it seems like it’s less creative effort than a SP game. That’s just how I (me personally) see it. I don’t know why some people are getting their knickers in a twist. Perhaps we need a list of things we are allowed to debate going forward. Or, I don’t know, just disable to comment section altogether. Jesus 🙄

@fR_eeBritney and people who understand this better than you are trying to explain to you that your perception is wrong; there's absolutely nothing wrong with that! If every perception was the same, we'd be all experts on everything.

It's just that what you said, while valid as your perception, is factually wrong.
You cite SP games with tacked-on MP modes, but they're games that have nothing to do with Battlefield (they're not even in the same genre), and that trend has been dying for a decade, which is when MP became the main source of revenue (and thus focus) of big companies.
COD only offers a campaign (when it does) because it's expected, not because it sells copies; the vast, vast majority of people buy it to play with friends.

I don't play Battlefield so I don't know first hand, but saying a AAA dev team is lazy is simply sacrilegous. Also, I don't get why a MP game should cost less or require less creativity, I don't even know where to begin with that.

Oh and I'm a single player only guy, I very rarely play multiplayer, even less so online.
That doesn't mean I didn't get my money's worth with Splatoon 2 for example, which sorta has a single player thing but that's an extra at best. It's an MP game, why should I expect quality SP like that of BOTW or Dishonored or whatever? That'd be on me, not on the game.
You gotta understand that different games have different priorities and goals.

@LiamCroft I certainly hope you are being sarcastic with "developers are lazy" comment. My sarcasm detector is a few cups of coffee shy of functionality, so I am assuming you are being ironic when you suggest that "developers are lazy" is never a legitimate criticism.

@Ambassador_Kong read a report on crunch culture or two, and then look up the salaries of devs.
When you come back, I've got sackcloth and ashes here ready for you.

Yikes I didn't expect a comment section on a article about a short film to get so spicy! Chill out folks!

@clvr My head almost exploded when you mentioned Splatoon 2 and defended developers as not being lazy in the same post. So how long did it take Nintendo to take care of all the hacking and cheating on that game? Last heard they only banned the guy that hacked the game to point out the hacking. Did Nintendo finally add voice chat into the game or did they just use their lazy phone app work around?

You can't claim that developers aren't lazy and then cite the laziest developer as an example.

@clvr There’s a difference between saying ‘the Dev Team is lazy’ and criticising the ‘ ‘lazy’ decision’ not to bother with a SP campaign. The people defending that decision immediately got their backs up because not everyone agrees with them.

Obviously a lot of Batllefield 42 devs lurking on here today 🤣

@Ambassador_Kong yes dude, it's laziness, that's exactly the word for it 👍🏻😑

It's not mismanagement or one of infinite other things that can go wrong, no, it's the individual devs working on a single mesh each who are lazy and spend all day on their phone and taking naps because they don't have bosses managing their work, that's why when Splatoon 2 shipped there were only 2 lines of code.
Yeah, this certainly makes a lot of sense! Boy are a you funny one 😂

@fR_eeBritney is that all you can offer as a reply?
As I said, I don't even like Battlefield, but you just don't know what you are talking about.
Decisions aren't "lazy", they're profit-driven, which is even worse but that's how the world goes.
Management sees that 98% of people buys Battlefield for the MP section, and thus realize the MP section is way more profitable than the SP. Result: SP is cut.

How the hell are devs lazy when the SP you want them to work on doesn't even exist? Surely you get how that makes no sense whatsoever?
You think game companies are places where devs walk in and just create as they please?
Do you think any of the devs actually on the ground has any say in their output?
If you don't know this stuff, just don't talk about it and avoid insulting the hard work of underpaid and mistreated workers, please.

@clvr I think the bigger question is... why are you defending a company that couldn’t give two F’s about you?

You’re nitpicking everyone’s comments because they didn’t explain (in excruciating detail) the reasons for their word choices. It’s the comment section at Pushsquare not Congress.

You need to chill out ☃️

It’s really not THAT serious.

@fR_eeBritney yeah now I'm defending corporations, I just can't with you.
I started out super nice and comprehensive and told you it's ok to have your opinion, but if I tell you why it's a bad one and you insist, what do I have to do?
If you read that as me defending corporations, I'm sorry but your comprehension isn't very good.
I was explaining to you how actual devs have no responsibility on the decision making behind a game, they're just underpaid workers like you and me, and was trying to tell you why "lazy devs" is the pinnacle of ignorance.
But yeah by all means read that as you wish.

The fact you call having actual arguments "You’re nitpicking everyone’s comments because they didn’t explain (in excruciating detail) the reasons for their word choices."
tells me it was a mistake to try and friendly explain why your opinion wasn't well substantiated. I should know better.

Games like these are cancer. Online multiplayer is the pits 👎

@Mauzuri "Half the content"

Have you ever played BF, or any multiplayer-focused game, period? Literally ALL the (enjoyable) content is in MP, and always has been. At least for the last decade or so, as well as when the franchise first started.

@clvr Cool story bro 👍

@LiamCroft Thank you for sticking up for the developers' and game's integrity, despite all the screeching from your readers. It's insane how so many people are so quick to write off a multiplayer experience just because it's...a multiplayer experience.

Especially in this case; when BF Portal allows for content from 20 years of a franchise to be played in one modern 'remaster' with innumerable gameplay configurations, some rock dwellers will probably still be comparing it to CoD and (even worse) Fortnite.🤦‍♂️

@lolwhatno Thats your opinion and this is my opinion. The COD of modern warfare remake game was better because of the brilliant campaing and yes without the campaing i would not have had the same great time.

@BoldAndBrash I loved the latest Modern Warfare campaing it was fantastic and i hope they show more of this in the future. Less Amerika centric Farah Karim made it a better game and so interesting. A campaing alone does not make it a better game a good campaing makes it a sale. And no campaing with a game that is dead a year later makes it less of package for me.

@BoldAndBrash The BF campaings are not as fun as the COD ones thats for sure but i still stand by my opinion less content means a lower price.

@fR_eeBritney Especially when they always talk about how hard campaings are to produce.

@LiamCroft Still the further we get in generations the more stripped the games get with some exceptions and its not like monetization is getting less.

I get more annoyed here because when a singleplayer game increases price its gets crucified but with a multiplayer we should show more respect towards the developer?

And there are a lot of people that probably do like the campaing and see it as a downgrade.

@kingbreww There you go ...you've just won the Most Ridiculous Comment ever award

@KingPev you know who plays and watches the exact same thing over and over again every single day? A child. I’ve moved on since then

Bring back Bad Company, dang it! Those campaigns were worth playing—fun characters who didn’t take things so seriously, good humor throughout, and destruction to environments and buildings. Yep, that’s what I’m wanting.

Heck, I want a new Red Faction game, too, just to have more fun with that kickass hammer.

@clvr Wow, I'm always amazed at people that are willing to defend multi-billion dollar corporations. Do I mean the individual programmers and designers that are overworked and underpaid to the point that they can't afford to eat in the employee cafeteria? No, I'm talking about the decision makers who decided to slap microtransactions into a product or insist that designers destroy their vision to get it to fit into whatever trendy package that the higher ups think will earn them a bigger bonus. I'm talking about the decision makers who chase trends and recoil from ingenuity and creativity. Intellectual laziness. The Avengers game is a perfect example. A lot of time and effort went into creating one of the cyclical, abysmally boring games released in the last year.

@Flaming_Kaiser First of all thanks for not getting all heated up and starting a dumb argument.
Secondly, COD is known for it's good campaigns contrary to Battlefield which is not.

no campaign no buy simple as that for me.

@LiamCroft Insulting? Insulting to me is playing 70 euros for half the experience. Sure they can and SHOULD change the way they make Battlefield or any other franchise, we just have to roll with it, but I do feel like this one is lazy or just cutting corners.
I have no doubt the game will be great, but I still think it shouldn't be the price it will be.

Edit: Just want to clarify something, I have the utmost respect for all devs (unless they do horrible stuff like we have been hearing lately), when I say devs I obviously meant the decision making devs. Obviously the majority is just doing what they've been told.

To be honest, I am surprised the next BF isn't a free to play game full of microtransactions.

@1_W1NG3D_4NG3L ...Battlefield isn't following any game by not having a SP campaign. When first launched on PC back in the noughties, Battlefield 1942, Vietnam, 2142 and BF 2 were all only ever multiplayer only - they only added SP from Battlefield 3 to cater for "console gamers" . They haven't copied CoD

@AFCC will you be paying 70 euros for a single player only game then? Is that not "half the experience" by your logic ?

@KingPev A single player game is a single player game. That argument makes no sense. For example, The Last of Us 2 came out without a multiplayer but they did somewhat promise it would come (sure it's taking them a long time). But Battlefield has a campaign FOR YEARS and now they cut it out. At least cut 20 euros or so from your game, imo.

Ratchet never had a multiplayer as far as I know, so I wouldn't expect it to have it in the new release. Also, Singleplayer>Multiplayer, all day, every day. Multiplayer games have their moments but they are mostly forgettable.

@1_W1NG3D_4NG3L ...yeah I certainly think Activision tried an experiment with BLOPS 4 being multiplayer only, I suppose with Blackout being a huge success who knows if it was successful?
I certainly enjoy CoD campaigns and would miss them, yet I've never touched a BF campaign since BF3 - it was terrible lol. Its all about MP with BF for me ( sorry for those terrible abbreviations 🤣 )

@lolwhatno Im still going to wait for a discount though no hate i just dont want to pay full price for something that will be a doorstop in the future thats why i skipped BO4.

Reading these comments are just... sad.
If it's not worth $70 then move on and don't buy it, I for one am glad they aren't spending useless time on a bad campaign (who even remembers BF3 or BF4 campaigns?) and instead make bigger maps, more players, better graphics, etc.
But hey, I'm just a random internet guy and I hope you all have an awesome day.

This is Battlefied its all about the MP.

@Flaming_Kaiser Fair enough

@Ambassador_Kong if you recognize that, then why are you still throwing around incorrect buzzwords like "lazy devs" instead of calling it mismanagement or greed on the investors' part?
I don't get clinging to this objectively wrong and potentially harmful idea of laziness, when it has nothing to do with it.

We need a Bad Company 3 single player campaign as DLC. That's about the only thing that would tempt me to pay £70 for this game.
As soon as Sony announced the £70 RRP you knew EA would follow suit.....with a f-ton of loot boxes, sorry surprise mechanics, added in as well

@lolwhatno Iove gaming but this will be a game where i need sink in so much time. Just like with the Modern Warfare remake the battlepass it was fun but in the end it was like going to work. Playing like a maniak for 20 days just to finish the bloody thing. The campaing was great without all the stress.

@Mauzuri Well if you want to get into personal attacks, being too scared to test your skill alongside/against actual real people seems pretty pathetic to me. Enjoy living under that rock, stroking your... ego... with all your Mass Effect friends, Winner.😉

@LiamCroft why should I pay for something to just run around repeating the same thing over and over with no actual point? Games like this have no actual effort put into them period. Not buying it and will refuse to support it in anyway.