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

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

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

star_wars_battlefront_e3_screen_4__air_to_ground_wm

At this past E3 in June, Star Wars: Battlefront generated quite a bit of buzz. The original game was quite popular, and most games in the Star Wars universe do rather well. However, one thing that caused more than a few raised eyebrows was that there would be no single-player campaign for the game.

The game, which has 40-player multiplayer and a co-op survival mode, is being targeted for release in November, but EA COO Peter Moore said that the lack of a single-player campaign was based on how much the publisher felt the campaign would be utilized. When posed a question from GameSpot about how games with a single-player campaign traditionally sell better, Moore agreed but with a caveat.

"So, there's two phenomena with that statement," Moore said. "The first is that yes, you might be right. The second is that very few people actually play the single-player on these kinds of games. That's what the data points to."

Moore did not offer the data of which he spoke, but he said the decision, which was made when the game was first given the go ahead a few years ago, was also based on what the gaming landscape would look like at release.

"You make a decision, years out, and you plan for what the world looks like when a game ships in two or three years," he said. "That's about the intuitiveness about the executive producer, and his or her vision for the game."

Would you play a single-player campaign if it was offered in Star Wars: Battlefront?
Yes
94.7% (749)
94.7% (749)
No
4.6% (36)
4.6% (36)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook

He cited the revamp of Star Wars: The Old Republic from a subscription model, which the game had when development started, to a free-to-play model, which the landscape apparently called when the game was finally ready for release.

Granted, Battlefront will have an offline solo play experience against bots, but being a fan of single-player, I find lack of a campaign a bit short-sighted. I really wanted to play Titanfall, but avoided it because I did not want a purely multiplayer experience. It looks like I will be doing the same with Battlefront.

Be sure to answer the poll that is part of this article, and tell us what you think of EA's decision in the comments below.

Source: GameSpot

Permalink

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

Really though while I've never looked into the Extended Star Wars Universe I imagine there is a lot of stuff you could do with it if you had an imagination.

Wow, between this and the "On Disc DLC isn't content blocked by an arbitrary paywall!" statements, this guy really is on a mission to piss in everyone's face and tell them it's raining.

Interviewer: "Fact: Games with a single player campaign sell better."
Moore:
image

I really liked the single-player campaign in Battlefront 2, so I voted yes. Honestly though, I have so many reservations about this game that I probably wouldn't have gone for it either way. Besides, if they had made a campaign, it'd probably have turned out like the campaigns in the recent Battlefield games, in which case nothing of value has been lost.

EA is basically a multi-player team sport video game publisher now. All of their major releases reflect this, and it's only going to get worse from here. If you like single player or story driven games, then you are not part of this companies target demographic. They don't make games for you anymore. It's time to move on. EA has.

RJ 17:
Wow, between this and the "On Dis DLC isn't content blocked by an arbitrary paywall!" statements, this guy really is on mission to piss in everyone's face and tell them it's raining.

Interviewer: "Fact: Games with a single player campaign sell better."
Moore: "I reject your reality and substitute my own."

Beat me to it.
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.

I think I'll just stick to playing good games made by people that know what gamers actually want.
Anyone wanna go play Windward? No on-disc DLC or lack of singleplayer.

Well they sure won't when you show that little faith in it.

Self-fulfilling prophecies? It's the EA way!

I for one am actually glad that they are scrapping the inevitably shitty campaign and focusing on the multiplayer, because it is, y'know, something that I will actually play more than once (unless the multiplayer is shit, which wont exactly surprise me).

I for one actually hope that they do the same with the next Battlefield title. Shoehorning in a singleplayer mode is just as bad as shoehorning in a multiplayer mode.

Hello Mr Moore, we meet again. Do you play games? Or do you get paid to deflect journalists? Something is telling me the latter, can't quite put my chubby finger on it. Too greasy. Though, thinking of battlefield campaigns...i am unsure whether it is even worth them trying. Well, not "trying." More like begrudgingly fulfilling target quotas. That battlefield 4 campaign was cut severly short. Let's not pretend it wasn't. Alas, deadlines be deadlines. Dems da rules etc.

Please disregard this post, accidentally clicked "quote" on someone's post when I meant to edit my own to fix a spelling mistake.

Oops sorry, phone like to double post

oh hey... I was waiting for a reason to not buy Battlefront... thanks EA!

Okay, so something is seriously wrong with the Single Player campaign on a fundamental level. I mean, why else would they come out and say this?

My answer on behalf of those "very few people" is the following Mr Moore: screw you+bird flip.

It's the same dude who was talking BS about not seeing what the problem with on disc dlc is?
Well remind me never to buy a used car from this guy, I'd probably be left with just a steering wheel. That explodes.

Edit: Just to specify... Easily 80-90% of my time playing battlefront 2 has been in either campaign or galactic conquest. I played a lot of co-op, more so then I did multi.

Sixty bucks the next Battlefield comes with a shitty story. A story that would have been way better put to use in a Star Wars universe. In summary, Fuck you EA... again. You're ruining this game and spitting on the previous two.

Jeez, thank God.

It was looking like Komani was going to rule unabated for stupidest decisions of the year. EA took its time, and unleashed Moore unto the world. It's a bold strategy, Cotton.

Diablo 3 Offline desire

Starcraft 2 Offline requests

Titanfall offline mode hopes

I don't want to hear crap about an increasingly online world. I don't want to post to my friends about this killer frag I got. And I know I'm not alone. I actually came with Data, Moore. You gave us rhetoric.

But I'm not going to say you didn't do any research. I know the research you did. You got together people who primarily played online and asked if they liked it. They said yes, and you had the response you wanted to go through with your desired decision.

Here's another research point you can look to if you want. The Amount of people who hate playing multiplayer games and how most people think Multiplayer games breed horrible communities that turns a good deal off from the game.

Perhaps I don't care about other people. Perhaps I want to play the game at my own pace. Why are developers insisting that... no, I must be the only one who feels that way? That we all want to compete with people who don't matter to us and we're really asking for it?

And.....I just lost any interest I might have had in this game.

EA's wrong again

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".

"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!

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.

thebobmaster:
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.

Katherine Kerensky:
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.

thebobmaster:
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".

Kenjitsuka:
"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.

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. :p

... 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.

thebobmaster:
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. :p

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.

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

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

So no?

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.

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.

SilverHunter:

thebobmaster:
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. :p

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*

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Kajin:

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.

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.

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.

thebobmaster:
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.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here