Quantcast
Peter Moore on Battlefront: Data says very few people play SP on these kinds of games

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Peter Moore on Battlefront: Data says very few people play SP on these kinds of games

Ka-pi96 said:
MoHasanie said:
He's probably right. Most people don't even finish the single player story/campaign.

Same is true for singleplayer only games. Doesn't mean they don't play it though, in fact I'd take that to mean they think the singleplayer isn't good enough to be worth finishing not that they don't want to play singleplayer.

Not really, in 2008-2009 we had Activision posting that the majority of the people back then did not finish the COD singleplayer and their was a large percentage not even start the story. Their were literally millions of people spending hundred of hours into a game but then not even played a minute in singleplayer.  In that time people still cared about the singleplayer and games like World at War certainly not had a bad singelplayer. After that came another huge outcry when popular sp games were getting multiplayer (cutting dev time for singleplayer) like Uncharted 2 or even worse like Dragon Quest online the worst nightmare coming true...



Around the Network

Even in the cases where this is true, people should have learned from Titanfall that it isn't a good idea to do this. I know lots of people only get the latest Call Of Duty installment or new FPS more for the online multiplayer rather than because they were so keen to play the campaign, but if the game doesn't even have the single player campaign then some people who care more about the single player won't get it, reviews will likely be poor, people will question whether it is worth the price, and less people will get it which in turn will mean that it has less chance of becoming the current, trendy multiplayer experience and hence less appealing even to the people that only care about the online multiplayer.

You need the single player to get the game in more people's hands, even when the multiplayer is the most popular aspect of it.



1. make it Multiplayer only.

2. make map DLC 2 for 15$

3. lock the player without the dlc out of the loop.

its a win win situation for the publisher and developper :p



I usually play single player games only, and very rarely even try multiayer in those (games like Uncharted, Tomb Raider, Far Cry, etc.)

But Battlefield games (BC2, BF3, BF4) I really only played multiplayer for hundreds of hours, even if they didn't have SP campaign at all I wouldn't have minded.
So I understand where Moore is coming from, this game is very similar to those games. I don't care about Star Wars at all, but if it turns out to be similar to BC2 or BF3 multiplayer I will get it for some MP competition.



mornelithe said:
lol, the 1800+ hours my brother has into Binding of Isaac says otherwise.


Which is unrelated to what Moore was saying



Around the Network

People do realize you can still play offline right? It just doesn't have a traditional single-player campaign, which Battlefront has never had...

Chill people.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

When most SP campaigns in modern FPS games have withered into a mere afterthought, its no wonder the data shows that. How about actually putting effort into SP and making something people want to play for a change?



Samus Aran said:
What's the point of an online SW game (that isn't an MMO)? So this is just a shooter with SW skin? Lame...


Pretty much.



Love the product, not the company. They love your money, not you.

-TheRealMafoo