By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Rumor: CoD IIII Singleplayer axed for Battle Royale

 

Would you buy a multiplayer-only CoD game?

Yes 1 9.09%
 
No 6 54.55%
 
Don't play CoD anyway 3 27.27%
 
What's a CoD? 0 0%
 
Only if the Battle Royale mode is included 0 0%
 
Other, please specify 1 9.09%
 
Total:11

I hope it flops for not having a si gle player campaign. Activision is wasting a good opportunity for creating a new IP or cod sidegame if it wanted a battle royale game.



Around the Network

What the hell is Battle Royale mode? Is it just sandbox killing like GTA?



Bofferbrauer2 said:
EricHiggin said:

Well beneficial financially is a no brainer if they still charge full price at launch, which is most likely, or charge for it later as DLC. While the BOIIII launch date is earlier than normal by a month, I have a really hard time believing that after 3 years of development, that a month is going to mean dropping the campaign completely. Now if your aiming to add battle royale mode, then sure, dropping the campaign makes more sense, but only if both franchises do it. If BFV has a campaign, even a short one, and BOIIII doesn't, then dropping the campaign was clearly a horribly late decision or a money grab. If it's because of a late decision, I would bet it has to do more with BFV having a battle royale mode than it does PUBG and Fortnite.

That would mean only starting working on it right now, meaning they only would have about 5 months, including creating the necessary concepts, maps, characters, character design, balancing, et cetera, and that's just too short to do it all. They must have started it some months before, probably even in last year after the release of Fortnite on consoles in September. It's quite possible that they where working on both the BR and the Storymode, only to find out one of both needed to be cut to finish the game in time, and BF V's BR announcement made for the perfect time to announce the cut on their side basically by making it look like an answer to it.

With Battle Royale having become so huge in such a short time, it sounds to me more like a bet from Activision Blizzard that they would gain more (DLC paying) players with the Battle Royale than losing for not having a story campaign or any other singleplayer mode.

Odds are they made the decision much earlier than just recently, yes. You could be right. I myself think Activision is playing catch up or doing what they feel necessary to hold off the BF franchise as much as possible. COD still rules the roost, but you give somebody and inch and they will try and take a mile. Even if is means scrambling to get battle royale ready enough for launch, since releasing it broken seems to be the norm, I don't see Activision giving much breathing room to BFV. With the popularity of battle royale, an entire year on BFV before a COD game see's it, would be PR hell for Activision at the very least.



AlfredoTurkey said:

What the hell is Battle Royale mode? Is it just sandbox killing like GTA?

It's a last man standing mode with a lot (more than 50) of characters in which you start gearless and have to find both weapons and enemies (and of course kill them before they can kill you) to win



I don't care about CoD since over a decade, maybe a battle royale could save this trainwreck, maybe.



Around the Network
Bofferbrauer2 said:
AlfredoTurkey said:

What the hell is Battle Royale mode? Is it just sandbox killing like GTA?

It's a last man standing mode with a lot (more than 50) of characters in which you start gearless and have to find both weapons and enemies (and of course kill them before they can kill you) to win

Ah, I see. Thanks. So it's a mix of a lot of different genres. Sandbox, MMORPG, death match etc.