Tweet
Peter Moore, by way of Gamespot, claims that there's really no good reason to include a single player component in a game like Star Wars Battlefront because nobody really gives a crap about that in these multiplayer focused titles. What promoted Moore to say this? Cold hard data, that's what.
Alright, so it's data that isn't exactly publicly viewable. I suppose we can just take his word for it on this. However, it might be nice if these developers and publishers that deliver only a multiplayer component stop pricing their titles as if they were the "entire" package offering. Maybe price it $20 less than the typical $60 game. This would be especially kind given how most of these multiplayer only focused titles tend to have DLC packs or microtransactions offered for about a year following release.
Or, perhaps we'll begin to see piecemeal games coming in the future. Perhaps the next Battlefield or Call of Duty will offer up a $40 multiplayer standalone component with an optional $20 single player component for those who are interested. I'm sure most fans don't want single player, especially with the lackluster offerings from the previous two Battlefield titles, but it's always nice to have options. It would be nice if something like this happened, but I wouldn't count on it ever happening from AAA developers, at least not any time soon.
Star Wars Battlefront was also on the table during the chat. When asked why the game won’t ship with a full-on single-player experience, Peter Moore stated that “very few people actually play the single-player on these kinds of games” going on with “that’s what the data points too.”
Urm, we’re not so sure about that. We’re quite partial to a single-player campaign, even in Battlefield and Call of Duty, both of which rely heavily on their multiplayer components to draw players in and keep them there until the next game comes out.
Urm, we’re not so sure about that. We’re quite partial to a single-player campaign, even in Battlefield and Call of Duty, both of which rely heavily on their multiplayer components to draw players in and keep them there until the next game comes out.
Alright, so it's data that isn't exactly publicly viewable. I suppose we can just take his word for it on this. However, it might be nice if these developers and publishers that deliver only a multiplayer component stop pricing their titles as if they were the "entire" package offering. Maybe price it $20 less than the typical $60 game. This would be especially kind given how most of these multiplayer only focused titles tend to have DLC packs or microtransactions offered for about a year following release.
Or, perhaps we'll begin to see piecemeal games coming in the future. Perhaps the next Battlefield or Call of Duty will offer up a $40 multiplayer standalone component with an optional $20 single player component for those who are interested. I'm sure most fans don't want single player, especially with the lackluster offerings from the previous two Battlefield titles, but it's always nice to have options. It would be nice if something like this happened, but I wouldn't count on it ever happening from AAA developers, at least not any time soon.