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

[Kajin]

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.

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.

I wouldn't mind both, definitely. I just don't think EA has the balls to wait long enough to add good stuff like that.

 

[Ukomba]

That would depend ENTIRELY on how good they make it. But I would be more interested in a single player game than multiplayer if they used a good engine to make a Dark Forces style, story driven campaign. Mass Effect 3 is a good example of single player / Multi player balance.

 

[Gennadios]

I think most players that want a single player campaign in Battlefront just want a good single player Star Wars game.

Modern Military Shooters have bad single player campaigns and everyone who buys them for single player end up feeling cheated and write bad reviews. Those types of games are all about Multiplayer. Homefront for example, while poorly reviewed, had semi-decent multiplayer. The ONLY way to feel like you got your money's worth was to dump a month into online play.

DICE is between a rock and a hard place here. They can't deliver good single player, and if they release a game with a crappy, tacked on campaign in the vein of Battlefield they'll be torn to shreds.

Probably not a popular opinion, but I stand by EA. Leave single player Star Wars to something that can do single player well.

 

[Bat Vader]

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.

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.

I wouldn't mind both, definitely. I just don't think EA has the balls to wait long enough to add good stuff like that.

I heard they were doing things called missions which were meant to act as SP. Were those taken out as well?

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Screw you Peter Moore. I don't play games without Single Player (MMOs notwithstanding).

 

[Sarge034]

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".

I don't really like TF2 (played it maybe 3 times), I am complaining about the lack of SP, and I played the shit outta conquest mode in BF2. Where is your god now?

It really seems like EA is trying to make up lost ground. They were doing really good for a while there.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

And I was so very looking forward to this game too.

 

[Squilookle]

Every time someone talks about their decisions relating to why the Battlefront reboot is the way it is, I just want... I just want to...

URRRGH

What is this nonsense about 'predicting' what the gaming landscape will be like in a few years? WHO CARES! Great game developers don't show massive insecurity by trying to guess what the cool kids will be doing when their project comes out, they focus on the game they are making, and make it the best damn game they can. One of the reasons Battlefront II and so many games like it at the time wowed audiences so much was because it gave you everything you wanted from a sequel plus new features you didn't even realise you wanted.

As Mark Reign reportedly once pointed out when asked why Unreal Tournament continues to include bots, he was surprised to find that more than half of the entire UT playerbase actually never played online. While internet connections are certainly easier today, other problems with online play remain. Chief among them being having to interact with other gamers which is frequently a very mixed bag.

I never played Battlefront online. I never played Battlefront 2 online. If the reboot had a campaign, galactic conquest and instant action, I would happily play those and probably never need more than an occasional online bout.

Forget the damn gaming landscape. Don't try to 'predict' what it will be and make yourself a slave to it Moore.. Shape it yourself with well made groundbreaking games! It's not freaking rocket science..

 

[Callate]

Y'know, it's one thing when your parents tell you to go outside and play with your friends (or random neighborhood kids.) It's another when you're being told to do that by the people whose alleged job, which you've paid them for, is to entertain you- tell you to do the same.

 

[Wuvlycuddles]

Reminds me of my Dad, my siblings and I would ask him to buy us some cola on the weekly shop, so he goes and buys some real shitty off brand crap that tasted shite and we wouldn't drink it. And whenever we brought up buying cola again and the proper stuff this time, he'd ***** about buying it but no one drank it! The cheap fecker knew exactly what he was doing and so did we.

 

[cdemares]

Look, if EA doesn't see the value of a Star Wars shooter campaign, I probably don't want to play the one they crap out. If, however, they can see the value of crafting a story in the Star Wars universe that incorporates major military battles, they should obviously do it. I'd rather play the Star Wars battlefield campaign somebody wanted to make. If that means it's a separate game, so it becomes the focus, so be it. Just get the one you want.

 

[ecoho]

... 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.

Sorry to tell you, but your expectation would be let down severely. I don't raid hardcore, much less raid. So please... Don't try and stereotype me and base your entire post on that weak fallacy. They screwed up at launch because, AS I SAID, they lacked any end game. That doesn't mean just raiding, sorry to tell you. It means anything of value, or anything at all really, to do once you've finished leveling a character to 50. Legacy and all the mid-game bloat they added was to try and get people to ignore that and play other classes in order to unlock "perks". And again, when the leveling path is so stilted and bland as it is in the game, nobody is eager to replay the same story over and over again, with minor variations along the way from Story class quests. Champions Online had the same exact issues with leveling as well.

They spent six plus months doing nothing but bug fixes and adding distractions. They didn't add anything for players AT 50 already to do, which is a mistake. That does not,and I will emphasize it, DOES NOT mean they can't add to other parts of the game. And I find it funny you say Star Wars does social very well. I played the game, and the last thing I'd call it is social - but that's what happens when you create a single player game within an MMO. I had guilds I was in, casual included, breaking up because they got bored. Nobody wants to level more than one or two characters on either side, and nobody wants to just sit on a lvl 50 with absolutely nothing to do.

You don't keep subscribers for more than a month if you DONT give them anything to do.

... 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.

Quite the opposite really. Everquest and Everquest 2 were subscription games for the longest time. Even after World of Warcraft came out. Those games had a player base willing to pay to play, and continue to do so. That was earned. My comment was in reference to games that have to switch immediately upon release in the market now, or at least up to a good few years ago. Work is a little vague though I'll admit...

Subscriptions work, as long as the developers work to keep it engaging and easy to stay with the game, making it 'sticky' so to speak. Wildstar failed spectacularly at that. Elder Scrolls Online stumbled, yes, but they managed to turn themselves around. They also aren't strictly free to play either. While people were sure to buy ESO, you'd have a difficult time selling them on a subscription. It's a game that has gotten by for quite a while by its own modding community to an extent along with a set of systems that people love to play in, especially with said mods. And while they have been doing good, they are still missing the point on some things... Especially with the Veteran Rank system. It's been railed against since day one, and even after claiming they were going to remove it years ago it's still in place and being used to hate content. Which people hate. I'd be much more happier to sub to that game in particular if I wasn't required to practically go through every other starting area and then some just to get to a point where I may be able to do new content. That's easily as bad as Wildstars absurdly done raid attune meant mechanics they expected 90% of their player base to want, when it was really just the same 5% who think something akin to WoW Vanilla is top tier raid content.

so what your saying is you've never played a new MMO before SWTOR then? Cause WOW had pretty much the same problem till a year down the line and even then the new end game content was seriously broken (hello AQ 40 boat ride from hell)

as to the social aspect, I don't know what to tell you except you got unlucky, ive been in 3 guilds in SWTOR one fell apart waiting on legacy as no one wanted to make a new toon till it was out and it took 3 months longer then it should have and the second I left because the Raiding head man and the GM were having a pissing match. Im currently in a very social guild that also raids progression, (IE new content at the highest lvls) the first lasted about 6 months after launch and the second about 2 years, been with this one ever since.

also good to note I didn't start out on a high pop server but then I played wow for almost 7 years and knew better that may be why you didn't get very social people in your guilds

if youre wondering why I haven't discussed your points on the "bloat" as you call it its because I cant bring myself to type anything on it with out it sounding like im insulting you or attacking you. I like the mid game and so do a lot of other people sorry you didn't is about the best I can say.

 

[shrekfan246]

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?

Not me.

Granted, I almost exclusively played the Galactic Conquest mode in the Battlefront games and the lack of a story doesn't strike me as so much of a loss if DICE would be the people writing it. Also, I'm one of the people who doesn't like competitive multi-player as a matter of course, and the only game like that I really play is Hearthstone.

But hey, they're apparently not doing Galactic Conquest either. So they're 0/2 in courting my interest for the game.

 

[Dragonlayer]

Yes, but only if it was Galactic Conquest or a fully fleshed out story-driven campaign, not some crappy Bots only rehash of the multiplayer maps like in Red Orchestra 2.

 

[tzimize]

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:

I dont think its so much about pissing people off as absolute cluelessness. I really dont get this. Its not like EA is a small company? With no money for PR people? Who the hell OKs these top-shelf morons to say anything about anything? They have NO IDEA what they are talking about. WHY are they speaking?!

 

[suitepee7]

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.

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*

try getting your head around the trailer...
OT: I wasn't sold on the gameplay footage shown at E3, and nothing I have heard so far has even slightly changed my mind about picking this one up. The problem is, I predict this will end up like CoD, a complete DLC fest. So in order to keep my game up-to-date with the rest of the players, it's not just £35-£45 game fee, but probably another £20-£30 in DLC... I would have considered it if the single player was good enough to justify waiting for a DLC sale at least, but with nothing else, I'll pass. Tbh, Fallout 4 and XCOM:2 will be more than enough to keep me occupied in November.

Edit: I forgot about galactic conquest mode. To be honest, that mode by itself would be enough single player for me to be happy. While a full SP campaign would be better, I only ever played that once or twice, whilst I spent a lot of time on GC mode.

 

[MiskWisk]

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:

I dont think its so much about pissing people off as absolute cluelessness. I really dont get this. Its not like EA is a small company? With no money for PR people? Who the hell OKs these top-shelf morons to say anything about anything? They have NO IDEA what they are talking about. WHY are they speaking?!

What if this is the literal best that the PR guys can actually do. Imagine that they are simply being handed a list of things that are occurring in their organisation and this is the literal best way that they can spin it.

At least, that is what I hope. I cannot quite believe that they are this inept and out of touch by choice. Maybe I am wrong but I will keep applying Hanlon's razor, namely:

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

... wait until December when we get told
"Well, the data all points to gamers not wanting to play Star Wars games any more, couldn't possibly be that we're f*cking idiots"

 

[FalloutJack]

Sometimes, people wanna play games to get away from it all. How the fuck do we do that if you ram us all into one room all the time?!