Topic: Why is it so hard to understand? (Battlefield 2042)

BIG news, Battlefield 2042 doesn't have a single-player campaign!
I honestly don't care about no half-ass lackluster SP campaign, but my opinion is worthless in the eyes of "True Gamers". I do have a question though, has anyone forced you to support a company that doesn't value your ideals? Either you buy and enjoy the game with or without your buddies (considering it's good) or cry yourself to sleep (?) because they ditched the single-player campaign mode. It's that simple, Rant done!

Well it’s a sequel to an existing series which has removed a part of the core game. And the game is £70 this time round. Plus 4 battle passes a year. So you’re getting less content for a higher price and they’re trying to sell you battle passes too. It’s not really that difficult to understand.

@nessisonett Let's be honest, all games are going to have that $70 pricing in the long run, it isn't just Battlefield. Regarding the battle pass situation, I don't think anyone's obligated to buy them, that doesn't take away from the experience. Battlefield has always been about the multiplayer thrill, if you think paying $70 is a lot for a game that has removed an unnecessary (imo) part of the game, then that's your choice.

@nessisonett The Last of Us 2 shipped without a multiplayer mode after the previous game had it as well as Uncharted 2, 3, and 4 from the same developer. It was still sold at full price but took away content according to this thought process.

Where was the outrage then?

@LiamCroft Except Naughty Dog came out and said that they were in the middle of making a full multiplayer release before the game had even released. That’s just a poor example considering that DICE aren’t saying that they’ll patch in a single-player mode after the fact. And The Last of Us 2 was the standard price. And it didn’t have DLC. It’s also extremely naive to expect comments about anything other than the controversy of that particular game in any article about Factions. There were definitely people on here upset that it wasn’t included but the ‘outrage’ was all focused on basically the entire rest of the game. Anybody willing to be outraged had a lot more material with that game than with Battlefield.

@nessisonett The other "complaints" surrounding The Last of Us 2 have nothing to do with this scenario, though. It's exactly the same sort of situation, except TLOU2 dropped multiplayer while Battlefield drops single player. You'll also most likely have to pay for Factions now, it's going to be entirely separate from TLOU2. So the point does stand that Naughty Dog took out a feature that it had been doing in its games for the past decade or so.

At the time, the comments were more: "The Last of Us 1 had multiplayer?" and were then very quickly brushed to the side. That was well before any of the story leaks happened. It's still the same sort of thing, a feature has been removed that was there before. But because it's multiplayer, people don't complain. It shouldn't be that way.

Seems like a lazy thing to do regardless , tbh . Were in 2021 , on 9th gen consoles - games are supposed to be evolving and improving with more added and not more missing . hypothetically , games are supposed to be at their best nowadays with all the technological advancements but , as the technology got better , the quality depreciated .

I understand where you're coming from , & I couldn't care less about a campaign myself ; but it is legitimately missing content that's only beneficial to the game if its added . More content is always good.

Oh come on this is getting old now. I don't like the idea of no Single Player here but Battlefield is clearly more popular with Multiplayer. Plenty of other Single Player games out there you know.

Isn’t this why we ended up with a campaign in Battlefront II? This sounds familiar.

Honestly I don’t really care that much — I’ve never played a single Battlefield game and I’m certainly not starting with 2042. I think I have two or three of the previous games sitting in my backlog from PS Plus which I haven’t touched yet. Thought I might try the campaign on one of them one day. We’ll see.

I saw this discussion going around with the comments section of Guilty Gear Strive the other day, whereby these pre-arranged DLC or expansion packs are actually seen as a positive to the hardcore players of the game, in that it “keeps the community of players active because people stick with the game longer knowing that content is coming”, whereas as a single player gamer I see pre-launch DLC announcements as a personal pet peeve because it suggests the game isn’t done or was gimped so that the complete game could be sold for an extra $20. I know not all DLC is a carve out, but I can’t help but feel that way when they announce it months and months before the base game even releases, much less has a release date. It’s just seems…. sketchy.

So I think how a gamer feels about this is just what mindset you’re coming from. It’s almost like gamers are evolving into two factions (speaking of Factions.. 😛) — a faction of single player gamers and a faction of online multiplayer gamers. The two groups just see things completely differently. To me, this game amd its style of release looks like a complete rip off. It reminds me also of those episodic games (a la Life is Strange and the old Telltale games) where they drip feed the game in small sections over several months. It’s awful, and I always wait until all the season is complete and play it after all episodes are released. However, on the multiplayer side, MP gamers don’t see this as a rip off at all and are happy to pay repeatedly in order to keep the game relevant in the online space; they love this style of release. Hey, more power to ya. I’m happy for those that enjoy the Battepass / Multiplayer-only style. It won’t make me enjoy my single player games any less.

@OrigamiCrane Facts my guy! That is exactly how I feel about the whole situation

@LiamCroft
'But because it's multiplayer, people don't complain. It shouldn't be that way.'
People do complain though. I think it's fair that MP gamers don't care that much about the campaign. Complains are also fair.
Where it goes wrong its when people can't share their passion and love for a game because they get crap, or they get told how they should spend their own money from the 'outraged'.
I saw plenty of that for both Battlefront games.

I guess the market will decide if this is a suitable decision either way. If they sell around the same amount of copies and do well on the battle-passes I would assume it is the correct option. If EA end up making less than they usually do with this ip I'd imagine a single player campaign will be back on the agenda come the next installment.

As someone who is predominantly a single player gamer, I'm not annoyed as its not a franchise I ever consider playing... but having said that my 'unlikely to buy' has become a 'definitely won't buy' as a result.

Maybe we should wait to see what the gameplay, maps, content etc actually look like before we get too upset? I do get the arguments about removing SP but so far all we've actually seen is a game engine trailer and a few titbits of information

@LiamCroft In fairness, The Last of Us Part II was also like 30% longer than the original.

Personally, I get why people are annoyed about this. There's always been a single player component in these games. And from my own experience, I only play the single player portion in shooters like this. So even if I thought about playing this game - unlikely since I've still never finished Battlefield 1 which I started like two years ago - I definitely wouldn't play it now.

@johncalmc Then the series was never for you in the first place. Not all Battlefield games have shipped with a campaign, and they've never been anything more than four to five-hour affairs when they were there. Battlefield is all about its multiplayer — it's always been that way.

@LiamCroft Except it's not all about its multiplayer. Even if it's 99% about the multiplayer it's not all about the multiplayer. There are objectively some people that will not play this game because there's no single player component. Two people in this thread have said it. And I know that one of them is on the level because it's me. There might not be a substantial portion of the playerbase who will ignore this game because it's multiplayer only - and presumably EA has done the math on this to see how much it's going to hurt sales - but those people do exist. Hence, some people are annoyed.

@Beagle I totally understand people wanting a story mode, but me getting angry over something that I haven't bought yet is toxic behavior, imo! It's not like they asked for donations and didn't deliver on their part

@Beagle haha sorry for the ping man, I did it because I liked your comment, cheers!

Loved battlefield 1942 my first real online experience. As for campaign it sucks that it doesn't have one but not a deal breaker. Its definitely a good change of pace over cod, but I play both franchises

Can't say it is something I would miss, the last two games in the series I hardly touched the single player campaign. Spent over 100 hours in previous multiplayer modes for Bad Company 1, 2 and Battlefield 3 and 4. Kinda moved away from competitive multiplayer in recent times, so doubt I would pick this up anyway.