If you were holding out hope for a single player campaign in Battlefield 2042, then don’t. EA has announced – alongside the reveal of the online shooter earlier today – that this release is all about its multiplayer. Justifying the decision in an interview with Eurogamer.net, design director Daniel Berlin effectively explained that developer DICE is sharpening its efforts around what it does best.
He explained: “If you look at the DNA of the studio, what we've been doing for so long, we just said you know what, we're not going to have a traditional single-player campaign this time around, but we're going to put all that emphasis and all those resources into building depth into the multiplayer. Because that is what we do best.”
To be fair, recent Battlefield games have had campaigns, but they’ve been nothing to write home about – after all, the overwhelming majority of fans are buying the game for multiplayer. Popular modes like Conquest and Breakthrough will return, alongside a new squad-based mode named Hazard Zone. There’ll also be a third gameplay option that the team’s keeping under wraps for now.
It’s worth adding that if you’re playing on PlayStation 4, you’ll be engaging in much smaller battles on reduced map sizes. While the PS5 release will be able to support up to 128 players, the last-gen version will only manage 64 players. Next-gen owners will pay for the privilege, however: the game will cost £69.99/$69.99 on PS5, and there’ll only be a free PS4 to PS5 upgrade for those who buy the pricey Gold Edition.
Has the lack of a campaign put you off, or do you only come to Battlefield for multiplayer? Fight back in the comments section below.
Comments 133
Then ill just skip it completely i guess.
70 bucks for ps5 and no single player......
Greed at its peak.....
At this point it looks like only Sony is making quality single player games....
No buy for me. I’m a single player campaign and adventure guy, hence I enjoy PlayStation exclusives.
No loss to me though, also I think this will be Xbox game pass day one now, as it is multiplayer online only.
Boooo. lol this game keeps getting worse!
Gross! Will skip unless it's free on Gamepass or Plus down the line!
Last time COD did this it was the worst game they ever made!
SP>MP always
Didn't the reboot of starwars battlefront do this? Why the hell would someone make a game that can't be played unless you're online? It boggles the mind. When the servers go offline this game will become pointless. Oh wait it already is.
@Zeldafan79 Well, in their defence, the online competition is the entire point of the game.
I grew up playing Battlefield 1942, 2, Vietnam, 2142 and 1943. However, I'm now a grown up and no longer have the time to invest in a multiplayer shooter. I'll have to give this a pass.
Roll on getting a Bad Company sequel or 1&2 HD remaster
@get2sammyb
Well if you wanna be lazy and exclude the poor schmucks who either don't have alot of Friends or just plain don't like playing online then sure whatever.
@get2sammyb In my defence paying €70 for a probably laced with a game with microtransactions and seasonalpass is a joke. Is Pushsquare going to complain if its €70 or is this only reserved for full singleplayer with no DLC.
What a clickbait title, makes it sound like only the PS versions don't have a singleplayer. You could just have written:
"Battlefield 2042 Doesn't Have a Single Player Campaign"
Ugh! Was worried this was gonna be the case.
I think it's a very good decision. The previous game had a very bad campaign. It was almost unplayable. The whole point of this game and what it does best is multiplayer. Kudos to developers!
The only "mind blowing" part of the trailer is how cinematic they tried to make it look only to have a cinematic single player mode excluded from the game.
I actually heard people liked the single player for Battlefield 1.
The Last Battlefield I played was 4 which I still say is the most broken game I ever got at launch so I was always likely going to pass. If I would get it I would need more than a few friends to convince me and even then it would a hard maybe at best.
Idk, as the article mentions, the single-player campaigns haven't been all that great. They seem to basically be thrown in to justify selling this at full AAA game price.
@mariomaster96 This is the new Pushsquare.
Well i´m out,no single player i can live but paying full price for the game plus the batllepass or seasons nah ,already got my share of that with Bungie/Destiny 2 not anymore.
When it comes to games of this ilk was out a longgggg time ago
I actually enjoy having the campaign in them. Even though it wasn't good in the past few games and felt like it was just a training mode, it was still nice to have it. It was something different to playing against other players. And I find playing against bots in a multiplayer game isn't anywhere as good or fun as the AI in the campaign.
Can't see myself paying £70 (well cheaper when I shop around) for this. I think the days of putting a lot of hours into multiplayer games is gone as there are too many other titles I want to play. Once i move on to a new game, I wouldn't come back to multiplayer stuff. Spending £70 wouldn't be worth that. That kind of money is better spent elsewhere on games i would love to replay again, even when the servers get shut down.
I'm going to wait for a heavy discount or for it to be in EA Play
Yes!!!! Great news! Multiplayer all the way with all energy put in from the whole team. Just awesome! Cannot wait.
@Zeldafan79 I think it's just not for you, which is fine.
Already non-existent in my cognition. What is this game you speak of?
I can understand folks raising an eye brow at $70 for just multiplayer though. That's where the most expensive parts of development generally go so with that gone it does start to get a little questionable.
If it releases with minimal to no microtransactions I think people would be a bit more forgiving but this is Battlefield we are talking about so I highly doubt that will be the case.
Make the game free to download just like Warzone. If its only Multiplayer
The trailer made me want a co-op story campaign. But, It is what it is.
128 players is crazy. Obviously people have tons of fun with this. But not for me.
Why do people need a 3-4 hour single player campaign to justify a full-price purchase when you're likely to spend 50+ hours in the multiplayer anyway? You play Battlefield for the online stuff, not a 180-minute campaign you'll run through once and then forget it ever existed.
@Flaming_Kaiser Same. Very few Multiplayer games so I enjoy anymore...
The game looked awesome until I read this
Im not buying this sh👎t.skipping single player campaign.gtfoh dog.word up son
In all honesty I don't blame the developers. If the single-player in the last few releases were kinda tacked on and forgettable, why not turn resources towards the multiplayer, especially when that's the meat of the game.
@LiamCroft That is true. I guess it's down to percieved value. When the devs tell you how they saved time and resources by not doing what has been a staple of the series (and most games in general) but then charge tip top price anyway it just seems like we're getting less for more. Even though most wont play it twice it was nice to know the option to play singleplayer was there.
@3Above But single player campaigns have never been a staple of the Battlefield series. The only ones that did them even slightly decently was Bad Company, which was a spin-off series.
@LiamCroft I'm not a big BF player but I do remember BF 3, 4 and 5 having singleplayer campaigns. They dont have to be particularly good (SW Battlefront 2 for example) but when they are missing the experience feels incomplete. Without it it's like playing a Next gen version of M.A.G.
Well a SP campaign would be nice but I don't understand why that's a deal breaker. Should the game be cheaper though? Well, any game could be cheaper but MP titles are designed to be played over several months sometimes more so even at £70 I'm sure most players will get their money's worth.
The SP campaign in BF2 in particular seemed like a lengthy tutorial. If anyone bought that game just for that then I feel sorry for them.
I think this might make for an interesting topic @get2sammyb as core gamers, the majority are very happy to accept a a single player game without multiplayer but when it's the other way around then there's a lot of backlash.
If you buy the ultimate Ed do you still have to buy passes?
@3Above I think the issue here is that you simply prefer single player games to multiplayer ones, which is fine. But why is it such an issue when it's the other way around? If someone loves multiplayer and they see DICE as wasting its time with a single player story, they'll be happy about this news.
By this logic, a campaign is sort of the be all and end all of video games. Which simply isn't true. And I'd love to see a PS5 version of MAG!
Bad co 2 was the only decent bf sp imo but if Liam reckons they take 3 hours he must be godly.
Micro transaction filled pile of sh*t with no campaign? EA can go f*** themselves.
@FatalBubbles Its all so made to make you only one game all the time. I know that it may sound as a strange complaint but with less and less time as you older. 😒
@AdamNovice We will see what the price is and if there is a BP what monetization. (ingame gambling)
Looking forward to the new futuristic Battlefield but my excitement has just turned from "yay" to "no way"
No single player = no buy.
£69.99 and no single player campaign... Guess I'll wait for it to inevitably end up on PS+ down the line. Or a big sale.
I was hyped by the futuristic setting too.
Gutted, will probably pick it up when it goes on sale but definitely not a day one for me. They have been working on this for ages and no single player is disappointing for me and did they say only 7 maps? Think there should be more than that at launch for 70. Ah well sure there are plenty of games to play until it drops in price.
@LiamCroft I hope they dont have the balls to asks €70 for it.
As Ubisoft had the balls to put in XP booster in a full priced game. a menu that wont look strange mobile because it shoves the MT in your ingame menu. Give those criminals a finger and they will take your hand.
But sites always made a excuse to say its optional a made it normal and make it like the gamer should not complain.
I had a few questionable things i read here the "free €90 nextgen upgrade" to name one. 🤪
Ah there goes my interest in this game. Was looking forward to it too… 😏
£59.99 actually, like most other games. I feel like it's only Sony published games that make the jump to £69.99 (mostly anyway).
@AdamNovice which means the majority don't like multiplayer games.
@DrClayman Yeah but what monetization have Sony games. I wont be surprised if this cheap EA game has a BP and monetization from day one. 🤪
@LiamCroft I do prefer singleplayer games, that is true. But if BF 2042 was a single player only game I would have the same complaint. Because we are used to having both single and multiplayer in this series. I think that had the game not been "full price" it would be received better. After all they've already announced 4 battlepasses right? Its not like they wont make money unless it's full price.
@Flaming_Kaiser Haha! For the better part of a year all I played was Destiny 2, I can relate.
Now that less of my friends can get together at the same time for online games, single player good stories are what I want to sink my time into.
My hype for this game lasted 4 hours and then i heard this news. Not for me.
Plus there is no upgrade from ps4 to ps5 unless you pay £90 for the cross gen bundle. If you buy the standard ps4 edition you will have to buy the game again for ps5 seperately. Those are some dirty tactics right there.
Maybe there will be a £30 upgrade when you buy standard but even still.
No single player but still full price.....I'm out.
Just bring back MAG, that was a 256 player game on a PS3!!
@Flaming_Kaiser Haha, yeah, fair enough, but that's a whole other kettle of fish. Sony games also have "special editions" that add avatars and digital artbooks for 10-20 pounds more, so I just tend to compare standard editions, otherwise it's a bit of a rabbit hole. I do get where you're coming from though.
Removing the Single-Player solely because past games had lackluster Single-Player campaigns is NO EXCUSE! EA need to quit being cheap and hire ACTUAL competent writers.
@DrClayman So these games with MT, monetization, gambling so what your point.
And early acces XP boosters skins all stuff that are influencing the game.
Does a avatar influence your game or a digital artbook why any would even want a digital artbook is beyond me anyway.
@Loftimus Well its free according to Pushsquare with NBA2K they called the €99 mamba edition a free nextgen upgrade. 🤪
I've really enjoyed past BF games, apart from the last title. That was terrible. Really it's the only multiplayer game I would ever consider playing. But saying that, I would have been nice to have some kind of single player experience. As they have been doing this for years now and a couple have been pretty decent. £70 for online only experience won't work for me.
@FatalBubbles Man what was it easy to be a kid. You want to growupand when your olderyou think WTF happend to the time.😁
@3Above The single player have never been a staple of the franchise. Battlefield 3 was really the first game in the main franchise to introduce an actual single player. Battlefield 4 continued that trend created by 3, but Battlefield 1 and 5... Diverted hard from what they offered in 3 and 4, and gave us bit size story missions which were terrible. They have basically been trying to wean us off of single player for the last two game, and get us back to play the main purpose of the game.
@Flaming_Kaiser My point is that none of these things affect me, whether gambling, cosmetics, avatars or boosters, have never felt the need to buy into any of it, so it's all optional extras in my opinion.
To each their own though man, that's why I said I get where you're coming from.
@LiamCroft yeah if anything I'd like to see them develop a new Bad Company alongside, but separate from, a dedicated and purpose-built multiplayer series. Why have one dilute the other when we're probably taking about two entirely different audiences?
@LiamCroft for once i'm on the same page as you..i'll buy it when its cheaper though..i've been very vocal about the price of ps5 games that have a single player campaign so i'm definatly not slapping 70 sheets down for this..M.A.G should really be revisited now the tech can fully realise sonys original vision..
@Floki Ok I see. Like I said I'm not a big BF player and my experience with the franchise starts with BF3. I can see how they arrived here gradually.
I mean I only bought Garden Warfare 2 because it had a campaign, even if it was kind of half just the multiplayer modes with AI haha Also played through the Battlefront 2 campaign and DLC and that was actually more fun than I thought it would be. I did enjoy the sprawling and progressing maps on both games, so it will have to do something similar in scope to those to be good, I think. They should have a mixed objective mode, too. By the sounds of things, though, the ps4 will have small maps and that's a 0% chance of any interest from me.
@DonJorginho what are you shouting for? I'm talking about a ps4 to ps5 upgrade path. IF YOU'RE BUYING ON PS5 IT DOESN'T MATTER, DOES IT¿
I played BF4 on PS3 for 18 months before upgrading to a PS4 and its version of the game. It took a long time to get used to the upgrade - the PS3 version only supported 32 players and all the maps were smaller versions than those found on the PS4. The game played noticeably differently across the platforms for these reasons.
The very first game, Battlefield 1942 and then Vietnam, Battlefield 2 and 2142 were multiplayer only. This series has never been about single player campaigns, they were only added for console players and they were fair to middling at best ( based on reviews and feedback, I wouldn't know ). I've bought EVERY game in the series so far, put in literally 1,000s of hours into it and yet never booted up any single player campaign. Go figure
I'm totally ok with Battlefield ditching single player campaign. You folks act like they've committed a heresy! It's so funny...
@Loftimus 🤣🤣 deafening
@DonJorginho exactly 🙌
@Loftimus Because all I'm seeing is constant crying over stupid points.
If it's that much of an issue paying a bit extra then wait till you have a PS5 and buy it normal price, simple.
We knew this would happen with certain companies eventually.
Over $100 CAD for online multi only? Is EA smoking crack?
I approve, The single player in battlefield 1 and 5 we’re just tutorials slapped with a cringe story.
I enjoyed battlefield 1 campaign, and only played the multiplayer only about 15 minutes lol. I'll skip this one.
it doesn’t have a campaign at all not only on ps4 and ps5… your heading is kinda stupid
@DonJorginho i've got a ps5 i'm not talking about me. I was thinking of the 100 million ps4 owners. I'm not sorry in the slightest and if i can wind people up without trying, all the better.
I like to point out anti consumer points, thats all and this cross gen is full of them.
There is an ignore button though and i'm more than happy for you to use on me. Please... Do it!
So is half a game half price?
Gonna skip this one
Can't really blame Dice for sticking to multiplayer only. After people pretending to be outraged about no campaign in Battlefront they gave in and put a decent one in Battlefront 2, where just over a quarter of people completed it. Same with Battlefield V, less than 20% of players completed the campaign there. Stick to what they're good at. Can't wait!
@LiamCroft I'm 43 years of age and the reality is Multiplayer just doesn't interest me and no doubt quite a number of other people that much now. What you just said there is exactly how I feel about Multiplayer. I play it for however long, I become bored and lose interest and forget it ever existed.
@blackndark I'm.with you man I lived the bad company campaigns but the core franchise on pc never had one,and honestly these games where always at there best when that was the focus.
@Flaming_Kaiser I'll likely give it a shot when there's a Sale. I may not like the idea of a Multiplayer only game but I have to admit there's just something about the Battlefield games.
@Loftimus I don't get what you're saying mate, you haven't wound me up aha, just saying how OTHER people (not you directly) are getting upset over stupid things like the campaign not being in the game.
I totally get the anti consumer point, I like to expose those points myself too, I just don't get why people are surprised. As soon as Sony announced £70 games it was clear every trashy publisher would use Sony as an excuse for them to do the same and worse.
I won't be using the ignore button as I have no issues with you my friend!
@DonJorginho But it wasn’t Sony that was the first one to announce a $70 price point for next-gen software. It was Take-Two Interactive last year with NBA2k21, followed by Activision with Call of Duty: Cold War. After those two, it was announced by Sony for their first-party next-gen games. It’s not entirely fair to paint it as something Sony did first and every publisher followed them.
This is highly disappointing. Without singleplayer, you are getting half the experience, but it's definitely not half the cost.
@Otherbarry totally! They had 3 years to focus only on a multiplayer experience, that's why I believe it will be great this time. To compare, new Call of Duty will have single player, multiplayer and zombies modes, and I believe none of them will be great. It's not a good idea to spread the focus on these type of games.
Looks like ill be skipping battlefield this time around!
@BowTiesAreCool because battlefield V campaign sucked.
THANK GOD SONY make AMAZING Single player story mode games. Or we(gamers) would just be playing the same BORING online only games :-/ Battlefield can be FUN tho online but it's not for me really all the time.
Epic trailer. I really wanted this game then there's no campaign?
Battlefront 2 was a fun campaign - me and the Mrs have run through it at least once each, same for BF1 & V. Multiplayer is not my thing.
Make a good campaign. It’s like BO3, no one likes the campaign so they took it out in BO4 instead of realizing they mad e abuse campaign. I haven’t played them, but a campaign like Bad Company would be amazing. I’ve seen and heard so ouch good about them.
@CelticSavagery previous iterations didn’t have a multiplayer component (there wasn’t any) & the current game didn’t have microtransactions.
It also didn’t cost $70. So the answer to your question is ‘No’
You’re paying more for less (with the great opportunity to pay even more through battle passes)
@blackndark one hundred percent man. People should look at this as a game that could potentially be as good a multiplayer only game as say Ghost of tsushima was a single player game. There are tones of people that only like single player games and that's cool juat like there are people who only like multiplayer games. Not every game is going to be for every one.
@DeepSpace5D I never claimed that Sony were the first.
But it is true that once Sony announced it, many other publishers would feel far more comfortable charging more, you cannot deny that.
It's an industry issue don't get me wrong, but Sony was the most powerful domino to set this all off.
@CelticSavagery hey I enjoyed Battlefield 4’s single player campaign.
Your argument that Battlefield started off as a multiplayer only game & so should be considered a multiplayer only game falls flat when you consider COD was primarily a singleplayer only game & has now evolved into a massive multiplayer game as well. Battlefield had evolved. It’s not the same game as it was when it first game out. It was also only on PC. Does that mean it shouldn’t come on consoles because the first one didn’t?
$70 is still $70. When you consider COD can do multiplayer & a singleplayer campaign as well as a free to play Battle Royal for the same price & the ***** show that was the last Battlefield. I’d say I have enough reason to want more for my money.
Besides some people play these games for the campaigns, whether you like it or not
@LiamCroft it would be great if they included a campaign as much as some of the campaigns have gone down hill I would still like to try it out, it's like cod leaving out a campaign wouldn't that be odd but people would still want to play the campaign regardless.
@hoffa007 Call of Duty literally did this with Black Ops 4, and it was one of the best entries in the series for some time.
@pukana I'm not defending EA, but if "some people" as you say "play these games for the campaigns" aren't happy with them removing a part of the game, then they shouldn't bother getting the game in the first place.
@DonJorginho It was going to happen anyway in my opinion, no matter which publishers started it.
All we can do as consumers is voice our displeasure online and with our wallets if the game doesn’t seem worth the price.
@xRetrox my point exactly & I won’t.
Looks like a few other commenters won’t either.
I'll skip this one
£57.95 for PS5 version at the game collection.
Will I be buying it myself? no.
But I really don't get all the bleeting about the £70 price. It isn't. It's less than £58.
Never in me puff have I paid 'full asking price' and I buy loads of games day one.
Don't people shop around anymore??
GAME have never had day one discounts, Amazon hardly ever do but between all the other online gaming specialist shops, for those that DO want it day one, up to £12 off the £70 can't be bad.
@pukana That's fair! The game being $70 is another discussion, something that isn't exclusive to EA... I don't support it either, but hell, the $70 pricing will be the norm in the future, which sucks.
I think this is a skip from me. The price increase, the Battle Passes, cross generational issues that I will have playing with my friends who can't even find a PS5.
Sucks, but I'll probably be playing the new CoD instead anyway.
@CelticSavagery
Noooo.... Battlefield has offered a campaign and multiplayer for many years. That is the expected Battlefield experience. Cutting it in half leaves half the experience. A single-player game that is always single-player is still the full experience until something expected is taken away.
I guess that I will wait for the reviews. If they're amazing and the multiplayer aspect is lights out, I will get it. I do like a campaign mode, especially right away to learn the game and controls. It can be a nice break but I rarely go back to it once I start playing the multiplayer stuff. One thing I am wondering, is 128 players a benefit? I am not sure I consider that to be a plus. Granted the maps are larger, maybe you can set a max number of players if hosting a match?
@Carl-G I beg to differ , there have been a bunch of single-player games for single-player people to play that's not just produced from sony . From remasters across all console gens & collections being released all on one console , to platformers still existing , sequels still being a thing , and variety still alive ; its us multiplayer gamers that are suffering . being upset about a potential 5 hour campaign of a primarily multiplayer game aint nothing to the many options of single-player there is . theres even first-person shooters that are single-player , thats amazing .
@DonJorginho was you just telling me it was a decent price on psn? Sorry mate. Iwent straight on the defensive.
@xRetrox yeah I’m not happy about paying $70 for a game, but would find it acceptable if it wasn’t a buggy mess in release & wasn’t designed around & had zero microtransactions.
What I would complain about is something like NBA 2k series or anything of EA’s that contains microtransactions, battle passes & asks for full price. They shouldn’t be asking for both
@Loftimus I did but I must retract that statement! Was £60 at time of commenting and is now £70. I still don't mind paying that but I fully understand why others don't seeing as there is no offline content.
No need to apologise mate, hope you and your loved ones are all doing well.
@DonJorginho you too bud.
Big Battlefield fan here. A lot of my friends who play Battlefield never touch the single player. We come here for the huge multiplayer battles!
As for value for money, I always think these kind of online games, if you end up enjoying them provide excellent value for money. Sunk hundreds of hours into Battlefield 4 and Battlefield 1.
Bro what's up with all the whiners here?
No singleplayer? SKIP!!!
Seriously? BF has never even been about sp so not sure why y'all got your panties in a knot.
This is welcoming news for me since that means more resources go to online mp.
@RyanLosesAgain I'm also wondering if 128 players is actually a good thing. One of the things I love about Battlefield is that your small squad can make a big difference to the tide of battle. You can sneak in and capture a flag behind enemy lines which can have a domino effect.
I wonder if those moments are possible or less frequent with so many players everywhere.
@pukana "COD was primarily a singleplayer only game & has now evolved into a massive multiplayer game as well"
I don't know where you getting this from, but CoD have never been a primarily single player game... Maybe on consoles due to the lack of proper online till the 360/PS3. CoD have always been a heavy multiplayer game. They just always done a good at offering a decent campaign, but it was never the main focus.
If you're looking for a single player campaign, then you shouldn't even consider Battlefield games in the first place. This all seems like complaining for the sake of complaining. Get Far Cry 6 instead if that's what you're really after.
I'm super excited to check this out!!
@LiamCroft The price of entry isn’t an issue. You used to be able to buy a Freddo bar for 10p-15 years ago, now it’s 30p.
Video game prices have largely stay stagnant. However when you start removing features yet charge the same price it becomes an issue.
Once you give these cooperations an inch, they will take a mile.
No pitchforks here. It just means that the game doesn't appeal to me personally. But that's alright, there will be plenty of people that are happy about this and I'm sure there will be something else for me to play. Would I like a new single player Battlefield game? Yes. Hopefully we'll get one sooner rather than later. 🙂
No campaign, no buy. Did the same for Black Ops IV, that’s an easy $70 saved!
Looks like a Skip from me.
@LiamCroft well that is true, I was disappointed when that didn't have a campaign either but I guess I'll just wait till this battlefield goes on sale or see some reviews from here.
@3MonthBeef I don't mind paying the £70/$70 if it has a campaign included if its got a good multiplayer that should be the norm if you are going to pay for both things, I just feel if it's just multiplayer then including battlepasses should cost less to offset, if you are already forking out top tier money but thats just my opinion.
Hard pass on this then, shame as the reveal trailer did catch my attention. No Single Player = No buy to me.
Will there be a campaign on PS3 tho?
who buys BF for SP? they are never that good anyway but the MP is always strong.
@RubyCarbuncle If its cheap ik who knows but im not paying €60 for multiplayer only with a freemium economy. Not even €30 to be honest. 🤪
@palmab I really love the COD MDW reboot it had a brilliant campaing.
@Dreamcaster-X Same here and i looked really nice but somehow a lot of people skipped it because the put the campaings back in the new games.
@Fight_Teza_Fight Depends which companies you look at does NBA2K really need a pricehike with their insane amount of monetization?
Totally out. I generally play Call of Duty and Battlefield's single player mode and then bounce. I just think they're fun campaigns. I'm never going to bother with the multiplayer so I'll skip this one like I skipped that mad Call of Duty that had no campaign.
Wait did people actually play the campaigns?
Waste of time I say, I will always only play battlefield for its immersive multiplayer.
@Sho101 not many. More than 80% never completed the campaign.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...