K&AJones

Good article here and pretty much nails it......

Call Of Duty Losing Single Player Would Be A Huge Mistake

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/featur...e-mistake.aspx

Rob V

If the game is $60 at launch (like I expect it to be) then losing SP is a disaster waiting to happen. If it's $20 and MP only, I can stomach that. If they're trying to follow the Fortnite model and offer a FTP or low-cost option but still generate profits via loot crates (that don't give a competitive advantage) and such, I'm ok with that too. Not very forward-thinking, but the consumer at least has a choice.

Noonan

I really think you guys are underestimating how many people buy this game each year and literally never touch campaign mode. They can (and will) launch it at $60 and it'll still be a top seller this holiday.

Rob V

I couldn't care less about the campaign... but in a society where everyone has a voice and Twitter to express their dismay, the drones will be vocal -- justified or not. I've had a bad habit of buying the CoD and Blop games and never even touching them. Not sure I'll purchase this version; $20 or $60.

Unclejosh

I only play the single player modes. I dislike multiplayer. No use for it.

foxdvd

Sorry, i have never been one to give a shit about campaign or shit like that in Call of Duty. My drive to get a platinum meant completing everything and getting all the modes done and it was annoying. Of course, I also don't like loot boxes to unlock guns in my MP game, so unfortunately this change means nothing for me since I still won't buy it.

K&AJones

Well, there's no doubt that COD series has always had a solid MP base...but a lot of player...probably far less have also bought it for the SP, Story and co-op because it's always been there, been solid and no other "War Game" could offer pretty much the total package including a Zombie Mode. This has been a staple of the COD games going back to the first.

And if one goes back to the sales figures of the COD games, they actually hit their peak in the 2010 to 2013 range and the last two titles have not come close. As to reasons....well there are a lot of other good titles out there and games are coming out faster than most can play. Throw in the fact players are a bit more picky and don't tolerate bugs, incomplete, lackluster games.

I'm sure they had some people do some study on the cost ratio with a game that has all content versus one that basically caters to the MP crowd. But that area is getting crowded and with BF looking into the "
Battle Royal" craze it will be interesting on who rises to the top and who falls.....but the kicker will be who will fill the void of a all-in-one experience of SP, Story, co-op and MP...look at no other than Red Dead Redemption II which is scheduled now for mid or late October. And I'd bet the house and farm that sales of that will be above COD

fumanstan

Red Dead was going to sell a shit ton, none of which will have anything to do with what CoD does or doesn't do.

Rival11

I honestly think they're stopping the single player as well because there just isn't anything left to do with it. I mean, yeah you can always change up the story line and characters but mechanics-wise there is never anything really new added. Infinite warfare did a decent job of trying to shuffle things up (if you played it you know what I mean) and it succeeded in being one of the best (if not the best in a lot of peoples eyes) campaigns but....even still, the formula just seems gone.

The campaign for WWII was BEYOND boring, even at it's most tense moments.

I think it's just run it's course or there just isn't enough support for it to become much better.

K&AJones

Well COD has and is about War and the Military but they have capped it in the WWI to Future era....and there's only so much you can continue to "Go To The Well".....before it dries up....

Not certain how it would be received but maybe take a page out of Assassin's Creed and use all of history instead of a limited set period. I know everyone likes the update weaponry and all but why not look at say The Civil War, American Revolution War, War of 1812 or even the Napoleon Wars.

I know that going the Battle Royal Route may seem wise...or just call it what it is...The Fortnite Effect....but the success of Fortnite and even Overwatch lies with the character variations and sometimes off-the-wall gameplay. Seriously...how many different WW soldiers can you have in a Battle Royal in a WW type of game? Different characters, classes with sub-classes with different abilities are the draw.

Shame on the campaign of the latest WWII....I started with COD2 and each had a really good story/campaign with my favorites of the Modern Warfare series and World At War....I think like you that's it's sort of ran it's course and like I said, dipping in the well so much has left it almost dry...

Rival11

I like the idea of combining wars but I wouldn't want to see it go the fortnite or PUBG route of "collect all this stuff only to lose it once you die" route.

Going to be interesting to see what they do.

mattysemo247

I think that also has to do with playing through a COD campaign every year. If the series took a year off (I know, crazy idea, right?) like Assassins Creed did, I think most people would find it a lot more enjoyable.

Noonan

Yeah. The Battle Royale format doesn't really work if people are dropping in already fully geared with whatever they've gotten through leveling. The whole idea behind is is that everyone is the same going down and you use what you find to survive.

mattysemo247

Reveal is going on now

mattysemo247

Surprise surprise, Battle Royal mode included

And no single player campaign

mattysemo247

Why So Blu?

Looks like they found a nice middle ground. There is no wall running or thrust boosting but it does move very fast, which is fine with me. I would have preferred a full blown sci-fi epic like they have all been. This still sci-fi, though. I did like the zombies mode and that seems like it's going to mix up real events into it.

JTH182

I'm not sure how I feel about "reloading" your health.

Blackout sounds fun, and maybe they didn't half-ass a Battle Royale mode.

Glad it's boots on the ground. I liked Blops3, but thought it would have been better without boost jumping and wall running.

Why So Blu?

I play Hardcore, so the regenerating health doesn't bother me. You're a pussy if you play that weakass regular shit, imo.

JTH182

okay

spainlinx0

Some people will find any insignificant reason to make themselves feel superior to others.

Rob V

Well slap my ass and call me Shirley... cuz that's the weak-ass shit I play.

Rival11

It going to be nice to see a battle Royal game with actual good graphics too.

Rob V

I wonder if CoD will incorporate "building" stairs, walls, etc into their model?

TimeandTide

Every time I play hardcore my score streak gets obliterated by panicky noobs or I get murdered by teammates who drop carpet bombs on their own team. The mode is great for knocking out contracts, but overall, frustrating as hell.

What's your gamertag?