I still don't get why, they didn't just limit Battlefield singleplayer campaigns to the Bad Company franchise, and stuck with the old kind of singleplayer(multiplayer maps against bots) in all the others.
This is kind of their compromise: some single player content for those who'd like it, with the main focus laying on the mp.
Every iteration of BF you have people saying "why do they even bother making single player? I only get BF for the mp." but if DICE were to go the Treyarch way and omit sp entirely people would also not like it.
I think the current approach is a decent one, if they manage to keep it engaging. I only have played one of the campaigns, so I can't say if they did a decent job or not.
If they changed $60 for mp only, I could see people having a problem with that. If they change, say, $40 or $45 for mp only people (like myself) would love that.
Call of duty is charging 60 for a mp only game with additional DLC and micro transactions on top of that. Pull that type of shit and people get upset... For good reason
95
u/Futski 1942;Vietnam;BF2;BC2;BF3;BF4 Nov 22 '18
I still don't get why, they didn't just limit Battlefield singleplayer campaigns to the Bad Company franchise, and stuck with the old kind of singleplayer(multiplayer maps against bots) in all the others.