You do what's best for you, no one can say what's best for you than you.
What would be a good rationale thought experiment would be the following....
What if they offered two versions of CoD
The first one has the single player campaign, zombies, and base multiplayer for $60
The second one has the single player 'missions', multiplayer, free multiplayer map dlc, zombies, and blackout battle royale for $60
Based on these two configurations, I wonder what version would sell best. My guess would be the 2nd one. We won't ever know, but I think if people looked at it from this angle, they would see what they were going for when they decided to ditch the rumored time travel campaign.
Actually you don't make much sense. Everyone hates prepubescent to mid twenties fetuses in their mother's basements yelling and screaming.
But this isn't every match and there is a mute button.
Thus you don't hate multiplayer games, you hate them, and they are two different things. Use a mute button. If you still don't like multiplayer games, it's not because of the kiddies. But right now you are blaming the kiddies and that's something easily remedied.
It's a shift in strategy. Single player is one and done for most who play it, and many don't even touch it. Hell I've played about 4 levels total in about 10 Call of Duty games which means I average about 0.25 single player levels played per Call of Duty game.
They will lose sales from people who only play it for single player, and it won't be a small number, and some for the principle of it, but it is a shift in resources. A shift that is necessary to revitalize the franchise.... or at least an attempt to.
Idiots will say it's 'lazy'. No it isn't. It's still a ton of value for $60, which is really like $30 in purchasing power compared to 2005 when the games switched to $60. There will still be multiplayer, zombies, these single player 'missions', and now battle royale. That's a lot of content. Single player five hour mission isn't much content. It costs a ton of money for something many don't even play, and most don't even finish.
Call of Duty has been getting stale, every knows it. They tried to make it less stale by adding jump packs and wall running, but it very much destroyed the feel of Call of Duty games. People by the millions stopped playing it.
I can feel for people upset that it won't have a single player, but we really don't know why it doesn't. This could be just a one off thing where it returns next year. We've heard it was supposed to have one and then it was cancelled because it was some time travel thing and it was thought it wouldn't be well received. So people might be freaking out for little reason. There are three companies, as it stands now we don't know if it's a one year thing, or if just Treyarch might be adding or substituting Battle Royale in their versions of Call of Duty. Maybe the other copy it, maybe not. I wouldn't be surprised if we see battle royale and single player in subsequent future versions of CoD.
This year it's a gamble, but it could result in millions of more sales. Battle Royale can be incredibly fun. Very tactical. Of course some people go in guns blazing, but it can be a completely different type of shooter. As for CoD, it's going to be 1500x the map size, have some elevation (at least in the beginning), vehicles, and who knows what else. That's COMPLETELY different then regular CoD. It looks more like Battlefield.
That's another thing, this could be a stepping stone to them being able to have a CoD, that mimics more of the map size and all that goes on in Battlefield games. Or at least them having the option if they ever feel the need to switch over... they'll have some experience with it.
Battle Royale games can bring in a ton of new people and a ton of money. Fortnite and others bring in TONS of casuals and kids. This will help CoD reach three generations; X, Y, Z. Casuals can easily drop in and drop out. Battle Royale has the opportunity to maybe increase sales by the millions, and with character customization/crates/whatever they could make a billion dollars the first year from it. Or it could all fall flat on its face. That's the gamble. But I'm not going to bet against it.
It seems, for at least this version, Call of Duty will be a fully featured online experience. Full regular multiplayer, full zombie, full battle royale experience. I can see this really appealing to people. I was very much on the fence but battle royale (if it looks cool) will really bring me back in. Hopefully the game launches with more maps or has free maps. Nothing has been said on this, but it would make sense. Probably not, but we'll see. But overall they are switching it up substituting battle royale for single player, giving people something with great replayability. I can see the value in all of this, and I think many people will too.
@deviltaz35: You made it seem like I said everybody needs to spend $1200+. I don't think that. Then you talked about the best of the best devs with plenty of money, time, on one platform in comparison to a 800k kickstarter on multiple platforms.
But it's all good.
What I was going on about is simple, the consoles don't have much power, because people can't afford power. Our consoles have been gimped to keep the price in line. A 360/PS3 level console would cost $1000 today if they decided to make it and not sell it at a loss.
I definitely think they should of released XB1/PS4 version later, but they didn't.
Maybe that was kickstarter rules related. Alot of people are complaining about performance of the consoles, but the consoles are what they are. People's expectations this generation about performance isn't being met, and the reasons are easy to understand why.
Glad to see you like to help devs. Consoles are easier, but a few driver updates and windows updates don't bother me. It's understandable if it is with you. To each their own.
You're right Scorpio, if the rumors are to be true, will be a decent good GPU hamstrung by the CPU. But it'll still be a nice console, especially for the price.
Been gaming since Apple II/Atari 2600/arcade days. So about 36-37 years of gaming here. Just imagine, those $70-80 SNES carts would be like paying $170-200 for a game today.
$40 for a kickstarted game in 2017 by a small studio, whose lead platform was PC (and is running much better on it ceteris paribus), should lead to like expectations. This game is getting trashed like it was Mass Effect: Andromeda.
@deviltaz35: I have PS4/Wii U/PC. I play plenty of games on PS4.
Look, it's simple. $400 in 2017 isn't the same as it is in 2018, or 2020. $399 in 2013 is a lot less purchasing power then $399-599 in 2005-2006. This is beyond obvious. It's the equivalent of paying $199-249 in 2005-2006.
When a decade passes, and consoles have to sell for the same price, what has to change?
The components need to be cheaper and less powerful for their time. (This isn't a knock on consoles, but an indication of what's been taken from us as consumers)
Now why?
Well anyone that has paid attention this century knows why companies are forced to. But when the average person can't pay any more, and in many cases less, it's what happens.
Now when a small team, that focused on PC first with this game has to deal with the technical limitations of the console, it's harder for them. This generally results in poorer performance, because it's harder to extract the maximum from a console then it is to take the easy power and make it work.
If they had the resources of a Naughty Dog could they have done it? Sure. But they didn't.
This isn't antagonistic, these are facts. This isn't PC vs Console. If you take it that it is, you are reading it wrong.
Understanding the limits gives you a better basis for judging a product.
When people simply pretend that the PS4/XB1 have enough power to easily make games for, they are wrong. They have some serious limitations.
This is a kickstarted game from a small studio. You are literally comparing F13th and Uncharted 4/Horizon as if they are equal? You pick out the cream of the crop of studios with major funding and long dev cycles for your comparison? You think that is a 'strong' argument that was well thought out?
You can believe whatever you want about the title.
Bias towards PC?
I like consoles AND PC. PS4/Wii U/PC.
Some people may not like facts of how and why consoles are what they are, and what they could of been under other circumstances. I notice when consoles have to be cheapened because of extraneous factors.
It's called, knowing why the needle moves. Some people can't even tell it has moved or admit it.
jmc88888's comments