Re: No campaign, is it a good step?
Maybe we should answer @JayZirka's question ("No campaign, is it a good step?") in a different way?
From previous BF games it has appeared that approx. 35-40% of the total development budget for a new game release was spent on the single player campaign component. Yes, some of the campaign components could be recycled and used also in the MP game, like weapons, vehicles, maps. But still, all of it from the MP game area had to be severely moderated for its use in the single player campaign section. Hence the huge $-tag to make it happen...
So do you all still find this great, to spend so much money and R&D time on the Campaign versus the full MP game itself?
OK, let us go one step further then...
Since the BF3 game, the number of players completing the single player Campaign mode has been on a drastic decline. So how many of the total player population completed the Campaign:
BF3: Around 30%.
BF4: Around 22%
BF1: Around 15%.
BFV: Around 9%.
So I ask again, do you all still find it great to spend so much money and R&D time on the Campaign versus the full MP game itself?
While I do appreciate some players liked the Campaign component, it is matter of fact not the main reason for the vast majority of players buys and plays the BF game. Again, with the BF2042 Portal, then you can setup your own 'BF2042 Campaign', exactly to your own liking.
I actually think that this is a masterpiece done by the EA/DICE team! As now with the Portal then all the $ and R&D is no longer wasted on something that less than 10% of all players truly cares about. But now instead it is an integral part of the full MP environment that benefits everybody!
Disclaimer: Yes, I do know that BF2042 is online only, while previous Campaigns could be played offline, but the facts above remain.
