Stats Show How Rarely Game Campaigns Are Played

[Megalith]

While Treyarch is getting flak for developing Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 as a multiplayer-only title, statistics show that the decision could be justifiable. According to numbers gathered by TrueAchievements, few players are invested in the series’ single-player story modes.

The participation for the original Black Ops averaged 25.44% with the second game peaking at 27.13%. The third game averaged a paltry 4.14%, though to be fair this game's achievements are a bit different and require you play on higher than regular difficulty to unlock most of them. Still, the story completion achievement, which pops regardless of difficulty, sits at under 9%.

 

[Betaboy1983]

I remember Carmack talking about this around the time of Quake 3 on how some games should be polished as a SP/MP only game and not just throw in SP/MP just to have it. The only COD game I played was the very first one, and I only played it SP so I am no expert with this game's situation.

 

[Krenum]

I'd like to see a comparison to COD Black OPS III & COD 1 / UO.

 

[focbde]

Maybe because the SP campaigns were shit? Never played so not sure... just a thought.

I think on other games with decent campaigns things would be different...

 

[dangerouseddy]

I assume that doesn't cover people playing the sp campaign offline then.

 

[MacLeod]

So because nobody wanted to play a 4 hour long, rinse/repeat campaign with no real story, they should stop making them? That's the solution?

 

[T_A]

No lose here, COD Black Ops campaigns were all terrible.
Treyarch never could make a good COD game, the plot was boring as hell

COD4:MW and MW2 are still the best

 

[runudownquick]

Maybe because the SP campaigns were shit? Never played so not sure... just a thought.

Look up a review then. CoD campaigns are usually decent affairs. Nothing groundbreaking anymore though.

So because nobody wanted to play a 4 hour long, rinse/repeat campaign with no real story, they should stop making them? That's the solution?

Would you keep making a product that no one uses? Does that sound like a smart business plan to you?

 

[Tiburon1186]

It is probably the type of person that enjoys the same CoD game over and over. I enjoy campaigns and haven't bought CoD in years.

 

[CptCabbit]

You know what, I'd take the trade off of not having a story if the map packs were included in the base price. I'd be curious to see what that would do to sales numbers. Not profit, as obviously gouging people as it stands is a solid tactic for them.

I haven't bought a CoD game since BlOps 1, but if the map packs were included I'd be more inclined to.

 

[sfsuphysics]

So what it says to me is if they released these games as single player games, they would fail.

 

[mvmiller12]

Some games are just naturally better suited to MP than SP, even amongst shooters. Bioshock would not have had nearly the same impact had it been a MP title for example. They even added MP to Bioshock 2, but it isn't a mode anyone ever really talks about. Same applies to Halflife 2. By the same token I wouldn't go and praise League of Legends single player story - is there even one??

 

[Mad[H]atter]

"The Story Participation Average is defined as the average percentage of unlocked story-line achievements for gamers that have started the game."

So anyone who's booted the game once? People that played all the campaign but didn't complete all the achievements for picking up different weapons etc have lower scores? I'm not sure I understand the testing methodology, but it doens't seem to justify what their numbers are intended to represent.

 

[_l_]

they're gonna push there agenda to maximize profits - please stop with the stats BS (not folks here, the one's claiming the stats are correct and legit but who stand to profit from a multiplayer-only game release)

 

[zamardii12]

No lose here, COD Black Ops campaigns were all terrible.
Treyarch never could make a good COD game, the plot was boring as hell

COD4:MW and MW2 are still the best

I think Infinite Warfare was the best campaign i've played out of all the COD games.

I guess I won't be buying COD: BLOPS4 then. I am one of the weird ones not included in their statistics that only plays all the COD games for the campaign. I haven't yet played one COD campaign I haven't gotten entertainment out of.

 

[dragonstongue]

"stats show how rarely game campaigns are played"
then goes on to describe call of duty.

misleading headline Megalith

I can think of many other games where a "campaign mode" was offered as well as a "MP" only type mode

just to name a few where I ONLY played the single player "campaign style"
(I know many others did the same, so if we take this headline at face value is likely 100% false..just saying O.O)

Armored Warfare
Grim Dawn
Dragon Age: Inquisition
Mass Effect Andromeda

I know the COD devs kind of "bolt on" a single player campaign style, or single player elements that have been absolutely hit and miss compared to the MP format (same with many games of course, though not usually nearly as bad).

IMO they really should have teams "dedicated" to fleshing out both sides of the coin if they want to include both of them
OR completely focus on one OR the other if they could not be bothered to "do it right"

they could have done that "contra mode" whatever you call if for BLOPS as a stand alone game it was fun as hell,
and the "zombie mode" in BLOPS 2 they very much could have done an more fleshed out as well standalone release.

I think some of the "elements" could have been focused to make a SP format well worth it..

I forget which games (I think was BF3-4, or maybe was BLOPS 1 or 2) used different "engines" for the SP vs MP version was kind of cruddy because the whole "feel" was quite a bit different, performance through the roof in SP format slowed to a crawl in MP version (different look to shadows, smoke, lighting etc)

Armored Warfare suffers pretty much the same "fate" though the engine/feel is not really any different in comparison to the above which might as well have been completely different games.

 

[ymer]

Because retarded kids that play those kind of games only give a crap about multiplayer?

Meanwhile normal intelligent and successful master race people like myself enjoy a good designed campaign and plot.

 

[Iratus]

Maybe because all the CoD campaigns caught the QTE 'falling simulator' disease.

How many contrived ways can a guy slip, fall or otherwise run and miss to end up catching a ledge.

*Shake camera*
*Emotional shout from team member*

#tension

 

[KazeoHin]

I remember the game dev community talking about this a while back. The problem they don't see is that SP campaigns get people playing, and if those people enjoy the experience they'll hop online and boost up the multiplayer numbers.

 

[Skull_Angel]

So... Since they'll only be selling a part of the game, it'll cost less then half of what it normally would, right? I mean you nix the campaign and you only need to do 1/3 or less of the work, right? Who pays full-game prices for map packs with a few extras tossed in?

 

[Spidey329]

Because the SP campaigns became an afterthought and they stopped trying. People got fatigue of the forced corridor whack-a-mole on rails. They didn't innovate graphically either, so they didn't even have that going for them.

I used to only play the SP campaign of a COD game (MP was too ADHD for me).

 

[alamox]

nonesense.
if you purposefully make a shiety compaing that nobody would wanna play, then nobody is going to play it or at least go beyond an hour, that still doesn't mean ppl don't want to play compaign mode, it just means you do shiety compaigns, that's about it, COD and BF are prime exemples of that.
you have plenty of fps with ppl enjoying the compaigns.
only 50% of mass effect players played the story mode, and fallout 16%, well that is great, BS article.

 

[Wolf_Tech]

Thats because there is less single player games out there to play now a days.

 

[tetris42]

So... Since they'll only be selling a part of the game, it'll cost less then half of what it normally would, right? I mean you nix the campaign and you only need to do 1/3 or less of the work, right?

Well you and I would think that, but CEOs are visionaries that imagine us paying the same price. That's why they make the big bucks.

 

[THRESHIN]

I play almost entirely single player. Am I strange?

 

[maxius]

take your numbers and shove them stop being lazy and produce a complete game. this generation of game devs are the most lazy sacks of crap in existence. When you produce a good sp campaign and a good mp campaign you will have more overall engagement by the purchaser into the title. oh wait i forget this crap is puppy milled so its forgotten by next years installment....

 

[knowom]

Well you and I would think that, but CEOs are visionaries that imagine us paying the same price. That's why they make the big bucks.

On the flip side they could nix either or and use those resources towards making the remaining portion of the game better which if you didn't care about the part that got the axe is better anyway. It's like I know a lot of people enjoy CGI cut scenes in games, but I sure wish those resources had been put to better use of making the actual game worlds broader, detailed, and more immersive myself personally. I get what you are conveying though and you are right with most big CEO's if can find ways to fatten their wallets they are looking for ways to do so. I'll give another example over focus on development of the story line and not enough on actual game play or vice versa people expect different things from games so it's hard to satisfy everyone all of the time. There is such thing as spreading resources too thin. I'd rather one great standout product that excels at either or than one that sucks at both. I think the thing with this situation is since it's a triple A game with a cost that reflects that people expect more out of it as they really should. Getting less for the same price doesn't go over well with consumers.

 

[DukenukemX]

This isn't anything new. World of Warcraft saw that very few people got to see raid content, and therefore they put in LFR. How many people you think finished Ninja Gaiden or Dark Souls? Turns out most people don't get to see content either because they need to Git Gud or because they're not that interested in it. More often than not a person will buy a game cause someone recommended it and it turns out they didn't like it very much, but they didn't wanna feel left out and tried it anyway.

About 25% is not bad really, but if you're getting 4% then maybe you need to step up and make a good game.

 

[MacLeod]

Would you keep making a product that no one uses? Does that sound like a smart business plan to you?

Guess you missed my point. Their campaigns are ridiculously short and have stories that were probably drawn up on a napkin. The problem isn't that people aren't interested in single player campaigns, it's that they make shitty campaigns that aren't worth playing.

So yeah, I actually think if they made some campaigns that were actually good, people would want to play them and people like me who have no interest in multi-player or a 3 hour long single player game would buy it.

 

[__hollywood|meow]

its super cool that people are defending treyarchs move to discard the extensive work they had already undergone constructing their SP campaign because it was taking too long & activision would have liquidated their entire fucking studio for delaying the annual cawadoody title cash cow (timed for fiscal year punctuality solely in order to bolster investors confidences)...by writing articles that says nobody plays SP campaigns.

 

[Dekoth-E-]

Guess you missed my point. Their campaigns are ridiculously short and have stories that were probably drawn up on a napkin. The problem isn't that people aren't interested in single player campaigns, it's that they make shitty campaigns that aren't worth playing.

So yeah, I actually think if they made some campaigns that were actually good, people would want to play them and people like me who have no interest in multi-player or a 3 hour long single player game would buy it.

This..Far too many games pump out 5 hours of SP story and think that justifies more than about $5. Sorry but I'm not paying $60 for a game I can't get at least 60 hours in single player.

 

[Denpepe]

Would you keep making a product that no one uses? Does that sound like a smart business plan to you?

If it sells and keeps on selling more with every new iteration, then yes.

I did play most COD's and only the campaigns, and had good fun with most of them, they are pretty short and imo little replay value, but imo a COD game is like an action movie kind of game with a story that's just there to allow you to shoot at stuff, removing that part of the game is baffling to me, then again companies like this always go for short term gains iso a longer vision, but I'll let them dig their own grave, some company somewhere else will fill the void they leave.

 

[AlphaAtlas]

Some games are just naturally better suited to MP than SP, even amongst shooters. Bioshock would not have had nearly the same impact had it been a MP title for example. They even added MP to Bioshock 2, but it isn't a mode anyone ever really talks about. Same applies to Halflife 2. By the same token I wouldn't go and praise League of Legends single player story - is there even one??

Oh wow, I never knew Bioshock had MP. I only played 1 and Infinite.

Another interesting example is Mass Effect 3. The co-op multiplayer was actually fantastic (bar the loot crates) and generated a very dedicated community, but it was largely viewed as an SP game.

 

[craigdt]

This just in:

If you make a shit campaign, people don't play it.

Weird.

 

[capnstabn]

I thought the original modern warfare had a pretty damn good campaign. However MW2 on they started getting bad. I think BF/CoD need to focus on the current era and less on WW1/WW2/Space/robotic appendage thing they have going on lately.

 

[IcePickFreak]

Stats show how interested I've been in their MP as well as their SP the past ~10 years:

0

 

[cjcox]

Deliver "poop" single player modes and the game becomes known for just multi-player. Not exactly sure what this is supposed to prove.

 

[Patton187]

People are buying these a bit less each time. I know it sounds crazy, but they might actually have to develop new IP.

 

[dark_reign]

I gave up on this franchise after MW3. It became a $60 shit show. Was hoping they would make a good sequel to the first MW but it never happened.

 

[Flogger23m]

CoD has shifted to an MP focused game. Maybe it has always been that way. I remember CoD 2 and 4 were big campaign wise, although 4 was noted for the short length. Some games actually do work with a good SP campaign and good multiplayer. Think of Homeworld 2. However, not all games are that way.

Some games don't need SP. Some games don't need MP. In general if you want long term staying power like BF4, you're best off making it MP only or just tack on a small campaign. If you want a great SP game just drop the MP entirely. It won't survive past 3 months. Some exceptions, such as ME3 (apparently the lame MP was played a good bit) and GTA V. But in general you need to have good visions to make that work. Clearly not all game concepts can be applied to SP and MP. Or they can, but need so much work that they need to be separate titles. Common sense needs to be used. You can't look at GTAV and see that both the SP mode and MP were a smashing hit and think it will work for your game. It comes down to each individual game, and while a big budget is always helpful it can't solve everything. Unfortunately some big publishers cannot understand that and have to apply blanket polices across all their IPs.