Homefront: Why company waste more time for single player games campaign

[Satguru]

No one cares about single player to be honest. I don’t understand why so many companies put so much effort on making single player somewhat attracting to people, when a majority of players buy the game just for the multiplayer. If companies stopped wasting so much time on single player campaign stuff, and focused more on a complete multiplayer game, bugs and glitches could easily be hotfixes, along with balancing issues, more map packs (also good for the company, as they make a profit). Single player doesn’t add replayability, multiplayer does. Until all of these companies finally figure this out, were going to be stuck with good ideas for multiplayer game play, but poor performance because so much effort was wasted on single player stuff. I can understand arguments why single player must be in games, for people who currently don’t have an internet connection or just want to evolve them into a fake plot that basically grabs u by the hand and makes your character go thru a specific path (which is why i never play single player). I just feel that a good 99.9% of players have internet access and would rather choose a lag-free, bug free, huge customizable and fun-packed multiplayer with a crappy single player attached, then a mediocre single player and multiplayer. What you thought about this?

[desilva]

Homefront is a heavily, heavily story based game. There is still many people that enjoy Single Player experiences, I happen to be one, but that is where games started and will continue to do so. Understand that there are at a standstill many, many people that play games and enjoy Single Player. Some of your points make sense for those who don't like Single Player. But you still need to understand the fact that the Single Player experience is at a standstill the foundation for games.

[Satguru]

So basically, what you’re saying is, since you want to play the single campaign and beat it in 5 hours that my multiplayer playtime that easily exceeds single player playtime (as would basically anyone playing the game) doesn’t count more than yours. It’s kind of hard to explain it, and I am sorry if you don’t understand what I am saying, so I will just make it simple 5 hour Campaign should not > (x) Days playtime in multiplier. More time should definitely be put into multiplayer, as that is what keeps players from selling the game back in the first week, and keeps the game community strong. Games that have a multiplayer should be focused on having an amazing multiplayer as their priority, and having a single player behind the scenes. I don’t hate single player, nor do I hate people who buy games just to play the single player. I just feel that companies that put so much effort on trying to be the next big shooter to take over Call of Duty should definitely invest tons of time in the multiplayer section of the game, as that is what will win over the Call of Duty fan base due to the horrible release of the leggy and poorly designed Black Ops. I just don’t believe a game will strive on just a kickass single player. Games are fun with a good single player, but they are Game of the Year's if their multiplayer is excellent, not their single player.

[RyanInt]

KAOS has spent many hours working on multiplayer. The things that they have added (Battle Points, Battle Commander, Detailed Maps, Weapon Balancing, Vehicle Balancing, Art, Scripting, Map Design, and so on.) is beyond most shooters in the department of freshness, balance and creativity. Multiplayer is developed with time and care. It's in good hands. It still does not detract from how important Single Player is to a story driven game. You need to understand that even though much time is spent on the Single Player experience, much time is spent on multiplayer. So, have no fear, KAOS has put as much time as they needed into multiplayer. I also disagree with your statement. Red Dead won it for its Single Player aspect and it had the multiplayer feature which was terrible.

[AZUL]

Homefront is a game that I can see the Single Player being so in depth and compelling that you need to play through several times to get the whole feel for the game, the situation, character depth and the experience to hit you full on. Multiplayer is important if the game features that option, but both aspects of a game should be driven with as much time as it needs. And straight from KAOS developers they are proud of what they accomplished with both sides of the game and it is how they want it.

[RockOn]

I think everyone has a good point. The campaign helps give depth to the game. Multiplayer is long term, thus many people like to invest in long term. I think what would solve everyone’s problems, is if companies would design a game that is very good in both aspects, but may cost more (which would be fine. From what I can see, the major games like call of duty/halo get played for the multiplayer in the long run because it is one of the best. For example: I tried playing a PSN network game: blackout tango down, and I couldn’t stick with it, because it just doesn’t live up to better games like black ops. Sure, it is worth the money, but most people want the "best", since multiplayer wise, they are going to be spending a long time in it. That’s just reality. Another reason, I think developers should spend more time on games and charge more, is that it would probably be easier to add content. Once you get a world and so much depth to it, it’s easy to add on, and if you have more features, you can inter-relate and build off those features. One problem with that though, is for example, the space of 360 discs. I am just throwing this out there. It's an idea I had. I really don’t know everything that companies and developers have to go through.

[ApplePowerPC]

While some of you fans of the game might be into the single player, let's be real here 70+ percent of the sales will be based off of a solid Multiplayer. While some traditional players still love the Sp of games. Most players buy games for the MP experience and you all know it! He and no one is saying skip making a single player all together, but it is a pattern lately from cut back budget dev teams studios that when they put a lot of resource into trying to make a fantastic single player, the MP aspect has suffered a lot and have basically wedged lately.

[MacIntel]

No campaign should be 5 hours or less. The Homefront team said to expect between 8 to 10, depending on a player's dedication to being thorough. Homefront's premise requires a single player campaign. In fact, if it was multi-player only, I wouldn't buy it. This game is going to put Red Dawn fanatics like myself smack-dab in the middle of the campaign we've been dreaming about for decades. So yeah, KAOS thanks for the campaign.