I have absolutely 100% never played multiplayer in any game without finishing single player first. Single player helps establish the universe and environments and in maps in games like halo, the lore behind them. Increases immersion and makes multiplayer feel more epic. Single player will always be important to me.

He's right about the data, though. It is statistically correct that very few play single player on these types of games. I do, but most don't BECAUSE THEY'RE TACKED ON AND AWFUL. If you made a single player worth playing for once, people would play. Awful excuse. I expected better of you, Peter, you were head of Xbox for god's sake, man, what happened to you. You used to be in touch.

every since xbox 360's success i have only played online mode in games, except for games like mgs & gta

The older I get the more I find myself playing single player games. Other than Dota 2 I hardly play any online games anymore. But then again there hasn't been a decent CnC release in a decade almost and that was pretty much my go-to online game back in the day.

People commenting seem to miss the actual quote. In multiplayer heavy FPS games people don't often play the campaign. And campaigns are expensive to produce. He apparently has the data to back it up (presumably the % people who starter, completed or didn't even play the BF4 campaign). I could easily see this data to be true as I remember a high volume of Halo3 and MW2 players who never touched the campaign. I understand his point but I disagree. Multiplayer games have expiry dates, single player doesn't.

LOL nice job changing the title of this article by adding "about NOBODY PLAYING singleplayer." Such clickbait, but still a good article to discuss nonetheless.

Of course people play single player.

But the multiplayer games are what keep people coming back for hundreds of hours, which is potentially profitable.

I dont understand how people can so insistently demand that a traditionally multiplayer developer like DICE should necessarily pour massive resources into trying to nail down single player. Seems like an odd double standard to demand perfection from DICE in all areas, but then give games with lackluster multiplayer suites a pass.

Anyone expecting a strong single player experience from DICE should go ask Mcdonalds for a Whopper. And yes, I understand a very limited and loud audience likes to point to Bad Company's campaign as obligating DICE to focus on single player for the rest of time.

Go play something else.

That's the huge problem with gaming now. Not every game needs multiplayer pvp, ie assassins creed. Today I play more single player than multiplayer because I'm sick of cheaters, sore losers and hearing rap music threw my headset while I try to play battlefield. The witcher is the perfect example of a game not needing multiplayer.

I uncerstand where they are coming from but gamers that mainly/only play SP have to realize that every gamer does not have the same interests. Multiplayer really isn't all that bad and many people really love it. They see it as pointless but the point that is missed is that its mainly to play with real people across the world and test your skills against them and there are so many people. I can understand how some may not like that enviroment. There are also some random factors in MP that I can never see being replicated in SP. Personally, I am a huge fan of both.

I like SP gaming , cause there are times you don't want to deal with the Aholes online .

I feel like this is a "stats showed start menu usage dwindling" type of situation...

People don't play single player campaigns in games like COD or Halo and other multiplayer based games because they're garbage. You say people don't play single player but how much did Witcher III sell, Dying Light just passed 5mil, and how much did GTAV sell exactly,oh nothing right I wouldnt be surprised to see Fallout 4 hang with Battlefront. I don't care to see a multiplayer game without a campaign/singleplayer but it has to make up for it with more content. It can't be like Titanfall or Evovle with these half-baked, you play multiplayer with bots and call it single player. If you say single player takes resources(which it obviously does) and you want those resources for multiplayer it needs to show with more content(game modes, guns, etc.) I actually want to see a multiplayer game purely focused on multiplayer to deliver a ton of quality content, I think it could be cool. But don't do a half baked single player,add nothing more to your multiplayer and say well hmm no one plays the single player. It's like if there's two waiting rooms, room one you walk in and sit down in comfortable chairs maybe grab a magazine , room two you walk in and just stand, no chairs nothing, and then remark to yourself wow no one goes in room two well I wonder why genius.

if i enjoyed get insulted by a bunch of people i don't know then i will play online games. but i dont enjoy being insulted by a bunch of people i don't know and i care about the story of the game not about if it has online. and most online games have a horrible online story. single player games usually have far superior story to it.

100% agree with the article heck look at halo 3 73% of people completed the campaign http://www.trueachievements...

i nearly only ever play single player games. the only online game i regularly play is halo MP, BUT i enjoy halo campaign more than MP.

Look what happened with Evolve.

Good they can concentrate on MP with more maps and 60fps update.

But to be fair, when ISNT Peter Moore wrong?

He was obviously referring to SP modes like in the Battlefield series. Im never going to visit back and play BF3s campaign but generally I like singleplayer games (more so now due to PS+ and XBL requirements).

Thinking about it, BFs campaign modes are a huge waste of money for so littel enjoyment. The missions they include in the Battlefront have probably more replay value and fun factor.

EDIT. He cant be so stupid, thats why I said "obviously"
Assassins Creed has been selling mad well and its like 97% single player experience, GTA was also always a SP experience before 5. There are a bunch of successful SP games/series.

This is from a company that said they didn't know why people like Battlefield Bad Company so much... so yea, nothing EA says surprises me anymore. Idiots running that company, that SOMEHOW out of touch with what gamers want / like, despite being in this business for decades.

Pathetic.

I play single player more than online, so as far as I am concerned someone is dead wrong

isn't Need For Speed by EA this year online only?

I know some people say they buy cod or battlefield and don't play the campaign, but I actually like them, I know they're not amazing, but they're enjoyable, plus I like getting my single player achievements

It's the genre.

Peter Moore shouldn't say 'never', because that's flat wrong. But I'd bet about 90 percent of the time, maybe MORE that people have these games booted up, they are in multiplayer.

FPS/TPS campaigns are simply not RPG/ARPG games.

The meat is the multiplayer, that's just a fact. They pump them out every year or two (and people WANT that)... you simply cannot get the same love in a FPS/TPS campaign as you are going to get in a Fallout 4, Witcher 3, Mass Effect: Andromeda type game. Those games take years, and they aren't the style of campaigns of FPS/TPS like BF4 or CoD:Blops 3.

Gamers want lots of multiplayer action, that is why most buy them.

Lots, not some, LOTS don't play the single player of these types of games, and EVEN IF they DO... they end up spending 20-50x more in the multiplayer.

That's where their money is made and their bread is buttered.

Would it be great if we could get both? Sure. But it's not going to happen because you can't pack a 3-4 year game cycle into 12-24 months AND do a multiplayer...AND only charge $60.

Something has to give, and they give where people care the least, and in FPS/TPS online multiplayer focused games... that's the single player campaign.

I won't buy it if it does not have single-player, most the time I play by myself anyway lol.

Rarely buy a game that does not have multi player I have been on enough odyssey and fetch quests to last a life time , but if i am interested in the subject matter i will finish it one day.

Way to take his words out of context people. He was talking specifically about fp's single player and has data to back it up, which most here are talking about their own personal perspectives about sp campaigns that don't apply.

Just got Hardline for $20 and I plan on playing through the campaign first. I wonder where they get this "market research" from, maybe young people that don't have to buy their own games? Games are too expensive to be skipping a chunk of it because its single player. I trophy hunt and try to 100% every game I own because for $60 you can bet I will get my money's worth out of it.

Amen brother, Love Live Simgle Player Games!

Don't go overboard. Peter Moore might just be talking about that in certain genres people don't mind as much if it doesn't include a single player and that they'd rather it includes the best possible multiplayer. These games are more like party experiences than games where you explore every nook to soak in the atmosphere like Bioshock.

I'm sure he can't think that very personally story driven games like Uncharted or Quantum Break should skip the single player.

MP is only fun when it's coop. I prefer SP as well since MP is full of TROLLS.

Instead of having trolls ruin my gaming experience, I stick to SP or MP coop with people i know.

I would prefer a developer like Dice use resources on multiplayer than wasting there time on the single player campaign that the audience who buy there game don't care about. Single player makes sense for anything besides First Person Shooters. People who play single players on FPS are the same people who get killed in Multiplayer over and over again because they can't beat real gamers so they satisfy themselves killing NPCs instead.

I buy games like Call of Duty and Battlefield for both the SP and MP. If the SP was removed I would most likely skip buying some of them. For me MP is a bonus that I play a little and then move on to other games.

There are 100s of games that come out yearly

Some are strong in both areas (SP and MP) or one or the other.

I myself buy certain games like BF primarily for the MP...take hardline for example. I have not touched the SP..just not interested.

Whereas the Witcher 3 (It has no MP i know) I have dumped over 80 hours into it and its a strong SP only game.

I see myself doing the same for Fallout 4.

Halo 5....halo always has strong SP and MP so I will do both.

I think it all comes down the game, the dev, and the history of the type of game it is.