But aren't they replacing it with something else? Something its core audience are likely to get far more hours out of.
I wish Battlefield would drop the crappy campaigns and focus fully on why people buy it, the multiplayer.
The best value for money is a top quality game. I have no problem paying $60 for a great 10 hour game, or just a multiplayer game.
The rumor is its getting a battle royal mode instead of a campaign...but Battlefield V is also supposed to have Battle Royale as well as a campaign so its very arguable that BO4 asking for $60 (the same price as its predecessors and competitors) is giving us less content.
What if the next Iphone shipped without a camera or GPS? It can still make calls and send texts, buts its value proposition isn't very good compared to a (non exploding) Samsung.
Same deal here really, you can release Wolfenstein II in October as a single player game, but you can't be surprised that it underperformed in the shadow of CoD and Battlefront which despite not nessarily having campaigns as good, will offer at least 50+ hours of multiplayer casually and 100's+ to the more obsessive.
Doesn't really bother me as I'm not adverse to multiplayer and linear games are evolving to open world games. And IMO I'd rather have bloated open world games then linear ones with 9/10 doors closed. I find that way more immersion breaking.
Gamers are smart though. A single player game will be the same game whether you buy it at $60 or $10. If you're dying to know the ending, watch it on YouTube. Or you rent it for a week and the Publisher loses a sale.
CoD and the big multiplayer games are gameplay driven (over cutscenes driven). You can't replicate that on YouTube...and their prices never drop that much.
Arguably that's where gamepass comes in, once we're mainly digital physical rentals will go extinct. The only way to rent will be in a Netflix like service, a service controlled by the publishers who are now monetising rentals where they couldn't before.
