While some first-person shooter games maintain the tradition of including a campaign (like Halo and Battlefield), some of the newer first-person shooter games are straying away from the tradition. Games like Titanfall, Star Wars: Battlefront and the last-gen version of Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 have opted out of including a campaign.
Using Star Wars Battlefront as an example for the omission of a campaign (when there was room for one), some gamers felt as though this made the game feel somewhat one dimensional and limited at best. The decision to not include a campaign has left some people scratching their heads wondering why.
It might be because campaigns are expensive and deemed somewhat unnecessary by developers.
Simply put, "campaigns cost the most money."
"They usually cost 75% of the budget," said Bleszinski to PC Gamer. "And you burn through the campaign in a weekend, and then [players] go to multiplayer."
With this methodology, if players aren't investing in the campaign, less FPS games will feature it. 343 Industries already did away with split-screen/local co-op in Halo 5… Would they dare to release a version of the game without a campaign?
