Fortnite is at least primarily free. You just get stupid dances and skins, correct?
But it does hark back to yesterday's Bioshock Infinite article. They desperately wanted multiplayer, because that keeps people invested beyond 20 hours. They just couldn't make it work, because some ideas aren't good ones for multiplayer. It'd be an enormous shame to see those ideas die. We've been reading about the death of singleplayer for years, and people point to things like TW3 as evidence against it, but as games become more expensive to build, 10-20 hours isn't enough. Even 120 of TW3 isn't necessarily, and frankly, TW3 is exponentially more difficult to make than a multiplayer game.
What everyone keeps forgetting, though, is the market isn't large enough to support that many competitive multiplayer games. They thrive on community, and it's a zero-sum game. Even worse, if your game doesn't catch on, it's a massive failure, whereas single player games rarely fail on the same level.
But man, Ubi has failed to innovate. As a huge, huge fan of FC3 and FC4, FC5 just flopped for me. Mostly. The additions from prior games were too inconsequential. The weapons too identical. The companions too easy to abuse (send someone with grenades and a helicopter into a fortress while you hide in a tree and get the stealth bonus... what?)
And, weirdly for a game about nuking America, the plot stakes were much, much too low.