I think it's because they would rather invest the money and time in creating the book to be spent in the sandbox mode instead, since the book will lack a certain degree of replayability.

I think there is also a bit of fear of what the 2nd and 3rd books will be like, since the 1st wasn't much of all. If the 2nd and 3rd books were awesome, 5-10 hour campaigns with new sandbox content as well, that would be awesome.

A good campaign will both entertain and introduce you to elements of the game in some logical fashion. Compare the original Supreme Commander and it's expansion with Suprememe Commander II for an example of good vs. bad campaigns. In some cases the campaign is the real whole of the game....HoMM's strength was in the campaign with the scenario missions often feeling flat without cut-scenes and any real background.

Some folks are buying the game for the long haul though, and they view the campain as having little or no replay value since it will typically limit which elements of the game are available. They may also want multiplayer action, and certain things you might find in the campaign have no place in a balanced match....consider all the many fun things in Starcraft II like upgrades, mercs, research which underwhelmingly aren't available in sandbox or multiplayer.

-Morloc

I'm not against it, i just dont give a shit about the campaign in this game, or in civ4 or civ5, or in sins, or in galciv2, or in sots, or in any other strategy game
And i can tell Stardock right now that if the expansions end up being 50% (or more) campaign oriented, i wont be buying them, since i wont be playing the campaigns at all. But im like that with most strategy games.

Its a finite gameplay mode. It will end within a few hours no matter what, while the "real" game, the sandbox, can last for years.
Which is more valuable to focus on? In terms of gameplay and game lifespan?

By nature of the genre, 4X games generally aren't about stories. They're generally attractive to gamers for challenges and world-building. Defeat X using only Y. Get to Z with A units. The story and campaign are generally framing devices. So while a nice campaign would be good... I think it'd really be best served if it were set up less like an RPG where the experience is heavily dictated and more like a series of challenge where the player is given the power to build things, use resources, etc. 

A large amount of people won't even buy a game without a campaign. It doesn't matter if "you" don't care one way or the other, or you don't get why so many care about a decent campaign in a sand box game. Get over it. Having one sells more copies period. It's simply good business.

Campaigns bore the hell out of me. If I wanted a story, I'd be reading a book. It's usually used as an excuse to limit the game features available, which is silly. Not to mention the more ridiculous ones which insist you completely recreate everything you did in the previous level which has mysteriously vanished for no explainable reason.

It's a limited resources issue.

On the poll today, I'm one of the 2% that voted for more work on the campaign, even though I really agree with the masses that it is tactical combat, strategic combat, or magic that needs to be prioritized.  I just wanted put in a good word for the campaign, and I would have voted for quests too if I could.  But those who voted to first fix the more immediate mechanics of the game, it's not that they don't want a good campaign, heck even if they don't play the campaign they still might appreciate the value of a good campaign in generating sales to people who do like campaigns--it's just that not everything can be done at once and indeed, good gameplay is the basis for a good campaign.

I think, historically,  Stardock underestimates the importance content has on a fun gaming experience.  I didn't play GalCiv, but Sins and Demigod both felt empty and lifeless to me, that despite good gameplay failed to hold my interest for long.  I believe it is the game's narrative and not the gameplay that get people attached.  Okay, the narrative of Starcraft is nothing special so it must be the gameplay that rings up sales in the millions.  But Warhammer 40k has an excellent and rich narrative that despite a long string of mediocre games (Dawn of War 1 excepted, and even that had major balance problems) it continues to run strong as an IP.

Which is to say: both gameplay and narrative are important, and if you are going to skip the narrative (except in books you have to buy separately), you better have really really good gameplay.

I'm not against a deep campaign. I actually like the story/lore to games. While gameplay ultimately will matter most, I don't see how a deep story would hurt the game.

Though, I'm an RPGer so story matters to me. If you just put a blank map and a character on it - it won't intrigue me as much as knowing why the map is bare and why I'm alone. To me, story matters.

It's not just a "go read a book" thing.

A campaign can be fun, I remember enjoying and replaying the campaign in the first Age of Wonders (the campaigns for the following two AoW's were not very good).

But in this game... I dunno. The game world consists of a bunch of humans running around in a desert. How interesting can a campaign possibly be with this setting?

Spend time and money on something else. Tactical combat for example.

If WOM Book 1 is what people use to decide if they "want a campaign", it's understandable that they wouldn't want one of those. Neither would I.
If Book 2 would be anything like that then by all means do not waste any time on it.

A WOM campaign that I would want to play is one along the lines of what I posted in the thread you mentioned.

A campaign based on the sandbox games but with additional elements that are not feasible in a sandbox game.
Not like Book 1 which is a crippled sandbox game with less options than you normally have. That's a really bad joke.

Maybe researching and using overpowered spells needed to beat impossible odds, questing to re-construct the ancient adamantium golem to kick the collective butts of thine enemy.
Missions that do not always end up like "build 1 stack of hammer units, conquer the world".

Campaign missions do not have to be fair. They do not have to allow building every unit type or casting every spell.
Yet they don't necessarily need to be "dumb" scripted missions.
Victory conditions are one thing but the player should always have some leeway in how he achieves those.

Otherwise you just walk along "the one path" like in a badly done first person shooter. (Mace Griffin, anyone? = )
Alas, Book 1 works like that.

A well done campaign does not need to "run on tracks".
There should be a feature to carry over a few experienced units from the previous game and depending on how you met the victory conditions, your starting location and situation in the next would be different.
That doesn't mean redesigning the whole map. Most of it would be cut/copy because the goal of the next mission would still be the same.
But it would be a difference if the player "arrived" by ship or on foot. Merely different locations and more starting resources if he chose the "more difficult path" in the last mission.
There are a lot if interesting things that can be done in a campaign but never in a sandbox game.

A campaign that I can play in different ways is replayable, not a once-and-never-again thing like Book 1.

It's not that I'm against a good campaign, in most games I enjoy the campaign they offer, sometimes more than the sandbox games.

But regardless if we like or dislike campaigns, the issues Elemental has now (technical, balance and UI), effect both the sandbox AND the campaign.

If these problems will be solved, and the options will be to give better and more flexible mods, improve multiplayer or invest in a campaign, then it will be a question of preferences. Until then, general problems must come first.