Multiplayer only games should not be encouraged

I know I vented about this in my last blog (which for some reason was double posted), but I want to talk about it again, since Titanfall is only a week away. I know lots of people are excited for Titanfall, as from what I've seen, it looks like a great game. The only problem is, it's online only. I'm a single player gamer, although I used to play online multiplayer a lot. Hell, I never touched the single player in Quake 3 on the Dreamcast, as every time I turned that game on, I jumped online. Speaking of Dreamcast, I LOVED Phantasy Star Online, but the thing about these Dreamcast games is that I can still power them up and play them without the Dreamcast servers. They have single player modes, even with Online being in the title of Phantasy Star Online.

So I'm looking at Titanfall in the future; three, four, five, however many years down the line. There's going to come a point where the online community is no longer buzzing enough to keep the game interesting, or EA will simply shut down servers (and they do that, a lot). What appeal will Titanfall have at that point? None. Respawn has made a game that can not be played because no one else is playing it. Why is our entertainment medium - video games - the ONLY medium that does this? It's effectively the same as making cars that cannot be driven unless there's a passenger in it, or eating a pizza only when you have someone else at the table. Why on earth can't you just drive yourself, or enjoy your pizza by yourself? I know these aren't the best analogies, but you get what I'm saying.

Now, Respawn would have you believe that no one plays single-player campaigns anymore, but that's ridiculous. There ARE very successful single player FPSs, and single player ONLY ones at that. Bioshock Infinite was a huge success, after all, and that had no multiplayer whatsoever. So obviously, people WILL play the single player campaigns, if you make them good enough. There's a reason most COD players skip the campaign, because they're worthless. How is that OUR fault, though? Why blame single player gamers who don't want to pay 60 dollars for a five hour campaign? There's your problem. You want more sales? Make your single player worth playing, and you'll attract even more sales. This is Titanfall's misstep. They're missing out on sales, because it has nothing to offer for single player gamers. Even if it had, say, a run of the mill five hour campaign, I'd have at least bought it at 30. I'm sure millions of others would, too.

I get that may MMOs and MMORPGs are still doing fine, and have been for years, but those are different beasts. Many of these are designed around subscriptions, earning a steady income for further development to expand the game world. These online worlds have their own stories as well, so there's something to be enjoyed by someone who's just playing by himself, even if he's online. Multiplayer only games like Titanfall don't have that. They're just full of maps where everyone goes around killing themselves, regardless of how shiny your guns are and how big your mechs are. Believe it or not, though, MMORPG and MMOs will come to an end. World of Warcraft is still going, but there will come a time where we'll see even their servers shut down.

Even then, MMORPGs could have had their own offline worlds. FFXII proved to me that you could have an MMORPG-like experience in an offline game. The gambit system was a great way to govern the AI of your party members, and I think it would be in Blizzard's and every other developer's best interests to devise an offline mode to keep their games alive well after they kill their servers. There just isn't any reason for games to cease to exist. How are we to view games as art if we simply throw them away like that?

It's not just Titanfall I'm upset with; it's Plants vs Zombies: Garden Warfare also. It just irks me that people say, "Stop asking for single player! The game doesn't need it, because it's designed to be a multiplayer game!" You do realize that it was the single player that attracted gamers to the franchise, right? Garden Warfare most certainly could have had a single-player mode, because it has an awesome world full of enemies that could have easily been incorporated into a story-mode, but it's far more easier to focus on simple repetitive mutliplayer experiences... And that is Respawn in a nutshell. "No one plays single player campaigns." No, you're just too fucking lazy to give us a good one.

In my eyes, multiplayer is an extension of the single player game. I've always viewed it to be the other half of a game, so when I think of multiplayer only games, I only see half of a product. Then, I see it going for 60 dollars and I'm saying to myself, "Are you kidding me?" So you pay 60 dollars for a game that's dependent on A) Your ISP never giving you crap, B) The game servers never giving you crap, C) A community busy enough to still fill lobbies D) The servers still existing in the future. You're not paying for a game anymore; you're paying for a service.

And that, my friends, is where you're going to get screwed. We lost net neutrality, and I believe it was a Verizon CEO who said that gamers should pay more for their Internet because they're always online. So, expect to see this happen. If you live in an area where you have mandated data caps, how are you supposed to continue to enjoy your hobby? Did we not revolt when MS tried to make the Xbox One always online? Can you imagine what it would have been like if it were DD only? Because of where you live, you might not even be allowed enough BB to download all the games you want in a month. It just seems weird to me that we made MS change their Xbox One always-online policies, yet most have no problem with always-online Xbox One games...

So, we really shouldn't settle. We should be demanding strong single-player experiences AND strong multiplayer experiences. Games simply must continue to exist when online support is shut off. I guess my philosophy of games is different than the masses, because I want to see them preserved as an art form, just as with books, music and movies. People 100 years from now can go to libraries and read up on J.K. Rowling, and listen to the Beatles and watch The Godfather, but do you think a single one of them would know what the **** a Titanfall was? No.

I don't mind multiplayer only games, I've played a few and for some games it works. MMOs are an odd case because they're incapable of releasing the server for public hosting so you're tied to theirs. Games like Titanfall etc have no excuse on PC for tying the games to the companies servers, it's why I just won't buy them. On day one their servers will fall over, you'll be at the mercy of their uptime for the entire time the game is live, then someday in the not to distant future they'll just turn it off and the game will disappear, where as the vast majority of older PC games released with the server so you could just host your own and so are still playable today.

On consoles it's trickier because they can't release the server (as far as I know) and peer to peer hosting is just awful. Companies obviously can't keep paying for server space indefinitely and the worse a game sells, the bigger the problem this becomes. I'll still avoid buying multiplayer only games on consoles because while I can understand the situation they're in, I also don't really care. It's a problem they created all on their own.

I don't really see why not. They're simply making a product that they feel like making and people that like it can buy it. I can understand that if this were an already existing IP and they were to suddenly drop the sp and make it mp only why there would be previous fans who would be upset but this is a new IP so why would people get upset about it. That's perfectly fine if you don't want to buy it because you're worried about being able to play it later on down the road but personally I have a collection consisting 100's of games and while it's nice to know I can play anyone of them at any given time the fact is I'll likely never play the vast majority of them ever again and the list keeps growing the more I buy. I'm finished with most of my games within a year or less. I'm willing to get some games with limited lifespans like Titanfall because I enjoy them very much and get more then my money's worth from them. I certainly wouldn't want all my games like this and thankfully they're not. Single player games vastly out number multi-player only games and I can't see this changing by any great degree any time soon.

I do not play MP because I find their are just to repetitive and boring for me. I still enjoy the MoH and CoD single player parts and they made some huge leap this gen. I say If they are not going put an effort into single player then it would be better if they did not add it in.

Having said that, If all shooters were become only MP then would be a sad day.

So should we also not encourage single player only games??

Some games are meant to be multiplayer only. You can tell when a game was originally meant to be built solely for MP, because the SP feels tacked on. Similarly, you can tell when a game wasn't meant to have MP because it also feels tacked on.

Just depends on the game. Personally, I'd like it if games stuck with what they are good at. I am primarily an SP kind of guy, and I hate it when it seems like content was cut out of a game to make room for multiplayer. There aren't very many instances where I can say the balance between sinlgleplayer and multiplayer feels natural.

For instance, Smash Bros Brawl. Great game, especially with a lot of friends. But who here remembers anything about the singleplayer? I hardly do, out side some of the coll cut scenes, because it was insanely forgettable. there wasn't anything special or outstanding about it; it just felt tacked on, especially with the final portion where you re battle your way through all the characters and bosses. The catch here, though, is that it doesn't feel like the multiplayer portion of the game suffered at all due to the inclusion of singleplayer. Plenty of modes and customization options.

However, not very many games are able to pull that off. It's why I think if a game is designed to be MP only, it should remain MP only, and vice versa.

Games that are designed around multiplayer shouldn't have a tacked on campaign. It's a waste or resources, and could potentially affect the qualtiy of the main mode.

However, Multiplayer-only games need to have split-screen, training modes, and bots matches for offline play. If the servers shut down one day years down the road, you can still play the game.

@turtlethetaffer: We should encourage that all games have at least a single player mode for the preservation of the title. I'm not saying that all single player games should have multiplayer modes, because I understand that not all studios can do a quality multiplayer mode, but by having at least a five hour long single player campaign, it keeps that game viable in the future, even if it is just a 10 dollar bargain bin title. As I said in my original post, I'd pay 30 for Titanfall if it had a five hour long campaign. The game looks like a blast to play, but I don't want to play it online.

It's funny how you bring up the Super Smash Bros. example. I for one enjoyed the single player. I liked the variety that the story mode provided. True, the game was designed to multiplayer, but at least when I had no friends over and wanted to play Smash Bros., I could play the story mode and brush up on my skills as well. With the new Super Smash Bros, they got rid of the story mode, and for that reason alone, I'm not buying it.

The thing is, tacked on MP can waste resources on the single player mode, but by not having at least a tacked on single player mode, an MP only game is a complete waste once the community or servers die. This is the point I'm making.

I understand what you're saying, but what's the point of a game having a singleplayer mode if it's shit to begin with? for isntance, Battlefield 3 or 4. Haven't played them, but weren't the campaigns supposed to be awful? What's the point of playing it in the future if the campaign is awful anyways?

I think that MP ONLY games shouldn't be made but i really like the idea that borderlands 2 has. MP and SP combined. i think that a new CoD should be made with a looooooooong story line which you can play with AI's or real firends that are connected. also more guns and attachments (if possible) and using YOUR guns (sort of like in CoD Black Ops 2 but when I say your guns I mean your customized badass guns that you make in create-a-class section in CoD).

I couldn't agree more. Multiplayer-only games are a complete waste. If they're not going to develop a campaign, at least have offline botmatches available for when servers are shut down... but uh-oh: they can't do that because console manufacturers want you to pay premium subscriptions to play multiplayer modes and they can't risk people just playing offline botmatches and saving the subscription money now, can they?

I think they can exist as long as there is a mixture of other games out there. For example, I enjoy playing Counter Strike Global Operations. Now that is a multiplayer only game but I enjoy playing it and having a few rounds here and there. If it was cut out tomorrow, would I feel negative? Sure. Would I feel I have wasted my money? No. This is because I got enjoyment from the game equal to or greater than the cost of buying the title. I feel like that's how others will approach this as well. Does this make them right? Maybe. Does this make them wrong? No. People are free to spend their cash on what they want and as long as they enjoy it and its not illegal then its not really an issue.

Single player games will continue to exist, for instance I hazard a guess that the next Call of Duty will contain a single player portion. If not, it will probably still sell well to those who wish to get their yearly fix of Call of Duty.

It all depends on what values you put on games, if you want to play it forever then it totally makes sense that you want a game that will continue to work without servers etc. However, some games like Fifa, Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc are games some play for multiplayer and will buy the next version of the game to have the latest gameplay mechanics, multiplayer options, visual upgrades, or whatever else these titles offer. There is room for both Bioshock and Titanfall to exist. Just like there is for Awesomenauts and Bastion.

I never play MP games....so if that's all a game is....I won't spend the money on it. I like single player.....it's my escape from humanity.

@JustPlainLucas: It sucks that big companies are going to look for every nook and cranny excuse to vaccum more off of gamers, and that they're cynically looking at the boom-bust tactics of the 'casino' mobile gaming industry. But luxurizing it will only diminish their userbase. A successful multiplayer game needs a loyal expanding userbase in order to flourish off of user content. If the cost of gaming gets as shitty as comcast's cap rates suggest, when their expense in sending data is nowhere near what people pay in a monthly plan, then single player still has an incentive where gaming becomes gradually luxurized.

For titanfall I believe that in this case alone Zampella decided what was best (especially after playing Battlefield 3) but what folks are missing is that single player is inherently tied into smart level design and pacing. Respawn came out of a franchise that was about throwing visual goodies at you one after another, and trying to top everything on the market.

We know good SP has nothing to do with making it 'bigger' and 'better than every type of game which is a fools errand, but, one of SP's core secrets is in pacing out and contrasting content, and being careful how they introduce stuff to us so we're not jaded or frustrated the entire time. like TLOU, Far Cry or Half-life series

so that the most important gameplay is punctuated, and we know what's important, and what to appreciate but also have time to do other things.

dunno if you seen this already but Super Bunny Hop hit on this issue.

Of course they should be. When it comes to good online games, we want to make sure the devs pour their heart and soul in producing a fine online experience! not wasting in on a SP if they dont want to. Again though I do prefer SP games over MP games.

I don't think devs who make great single player games should be encouraged to do online only games. But to be honest, Respawn has almost never made a particularly good SP campaign. Modern Warfare had big set pieces, but on the whole, that is simply all it had going for it. In Respawn's particular case, it just makes all the sense in the world. If Titanfall sets any kind of standard, it will be only in it's own genre. I'm not worried about it at all. We have oodles of great single player experiences still coming.

Strongly disagree. I like it when devs stick to their strengths and give customers what they want. I like the fact that Infamous Second Son does not have multiplayer. I don't mind at all that Titanfall doesn't have a pointless and unfocused four hour single player campaign. I wish Starhawk didn't have such a terrible single player campaign. How many people still play Mass Effect 3 online?

See where I'm going with this?

Certain genres just flat out don't need single player.

Fighting games and shooters should follow in Titanfall's footsteps and just focus on making the multiplayer as strong as possible. Saves the developers money and lets them do better at the part that 99% of their user base actually cares about.

Though I think everyone should keep to what they're good at. Multiplayer focused games approach innovation nervously. Single player intially is about unravelling creative challenges. It goes back to an old quote from Yahtzee, (not to be taken too literally, mind you it was back in 2010) and maybe this is part of where JPL is coming from.

" Just to repeat myself (again), all games must stand up on its single-player. If a game is only fun when you and your friends do it together then that's a review of your friends, not the game. " Yahtzee - Goth Mercenaries

If SP has and always got their own games then I don't see why MP shouldn't.

Granted I didn't read much of this thread.

This. Split screen bots. The bots must play objective based games too.

Just Add Bots, now you can "drive by yourself" with a big doll in the passenger seat.

True. Battlefield 2: Modern Combat had some interesting bot modes, and POV switching. Dunno why BF3, BF4 couldn't just done that, and let us have our own inventive fun time with the fighter jets, explosives etc. Instead of what we got...Insulting.

Can't say I agree. If the best strength of a developer or series is the multiplayer, while the SP is much worse in comparison, then why waste time, money, and effort on SP when such things could be spent on improving what the main focus of the series is, or improve on what the audience will want most?

And that being said I do not really see what the issue is with a MP only game. I don't want that type of game to become over-used, sure,, although that could be said for almost anything else in the gaming industry.

@ platinumking320

Theres alot of "WTF ideas" this medium keeps coming up with. It can get overwhelming at times. Stupidity Overload

Singleplayer games should be discouraged.

@darthgumballs: Thanks for insightful reply.

well written m8 and i agree completely on a lot of points made.

should online multiplayer only games be encouraged? hell no! will they? unfortunately yes, cause there are way too many selfish online multiaddict jerks who believe everyone should conform to "their" particular preferred method of gaming. its the old adage sadly that in the end stupid people will ALWAYS ruin everything for EVERYONE, you get a group of immature spoiled brats of one fanbase together and once they learn they're the majority they're no longer willing to compromise, why? because they know they don't have too, its the nature of the beast. i personally get so disgusted at online mp nowadays that i get annoyed just hearing about it, seriously its gotten that bad, just cause of the sheer unfairness of it! even on internet websites the online mp community clearly has the power, example- since i joined this site a month ago i've had several posts deleted for speaking out against the online multi-trend, however not one post insulting me, insulting sp gamers in general, or insulting sp as a whole has been deleted, and it isn't just on this site, thats common on every game forum, and its probably why most sp gamers rarely protest about all this multicrap, they know it wouldn't do any good anyway, just get them trolled or their post deleted.

@JustPlainLucas: I totally agree on all of your points

i'm a single-player only gamer, as well, and, I think it's unrealistic to think that a game will have both a great single and multiplayer component. in fact, I am adamant about this issue and look at multiplayer as a VIRUS that has infected my gaming. (all beginning with msofts forced multiplayer and their desired all-digital online future, btw.)

I do NOT want multiplayer impacting my single player campaign. and, with less resources that is exactly what does and will always occur. (in this context, i'm not talking about simple, fun, innovative and CHEAP multiplayer additions.)

imo, all games that heavily emphasize multiplayer and have very little or very short single-player additions should be digitally sold, and, at reduced prices I might add, lol. those games are tailor-made for online digital and, therefore, those who want them can get then and I won't have to unleash my wrath against the bleak, dark era of gaming I see ahead that involves, not only, online, multiplayer and a digital-only future, but, hopefully can alleviate the other things I despise, namely, the dumbing-down, handholding, simplification, "streamlining" and "cinematic experiences" of my single-player games.

at least, off the top of my head that's how I feel ;)

I'm fine with developers focusing on what they are passionate about rather than checking every box out of a sense of obligation.

The big thing here is: Both types of game play will continue. They are suited to certain game styles.

Complaining about it is normal, so many will no matter what developers do. Developers should stick to what works for them. If they are good at doing MP, they should do MP and the same for SP. The bottom line is always going to be there. You want great games but complain if you have to pay a price for them. It is really hard to create a Great Game cheaply. I can say this with first hand knowledge, just check my home page. Developers have to get a profit form a game or how are they going to do the next one? Worrying about an MP game going offline is like complaining that you can't buy a Model-T Ford car at the local dealers or get parts for them at the local parts store. It just isn't something that developers are going to consider as a top priority. No game has an inifinte life span where it produces profits. Sure they may continue to be played by a small Niche, but the primary gamers have a limited life span.

I personally would like there to be a mix: :some singleplayer only games, some multiplayer only games, some games that have both modes and some hybrids. I mean, does Planetside 2 really need a singleplayer. That would be like claiming that WoW or GW2 need a single player. In some cases, a single player might be okay but are not necessary.

On the other hand, playing Bioshock Infinite, I never felt the game needed multiplayer. I didn't really like what I played of the game but I don't really think that addition of multiplayer would somehow make the game overall automatically more amazing.

I also don't get the below argument:

In my eyes, multiplayer is an extension of the single player game. I've always viewed it to be the other half of a game, so when I think of multiplayer only games, I only see half of a product. Then, I see it going for 60 dollars and I'm saying to myself, "Are you kidding me?" So you pay 60 dollars for a game that's dependent on A) Your ISP never giving you crap, B) The game servers never giving you crap, C) A community busy enough to still fill lobbies D) The servers still existing in the future. You're not paying for a game anymore; you're paying for a service.

I really don't. I mean, in my opinion it really depends on the game.

Take Rainbow Six Vegas. In my opinion, having played both the singleplayer and multiplayer, if I were "forced" to pay $60 for only one of those modes, I would choose multiplayer. Every single time. The singleplayer is like a pale, ugly, malformed shadow next to the shining and awe inspiring multiplayer mode (assassination mode forever). You wouldn't have to force me, as I would play the fee gladly.

Yes, multiplayer has a short existence that is tied to server availability, so some games might be lost forever after a time.

On the other hand, in terms of the hours put in to a multiplayer game I really like, vs a singleplayer game I really like, the multiplayer naturally gets more hours. If I really like a single player game, I will play it a few times and maybe get a few hundred hours tops. If I were a huge Elder Scrolls or Baldurs Gate fan things might be different, but as it stands I imagine the longest amount of time I have devoted to one singleplayer game is probably no longer than a few hundred hours. By contrast, my greatest amount of time I have put into a multiplayer is probably close to one thousand hours (if not more).

Helloooooo, chess!

Oh, for crying out loud! You do realise that if you replaced references to online multiplayer in your post with singleplayer, you'd be describing yourself? Right? I boldened the lines I am referring to just to make it clear.

I'm not sure the preservation of the title is all that important an argument for SP when games like CoD2 are still plenty active online.

Hell, Quake 3 Arena lives on in a free to play browser game and it's still awesome. It may be different since EA is handling it, of course, but still.

@Black_Knight_00 ..... honestly do you all make up things in your head as some sort of vindicating justice? What subscriptions? you are making things up.

Are you refering to the DLC season pass? the things that even single player games milk you with? oh look at that terrible Bioshock season pass, look at that 2 hour last of us DLC for £15......

Unbelievable how selfish your opinions on these things are. Its a competitive online game for gods sake. whats "competitive-social" about being in an offline bot mode?

Just accept that not every game is aimed at you. and move on.

I was clearly referring to Xbox Live Gold and Playstation Plus premium subscriptions, required to play online on Xbox 360, Xbox One and PS4.

If you don't carefully read people's posts before planning your angry responses you have no one to blame but yourself. Go back and read my post.

Oh brother. It's extroverts vs independents in this mothafucka. Seriously. If anything the future should take a cue from Dark Souls. Games hard enough to tempt you to keep pushing your twitch skills, cryptic enough to make the gaming community fill in the blanks, and risky enough to make both multiplayer and single player simultaneously necessary. Each mode has its strengths and weaknesses ya'll. We gotta graduate from this bias, and binary thinking and talk about the strengths of each type of play.

Besides it wasnt too long ago when internet play was so chaotic cheat ridden and dangerous that MP meant local LAN or on the couch with your homeboys. No strangers allowed.

There is no need for the hostility. I understand you disagree with my post, which is fine, but when you start getting worked up flinging insults, you tend to short yourself on oxygen and make poor responses.

Now, if you recall from my original post, I did talk about MMORPGs, and the issues they have. I acknowledged the fact that they're huge, living on for years, but I also made an example of how they can continue to exist offline.

As for Respawn not saying that no one plays single players campaigns anymore, true, it may not have been that literal, but here: http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/24/why-titanfall-has-no-single-player-campaign This is them saying pretty much that no one cares about single player campaigns anymore, at least theirs anyway. I countered that with the Bioshock: Infinite example, saying that yes, people WILL play single player FPSes; they just need to be worth playing.

And your Netflix example simply is no good. Yes, Netflix takes their movies down after a while, but guess what? You can still obtain those movies elsewhere. Amazon, Hulu, Redbox, libraries. You can still find ways to enjoy whatever you movie you want to watch. But let's just say you loved Titanfall so much, but could no longer play it because everyone's moved on to the next Box, so either their servers are shut down or the lobbies are empty. Wouldn't it have been nice to have an offline portion of the game to still enjoy on that rainy day when you feel like retro gaming, or that bad day where your Next Box red rings?

Don't misconstrue the tone of my blog post, though. It is not about self-entitlement. This isn't just what I want. I'm thinking of what would be best for everyone. Everyone can benefit from stronger and better games. And more importantly, Respawn would benefit by not excluding a very large group of gamers that only play single player. Trust me, I did not write this thinking only of myself.

I welcome opposing viewpoints to what I post, because that's what generates good discussion. If you're incapable of replying in a civil manner, then I ask that you simply don't.

The answer to your question can be found by reading my dribble.

This is the main reason I don't want Titanfail.

Fair enough. I won't reply to you anymore... after this. You replied to me, so I get at least reply to you once more. If you feel the need not to reply to me again that's fine, but I WILL respond now (call the mods or whatever).

1. I am a multiplayer AND singleplayer gamer. I love singleplayer as much as I love multiplayer. No matter how hard you try to ignore that fact, it won't change,

2. Also, I only pointed out the hypocrisy of your statement. The words you used would describe yourself if they were referring to singleplayer. Don't blame me just because the truth hurts.

3. That's a rather big statement you made as though sp gamers are somehow naturally more noble than mp gamers. If singleplayer only games should be allowed, then so should multiplayer only titles. It is not selfish, because in this scenario both styles of play exist. What is genuinely selfish and amazingly hypocritical is your statement that multiplayer-only shouldn't be encouraged, even though you'd never make such a statement regarding singleplayer.

4. My post is riddled with contradictions? Prove it. I didn't really say that much. I merely talked about how there should be room for all kinds of game modes. Then I said that depending on the game, either multiplayer or singleplayer might not be needed. Then I talked about how there are some multiplayer experiences good enough that I would pay full price for them. I also said that even though the games themselves don't exist for very long (which is debatable) the actual play time you get from them can easily surpass singleplayer. My mention of chess probably wasn't a great answer or maybe it was. I will say that if you only consider single player games to be real games then the vast majority of games throughout history, including chess, aren't real games (which is an absurd claim). Then I turned your biased words against you. Not much to contradict there.

What will happen to all the Titanfall copies once EA shuts down its servers in 5-6 years? You can never play the game again?

I still go back to play some PS2 games from 2001 to this day so that is worrying

Apologies for the hostility, this nonsense is spread everywhere when it comes to Titanfall though, it gets irritating. But I'm sorry your viewpoint is still very narrow minded imo.... it seems only console gamers are whining about this .... for not knowing any better. here is a break down of why I think that you have not through any of your view point on the matter through.

1) The Final Fantasy 12 example is far worse than my netflix example. FF12 is so small scale... you control 3 people. the biggest challenge of MMO's is getting large groups of 20+ players together to beat bosses that require precision every second of the fight. there is no slow paced-easy revive option. how on earth would you have an offline mode for World of Warcraft and still maintain what the game is? you can't. this tells me that you have no experience with them... to compare to a single player RPG. they are nowhere near the same, and are aimed around MULTIPLAYER (even if you can solo content sometimes.).

2) Shared with the above. Offline-Modes of games DIVIDE THE COMMUNITY. These games are developed for multiplayer interaction and lastibility.... having people play in their own bubble destroys the entire concept of an online-only world. but then titanfall does not apply here because "Private Lobbys" are coming post-release ... (not sure if its LAN... I think it is too) for competitive matches. simply put, respawn did not have the resources to do it pre-launch.

3) Again, your Bioshock Infinite example is compeltely out of context. he doesn't say "nobody wants campaigns" and he certainly wasn't referring to "all game campaigns" he was referring to the games HE MAKES. as in CoD ... where 80% of the resources of the studio are WASTED on 6 hours of linear scripted michael bay nonsense that got old after the first one... and then 20% of the entire teams resources are used on the Multiplayer.... the content that a) more people enjoyed for 100-1000s of hours b) have large esport tournements and buzz c) bring in extra revanue through expanded content more effectivly.

BIOSHOCK INFINITE on the other hand is not "just a shooter with a 6 hour campaign" ..... its a Shooter/RPG hybrid designed purely for single player and lenght. because *** They focus on it alone ***. Where as Titanfall is being praised highly because *** It focuses all its efforts on a fantastic multiplayer experience and delivers *** saying SP is more important here is Hypocritical and Biased.

4) Excluding a very large group of games...... you know not every product is designed for everyone right? those kind of products specialize in nothing and become watered down mediocrity. as you have already stated, there are already TONS of SP shooters.... god forbid a few focus on MP only (which they have... on PC for years..) I don't see anyone crying because there is no Counter-Strike or Team Fortress 2 campaign mode, or Battlefields pre-3 (which with NO COINCIDENCE were far better than 3-4 in the MP department.) yet hundreds of thousands play those 2 games today 10 years after their release.

I can't think of any analogy other than " its like peasants with pitchforks over a concept that has done VERY WELL for 10-15 years but now that its spreading to consoles your all up in arms over nothing."