Gamers on internet have a bias against MP only games. Although a minority, they're a good size of forum dwellers.

Some of the justification are that:

1.   there's not enough content to justify a $60 tag, 
2.   there is no story or some form of campaign, 
3.   they're mostly aimed at dudebros
4.   etc,...

I don't have anything against MP only games (Rocket League was my GOTY last year), but for some games, I just feel like there is so much potential for an awesome campaign that I'm sorta bummed out because there isn't one. This includes Titanfall (I wanna know the backstory, and I want to have a battle with setpieces and giant robots! Come on, this would be awesome), Star Wars (Do I even need to say what could be done here? A lot.) Overwatch (The animated shorts were so cool and got me interested in the story. I was surprised to learn it didn't have one when I first had seen those shorts like a year ago or so. This is, imo, a huge example of wasted potential, because I feel like this could've had an amazing campaign).

If the content and value are there then there is no reason they should be judged differently than single player games.

As Teeqoz said, it's just a disappointing trend that is making more and more developers comfortable with not putting in the effort to provide a single player experience.

Really, it never bothers me when some new franchise is exclusively multiplayer... the only time I'm bothered is when it's a new installment in a franchise that I used to love to play single player. Easily the most obvious recent example for me is Battlefront, which was just terribly disappointing and, unsurprisingly, grew old within a couple days.

Otherwise, the trend goes hand in hand with the decline in quality coop campaigns. It seems like developers are realizing features that were once a given in games can today be skipped while still selling just fine.

Because once their servers go dead they're little more than fancy coasters.

Take for example, MAG, the multiplayer-only, PS3-exclusive developed by Zipper Interactive / SCEA.

It only had a lifespan from January 2010 - January 2014. Now you are literally unable to play it.


Why the hell would I want to have games in my collection that act as ticking time bombs subject to the whims of the developers?

I want to take control of MY game. I want to own MY game. I want to play MY GAME 20 years from now. Shutting down the game the instant it becomes unprofitable? Hell no!

That's why I like games with single-player components...so there's something left after the community dies out.

The main thing I dislike about them (aside from not being a fan of online multiplayer generally) is that the game is completely at the whim of the community and the developers. If a community ditches the game or decides that they just want to spend their time doing bizarre things (see Smash Bros Brawl taunt parties), then the game becomes suddenly sucky.

My favorite game is Mega Man 2. Unless my NES breaks, my Wii breaks, my DS breaks, my PS2 breaks, all roms are scrubbed from the internet, and all physical replacements are destroyed, I'll always be able to experience that game again. Not sure if I'll be able to play splatoon in 25 years in a meaningful way.

I dont have a bias against MP only games. I just have a preference for games that have a story of some sort. The more of a story it has the better. So when i see a MP only game, for me; such a game just wasn't made for someone like me. $60 or $40..... I will not buy it. Nothing wrong with that. I'm sure there are those that love games like that.

But its wierd, i would buy a MP only game if it were a fighting game. Or even a racing game. But not an FPS game. Why? Call me crazy, but i think the core gameplay mechanics of FPS games are basic at best. I find it boring and repetitive.

There is a lot of skill required to master fighting games and play them online, or even sim racing games.... but most FPS MP games boils down to twitch shooters. And thats just not for me.

At least Splatoon still has a single-player campaign that you can play with Cemu and pirated ROMs (albeit a short 5-10 hour one)...as well as local multiplayer.

The instant Activision Blizzard decides their game is no longer making them money.....poof! It's like Overwatch never existed in the first place.

Multiplayer-only games such a shame...they completely fuck up our artform for future generations.

Sure they're great at release, but that very quickly becomes problematic over the long run.

It's almost a generational thing. A huge number of younger gamers are multiplayer only. Those of us who still love a nice single player game on top of Multiplayer will see less and less of our games made, the more the publishers see they can cut expensive campaigns out and charge the same.

I've not played a multiplayer game out of the bigger ones over the last year or so, and not felt a little short changed to see no good single player on top.

If people can get a $60 singleplayer-only game without complaining, then they probably shouldn't complain about a $60 multiplayer-only gamer. Not every singleplayer game needs an online versus mode, and not every online shooter needs a singleplayer campaign. I wouldn't advocate against the inclusion of any of these, so long as neither feels contrived or detrimented.

But that's just for the now. When servers go down, the shit hits the fan for MP only games. Fun while they lasted. That's the argument against them.