This is why some games allow for third party servers to be run after all the first party servers are shut down.

this way, a game will never die out so long as the demand is there

It's like everyone else already said, once the servers are gone the game is finished and can never be played in again in some cases ...

Most of of this sites users consist of console gamers which vastly favour single player games too when their higher quality experiences and can be replayed again ...

I've bought Quake Arena and Unreal Tournament in the past. Just not my thing anymore, I simply skip them nowadays. Being up front about it is better than paying $60 for a game from which I'll never touch the multiplayer mode. I've overpayed for Halo 4, campaign was good, not $60 good. Actually I didn't overpay, traded it in, only paid $30 for the campaign which was worth it.

My issue with online only games is that when the servers go down... Its basically RIP

With that being said, I don't hate them with a passion, I just think that if there is no single player, they should be priced lower since SP means that after the servers go down, people will have something to go back to... MP means that they won't. So $40 MP focused game is fine for me but $60 MP focused game becomes a hard sell, specially if there is a season pass and other nonsense.

Another thing is that MP is significantly reliant on its community where SP obviously isn't. So for example, if I paid $60 for evolve... I just wasted my money cause there is hardly anyone playing it... TitanFall on PC also went down the drain I believe as well as many others like Brink.

So for me, it makes sense why people don't like MP focused games because the life-spam of the game isn't fully in their hands.

Nowadays MP only games offer more to the customer than SP games. That's something I would probably agree to in the 7th gen.

Nowadays, more people buy games for MP than SP. For example, the amount of MP modes/content that Halo 5 is getting is extra ordinary. Devs/publishers of those MP heavy games make sure you keep playing their games for hundreds and hundreds of hours, by providing the game with a lot of support. Contrary to SP only games where post-launch support is very sparse and playthroughs consist of single session in few hours compared to MP only games.

I am of Jim Stirling's opinion.  I do not hate MP games.  And I don't think most do.  In fact, it can be an ideal scenario:  rather than wasting resources on a ho-hum tacted on campaign to go with a multiplayer option that is clearly the focus, they can put all those resources into beefing up the multiplayer with lots and lots of maps, modes, gear, etc etc.  You get a fantastic multiplayer mode.

The *problem* I have is companies aren't doing this.  With games like Battlefront and Evolve, their cutting out all those singleplayer expenses and doing next to nothing with them.  We get that same multiplayer mode that is of the substance expected of a multiplayer game tied to a singleplayer but without the singleplayer.  Basically, the MP only games should not be a practice of plain subtraction, just taking away the singleplayer.  It should be a rearranging of funds resulting in a substantial growth in that MP offering to offset the singleplayer.

Oh, and no, the piss-poor, lazy bot-based modes do not count as a "singleplayer" that offsets this problem.

Yes, MP games are finite but what's the percentage of gamers that keep their games forever? (paradoxical ain't it?)

The only reason you might wanna get back to it, is due to nostalgia or inability to adapt to current gameplay standards. Ever tried to play Goldeneye on N64 lately? I'm sure most of us will say it doesn't look/feel like we remember.

actually, I see more adherence to MP only or MP/SP games than SP only, nowadays. LOL, Dota2, COD, Battlefield, Fifa, Counter Strike, H1Z1, WoT, etc...

Yes there'll be a time when the servers will be shut down; however, by then, I'm sure most of/ all the ones who bought the game will be disinterested in those games.

But what about the next generation?

What about your kids? Don't you want them to be able to play the games you did?

Or your grandkids? Or 100 years from now? Or even being able to revisit them for nostalgia's sake?

It's heartbreaking how nobody seems to care about the future these days.

Everyone is so focused on the here and now....that they're content to watch their artform slowly die.

One of these days when everything has been turned to dust from corporate greed we're going to look back and kick ourselves for our complacency.

I mainly play single-player games. Why would I like multiplayer-only games then? I don't think I need any other argument really.

I don't understand the thread. What's wrong with people having preferences?