Oh cool, so BO4 has a single player campaign just like those other games, right?

It has zombie + those minor char missions unlike 2,3 mw, not eveb talking about blackout as bonus. And you knew damn well it didnt have a singleplayer

It has Zombies, like other CoD games that do have a single player mode.  And the minor character missions are nothing more than multiplayer challenges, but against BOTs with a little bit of voice acting that they shoved in there to say, "hey look!  we have single player!"

And sorry, but ONE MAP for an extra game mode does not justify pulling an entire campaign.  What they did was they pulled single player to focus on a system that they could make grindy as hell and add micro transactions for, not at release, but after all of the reviews were made so that there would be no mention of them nor hurt the overall score.

I do not care how minor they are, what they did was shady and anti consumer.  They knew damn well what they were planning on doing and the fact that they increased the grind with a patch when the micro transactions were added is proof of that.

Lets just agree to disagree seeing as i dont feel like i am entitled to every new transmog they put in the game

If paying 60 dollars for a game that is later altered to increase the grind to encourage me to pay more money to use a system that was already in place when I payed that 60 dollars and feeling cheated when the system I payed for is changed is "entitled", then maybe gamers these days are not "entitled" enough.  I believe the term is bait and switch?

Sorry but I believe in getting what I payed for, and that includes the tier system that was in place when I payed said money and being able to utilize it without fear of it being later altered to encourage me to give them more money.  So yeah, we will have to agree to disagree.

I think Nintendo as a whole is important for the industry as a console that introduces kids to gaming.

It is very important to make games that are fun for adults while being appropriate for kids.  Nintendo gives us the best of both worlds for sure.

There is an easier strategy if you don't have the cash to make a full blown AAA game.

Release a game exclusive on Nintendo, let all the Nintendo fans make noise how they getting an exclusive.

Then release the next version on PlayStation and watch Sony fans buy it just out of spite to show they are better game collectors lol

Battlefield V was basically a BF1 reskin, I doubt it had too big of budget. Infact even marketing budget was much less as there werent nearly as many ads compared to 1.

not defending EA, just saying that we cant automatically assume it didnt earn money. If it didnt we wouldnt see a sequel.

Assassin's Creed has microtransactions and the game is balanced accordingly so that it's a slog to get through if you don't use them. It doesn't deserve to be listed alongside the others on that list. RDR2 had a shitty online economy, and online that wasn't available right away, so not really a "complete retail gaming experience" either. I never was crazy about GoW as a franchise, but at least it didn't pull that kind of shit. GoW deserved that GOTY award over RDR2 for that alone. You mention "a bit of hope" for multiplayer, but of your non-Nintendo list, only RDR2 had multiplayer, and as I noted, it was pretty flawed. Of your Nintendo games, all but one feature multiplayer, and none of them ruin it with microtransactions or games that feel incomplete out of the box. Nintendo is making good single player and multiplayer games, and single player games with multiplayer features, and vice versa, all feeling like "complete retail gaming experiences" that don't water down the gameplay, cut content that should have been included and sell it as DLC, or make the games a miserable grind if you don't use microtransactions. The multiplayer games usually have something to do by yourself if you prefer the single player part, and the single player experiences offer some sort of multiplayer option that feels neither overbearing nor tacked on, but rather appropriate for what the game is. There's your healthy balance between single player and multiplayer. The rest of the industry has shown no signs of having learned this lesson. Multiplayer games are all lousy with microtransactions, and many single player games are as well. The single player games that are any good haven't even tried to incorporate multiplayer in any way, not through coop, not through a competitive mode, not even with online. Only RDR2 had one, not at launch, and again, had to ruin it by making the economy shitty so people would pay for microtransactions. Multiplayer games don't have single player features even when it would make sense to or the playerbase is used to it, like with the recent COD. I see increasing hope that good single player experiences will be made by non-Nintendo publishers, but no such hope for multiplayer yet, and no hope for games that balance single player and multiplayer well, or at least at a similar quality as the Nintendo games you mentioned. I'll take the new single player experiences though, that's certainly good news, as I tend to prefer that anyway.