| Snoopy said: 1. No not irrelevant. If the same people completed the campaign willing to purchase the game just for the multiplayer, why make a single player? |
Because that is an assertion.
| Snoopy said: 2. Oh boy. Do you realize that even Activision has a budget right? Why spend money on something that is useless. |
Of course Activision has a budget, but if you think Activision cutting the single player is going to automagically result in a better multiplayer, then you are kidding yourself.
Activision has a business model that has worked stupidly well for them, they aren't going to pass the cost benefits to the consumer, they charge the maximum the market will handle.
Single Player isn't useless. - Years after a game has released, the multiplayer populations have died off/servers shut down, do you know what keeps value in a game? The Singleplayer. I am a collector.
| Snoopy said: 3. Then you must realize you're a hypocrite. |
Once you start to delve into other logical fallacies like Ad Hominem, then you have lost the argument. Good work, you lost any argument you had.
| Snoopy said: 4. Check number 1 for reference. |
No.
| Snoopy said: 5. More sells does not equal more profit. Nowadays to compete you have to spend a lot more money than before (compared to 2011) and hope to sell way more copies. Not to mention a single player game like Skyrim takes a lot more time to create than a multiplayer game like pubg and cod. |
You didn't answer my question, you completely ignored it and side stepped it.
Go back, re-read my question and try again.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
