So we're in the early part of the "next gen" but i'm already seeing a trend developing; the online MP only game.  Titanfall, evolve, plants vs. zombies are all launching this year and all MP only.  On the flip side, we've seen a few new IPs announced with no MP modes when i think many expected them to have MP.  Most notably, to me at least, is the order 1886.

This is a very different trend compared to more recent games where a lot of games got a tacked-on, terrible MP mode:  tomb raider.  dead space. ryse.  god of war.  i'm sure adding these MP modes wasn't cheap and the reality is "no one" really played them anyways.  why would we, they sucked.  on the flip side games like CoD with a strong MP following seem to have a shorter and less compelling single player campain with every release.

So I ask,...  are titanfall and the order 1886 "incomplete" games that we as gamers should be angry about and boycott or is it to everyone's benefit that we keep things seperated.  gamers get well-crafted, fun SP and MP experiences and game publshers get to make games with less bloat in their development costs?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

personally, i kinda like the idea of keeping them seperate.  i've got no data to back this up but i just get the general impression that most gamers have a pretty passionate preference for either SP or MP games.    i rarely see anyone say they love both experiences equally.  so why try and bundle 2 games under 1 release?! 

as far as i care just sell the MP and SP portions seperately cause at least 9 times out of 10 i'll never touch the online mode anyways.  and by seperating them the developer can give a full budget to the game they are making.   no more 4 hour (or less) single player campains.  no more shittily-balanced, laggy MP modes with no one else playing.

when would you keep both?

...i played U3's MP quite a bit.   especially by my standards as i generally don't even give a game the benefit of a doubt of 1 MP match.   now imo, U3 did both SP and MP well.   in fact, i would go so far as to say either mode was worth the full $60 purchase.   so why not split them and sell the SP for $60 and the MP for another $60?  

halo could probably do this too.  more monies for the developer.  ..and with more monies, in theory, a more complete development cycle for each mode meaning even better, more full-featured gameplay.

SP is more important than MP, unless MP has a lot of content. ( like evolve)

I think "tacked" on single player like what Battlefield series does or "tacked" on multi player that some publishers force on otherwise single player focused games (like Spec Ops - The Line) are both examples of things that I just ignore.

When I want to play single player... I wont buy a multiplayer focused game and then play the tacked on single player mode (unless if that serves as a needed tutorial of sorts). Similarly, after playing a great single player, I have no desire to go into a multiplayer mode that was clearly tacked on.

exactly! 

I just prefer the core mode, regardless of if it's sp or mp.

Also gow:a felt like sp was the tacked on mode. Mp is amazing.

GoW multiplayer was excellent. The single player was tacked on if anything.
OT: If a developer isn't going to fully flesh out the experience of one mode, it shouldn't be a part of the game. We've seen multiplayer only and singleplayer only games succeed in the same environment.

the problem with mp only games is that after 1 year the game is dead

Single player. The reason I still play old games because they have good single player aspects. As for multiplayer I will play it if its good and probably multiplayer only.

i honestly expected more people to disagree with me. interesting.