I'll almost always never touch a multiplayer portion of a game so I would prefer it if alot of the console games be single player only and I would prefer the multiplayer games be multiplayer only also. There are a couple of multiplayer only games that I enjoy.

I play multi-player and single-player about equally, but I have no issues with a game being multiplayer only. Though I do occasionally take issue with a game having no co-op at least.

but what defines the "whole experience"? 

if titianfall is a "whole experience" why isn't halo 2x experiences?!   titanfall's MP doesn't seem like it had more content than the MP portion of halo.  halo's SP campain isn't half-assed either.   so why is titanfall worth the full price with only half the content?

conceeded.  very much so.

I really hope that those games lead to the perfect divide. There is even a chance that publishers will start selling the SP and MP portion of a game separately. But that would be too good to be true.

The more frightening trend is that developers start seamlessly mixing MP into SP. Where online players will be able to invade your game or at least leave messages that completely rip you out of the immersion.

I enjoy single player games a lot more than multiplayer games, but I wouldn't want to see a complete break where consumers have to choose between single-player and multiplayer games. There are plenty of games with deep, engaging single-player modes AND addictive, rewarding multiplayer modes.

The greater problem, which you identified in the OP, is the tacked-on mode, whether multiplayer or single-player (much more commonly multiplayer). It typically adds very little to the overall package (in some cases it detracts from it) and it often seems like a cynical decision on the part of the developer/publisher to increase attachment rate.

I don't mind MP, just think shooters are hella-stale. The genre needs to fall on it's face in order to save itself... imo

Last 2 years been playing mostly SP games. Come on infamous and South Park. Also Octodad

I somewhat dislike competitive multiplayer. More games need co op multiplayer though...

Either way, I'm a primarily single player guy.

Maybe Titanfall shouldn't be $60.....

But then one could argue that maybe SP only games shouldn't be $60. Well, what's it gonna be? Paying $60 for SP and MP or $120 for SP and MP? I would choose the former, because who's to say if SP or MP is "whole" or "complete" before the launch of a game? The game has to be put into our hands before we can appoint value to the SP and MP portions of a game. You wouldn't know Halo's campaign wasn't half-assed if you hadn't played the game, for example. Are we gonna have to listen to publishers? "Hey, those guys may have focused on MP and tacked on SP, but we're guaranteeing an equally fun SP and MP. So buy our game...for $120"

No thank you. 

I remember Sony talking last gen about giving a choice of buying the single player and multi player part of a game seperately. I think they did a few experiments that way with Starhawk and the MP of Uncharted and Killzone.

I think that would be a pretty good solution for people to get what they like best.