I'm in the same boat as you for MP, never been too keen on it (only game i invested much time in the MP last gen was Resistance 2's online CO-OP). Shame you don't like MMOs. Though i suppose you're lucky that you will never know of the tears that are wept trying to get through Coil in FF14 ;-; Holy hell that place is hard.

It really just depends on the game.  You can either look at a game like Titanfall, or the upcomming Evolve and say "hey, that game only has MP, how dare they charge 60$ for a game with less content!"  Or even MGS Ground Zero wich only has about 3 hours of content for 30$!

But then you could also look at games like Skyrim, GTAV, Destiny, Watchdogs, ect where you are actually probabally getting more content than what ypu payed for with the 60$ price tag (100+ hours each).

So I think it goes both ways, and as a gamer you have to be carefull with what games you chose to get.  I personally got Titanfall, and while I was dissapointed with no SP, and only 5MP modes curently, I still don't regret  my purchase as I'v had hours and hours of fun with it.

Which is exactly the point. If there weren't as many people buying the game at or near launch for the full price, there wouldn't be such great deals on Steam only 12 months later because the publisher couldn't afford to make them that cheap.

Steam sales have really changed how I view 3rd party games. Why should I pay full price for the console version when the PC version will be at least 50% cheaper in a few months? That being said, I'm okay with the $60 price tag on games. I don't feel ripped off when I buy a Wii U or PS3 game at full price, I just focus on games I can only get on console.

All the above mentioned games are great. SP only or multiplayer only dont matter if it has the content. The thing matters is will I get my moneys worth from it? On the contraty games with $60 + microtransactions are real ripoff. GT6 or forza 5 are must avoid games, in my opinion.

Budgets of most productions/distribution usually range from 9 million dollars single platform to about 20 million for multiplats, some huge productions reach into the 100 million dollar range (GTA V, Gran Turismo) or close (CoD series often has massive budgets). However, these insanely expensive titles are subject to drawn out development cycles and mountains of groundwork and research (GT), massive advertisement budgets (CoD) and/or large amounts of self-reliance in tech, engines, soundwork and massive development teams, not to mention ambitious concepts (GTA V).

As for game prices; I see nothing wrong with them, if I don't find a particular title to be worth full price, I'll simply wait for it to go down, if I see the value, I get it. Simple as that, gaming is not bound by human rights and I feel that we complain too much about prices.
Complaining about budgets being waster on features and content and gloss that do nothing to heighten the experience though; I'm right with anyone who supports that notion.

When I was a kid we paid $50 for World Games. Stop your bitching.

wii u + pc and be happy!

I find your entire argument extremely flawed. As a matter of fact, I think not only are we not getting 1/3 of the value, but comparred to how much games used to cost since the 80s, I think we're getting hundreds if not thousands of times more content.

• "Using most of the cash for things that dont contibute much in the actual game. (Hiring celebrities like ellen page)."

Can you please provide a source that states how much Ellen Page cost compared to the rest of the game? Have you played the game? Would you consider the game lacking content? Did you check how long the script was (whether it was good or not is debatable. We're talking about resources)? Or how good the graphics are?
Why are the graphics important? Because they help take the character more seriously. I can't feel bad for Peach getting abducted. I see Mario as nothing more than a video game character and he doesn't have to be anything more than that. But does Ninty offer anything like Heavy Rain or Beyond? It's an experience that, to my knowledge, you can't find on wii/wiiu or 3ds.

Some times the huge developing times are justified. People may hate FF13 for many reasons, but from a technical aspect, the game succeeds in many ways. And in order to make such a game, you need many more resources than to make Super Mario Bros 3. Now, which is the better game? Depatable. Most people will say the latter and I too think that it's fun, but is it really comparable? I think it really depends on the game. I for one care for good voice acting and Beyond has incredible VA thanks to Ellen Page.

At the end of the day, the industry provides the consumer with many options. Want fun games without much storyline, cartoony or bad graphics and entire focus on gameplay? Play the following games. Want deeper story, more impressive/realistic graphics, more complicated controls etc? Then those are for you.

Also instead of having a team of 20 people that know what they are doing.... they have 100000000  people work on a game completely uncoordinated all over the place in 10 different studios in 10 different cities with advisors flying around the globe by plane and visiting the teams etc....  and 3 people are doing the same thing  and most of the time half of the team is idle because coders can only code and have no artistic skills anymore etc (you know back in the day coders also made music and/or character design etc.... ) its stupid.