Haha, so as long as you can play alone it qualifies? You didn't mean a campaign in any sense, just literally the ability to play by yourself? In that case, I bet Overwatch will give you the opportunity to play in a lobby against just bots, so that qualifies, right? FYI Driveclub has a singleplayer (and it's more substantial than Rocket League's). The reason Driveclub had a free part with PS+ had nothing to do with it being a multiplayer online only game (which it isn't).

Your line of thinking is just as unreasonable as if someone were to say singleplayer only games should all have a way to play them for free. It makes no sense.

There's going to be free DLC for Doom 4 as well though. I commented on the article here about that, since it made no mention of the free DLC despite the direct source talking about it some. 

Not trying to overly defend the game yet, as the open beta will be my first chance. It just seemed standoutish to me and the last game from id tech I played, Rage, I really enjoyed despite the short length. This has around the same story length, but with way better looking multiplayer. 

Maybe I didnt express myself right earlier, but yeah.As long as there is a way to play alone, like a carrer mode that most sport games have, Im fine with a price tag.I mean, whether the game is good enough for you to pay 60 dollars or 10 dollars is a whole other discussion, but I personally believe that every single game should offer some type of single player, be it playing with bots, or having an actual story mode, or having a career mode of some kind.And that it dosent require the internet.

So yeah, if Overwatch has something like that(from the launch), sure it qualifies.Im not trying to make people believe in this opinion of mine, its just my way of thinking.A game is not good or bad because it lacks this feature, it just means that I wont be buying it.It really dosent matter if it makes sense or not.It would be the same situation if someone says that you are crazy because you dont like FPS genre.You simply dont like it.It dosent need a reasoning behind it.

Since we are in this discussion anyway, what do you prefer, multiplayer or single player?If you were to choose a game, one that only has multiplayer and one that only has single-player, but both were of the same quality(have the same metacritic score for example), what would you choose?

Like I've said, I don't mind that you personally wouldn't pay for a game that only has a multiplayer. What I do mind is you saying all multiplayer only games should have a free option to play them. I mean, let's be honest, take Rocket League (which I presume you've played from your replies?), if they removed the online multiplayer part, the game would become boring within 2 hours, and I wouldn't pay ten cents for it. Remove the single player mode, and..... nobody cares.

This is not the same scenario as someone calling you crazy for you saying you don't like FPSs. This is more akin to if you were to someone calling you unreasonable for you saying "FPSs are bad". Once more, it's one thing that you wouldn't pay for a game that has no singleplayer mode, but it's another thing entirely to say that all multiplayer only games should be playable for free. "I don't like FPS" - doesn't need reasoning behind it, it's your taste. "FPSs are bad" = unreasonable. I see your statements (ie. "I just personally believe that they should have an option to play for free", and "And Multiplayer only games should offer a free version") as more in the "FPS are bad" category.

So tl;dr "I wouldn't pay for a multiplayer only game" = okay, it's your opinion, we all have our own. "All multiplayer only games should be playable for free" = seriously?

Depends a lot on the game. I mostly prefer singleplayer, but for some games I prefer the multiplayer. In general I would probably pick the singleplayer only game.

They dont necessarily have to be completely free, but could have some sort of trial mode.Then, if you like what you play, you buy the full version.That could be one idea.It dosent need the game to be completely free.There are some exceptions that the game is so extremely good, that a price tag would be more than justifiable.But for me, most arent worth my money.

I think that way because:

1.I dont like multiplayer games in general, so I really apreciate when I have the chance to try them out first without buying.

2.Multiplayers games are ever-evolving.A reviews from 6 months ago may not represent the game anymore.So I personally think that having the chance to at the very least try it out before making my decision, since the game that I read about may not be the same.The same cant be said about singleplayer games(well at least updates dont change nowhere near as multiplayer patches and updates does)

Of course there is the personal (and I agree a bit stupid) reason that since I dont like multiplayer games, I see them as a lower value game compared to the single-player ones, but the reasons listed above are the more reasonable ones.

PS:I did play Rocket League(Got it from PS Plus), but played 20 to 30 minutes of it.Can admit its a good game, just personally didnt like it.

something like how Killer Instinct does it?

Basically, yeah.Thanks for reminding me, completely forgot about it.

So for Overwatch they could let you use 2 or 3 heroes, in just one map, and that you were allowed to play for 1 hour per day in this free trial for example.That would be more than enough to give people an idea of how the game works.Just an example of course.