Would you buy a multiplayer only Call of Duty or Halo?

Although lesser franchises have failed to capture gamers in the long term, what about the top games producing multiplayer only spin-offs for download? Is there a market for these?

[shades72]

Yes I would if the price was right and I would be getting good value from it.

[tigertron]

Well multiplayer only games like Warhawk and Battlefield 1943 have sold well so I'm sure Halo and COD multiplayer only games would sell well too.

[ZombieAssassin]

Well since it's Activision they wouldn't be like everyone else and release their online only games for $40, they'd prolly charge $60 still and that's when they'd start charging for online too knowing them.

Halo games though I played for the SP, the MP always felt lacking and out-dated to me.

After this whole PSN being down thing though I don't really know if I'd want an online only game again unless it actually has offline bot support.

[supremacy]

Those were exactly my thoughts, well put.

[rabidpancakeburglar]

No but that's because I've never been a fan of multiplayer only games because there is nothing to fall back on if you don't like the multiplayer experience, plus cod kinda sucks now

[DelbertGrady]

No, but I'd buy a multiplayer only Battlefield. I don't like the online in COD and Halo.

[49erguy]

MP only? Hell no if its still 60. COD has good campaigns but they're way too damn short. Halo could probably get away with no campaign however.

I would however buy a MP only game if it retailed for 30 and had huge expansions every 3 months over the course of 2 years.

[The Meerkat]

Halo couldn't exist without the campaign.

Its the campaign that gives you the emotional attachment to the characters that you then carry across to the MP.

[49erguy]

"couldn't exist"

That's going a little too far. Even Battlefield can exist without campaigns. Halo is known as a pioneer in console MP FPS, not for its campaign. Not to say that the campaign is bad, but it sure as hell is no Half Life. The MP appeal is definitely not emotion for me.

[Soldierone]

Nope. Its Activision which means we get "We upped the bar and are offering it online only. But because of these "improvements" we are charging 60 dollars still!"

Halo im not a fan of. Feels like Unreal Tournament without the guns.

[PandaJenkins]

To me MP only or not isn't the issue, it is whether the game is good or not. COD quite frankly is awful and some of the worst fps titles on the market. The fact it is still breaking sales records is absurd for such a hunk of junk. Whether it was MP only or not, I still wouldn't give a damn about it.

Compare this to Shadowrun which was online only, and I thought it was FANTASTIC. Very complex, in depth, well balanced, and original fps title. It is sad it didn't go over well. But guess it just shows people like simple, unoriginal, generic fps games. The negative reviews for brink popping up seem to prove this. But guess people like the simple games a lot so meh whatever....

[wsoutlaw87]

I agree. If we were talking back when COD4 came out, I would have been fine with online only. I also enjoyed MAG and Warhawk. But when you say Black ops or Halo I would feel dirty and ripped of paying for just online.

[CoD511]

At full price, no. The only enjoyment I got out of Black Ops was the campaign, so I'm not going to risk investing in an MP only game.

[Alos88]

I'd play it, but if it involved subscription fees then hell no.

[floetry101]

I'll have to see it to believe it. It's no secret that the Call of Duty formula is getting tiresome. That said, I loved my time with Call of Duty 4 and if an online specific game can match that feeling of forgotten excitement, then it may be a worthy investment.

[The Meerkat]

NO.

Its the SP story that sets the scene for the MP.

[floetry101]

For a while I thought the same thing, but the question is, would you rather have a cookie-cutter 5 hour campaign with the same old multiplayer offering? or a revamped and extensive multiplayer mmo?

The point I'm trying to make is that we've seen the Call of Duty campaign time and time again. There is very little variation with any of them so we get the point. The multiplayer is where the longevity lies. We know what Call of Duty's purpose is, so lets exploit that.

[BeastlyRig]

Battlefield 2 has always been an online game so I wouldn't be mad at them.

but they are making a story anyway!

[retrofly]

Yes at a reduced price, unless the MP experiance is even bigger and better, IE you pay full price, but the MP has the extra development time that would have been spent on SP.

So that would be, more weapons, maps, customization, equipment, levels, prestiges, killstreaks etc.

[moaradin]

The story mode in Halo is probably just as important as the multiplayer. Why else is Master Chief such an icon? Everyone knows who Master Chief is, even the people that don't play Halo. Cant really say the same for CoD.

[BeaArthur]

Halo yes, CoD no. Although I do enjoy the Halo campaigns so I would be disappointed if they removed it.

[Raven_Nomad]

No, I think it's cheap to not include a campaign in games. Considering COD only has like a 5-8 hour campaign I think it's not too much to ask.

I have fully avoided games with NO CAMPAIGN at all. ie MAG, Warhawk and Socom Confrontation.

[crematory]

my answer is yes,cause i dont care about any fps story
thank you

[MasterD919]

Halo would NEVER be just multiplayer....that settles that.