No Muliplayer, No Money

Let’s face it, video games are expensive. Even if you have plenty of money to buy them, they are still not all that cheap when you really evaluate how far $60 can go. With this in mind it is hard to understand how games are still being released with 7 to 10 hours of gameplay and no multiplayer. I would also direct my grievance to the games that are released with a multiplayer that clearly had no thought put into it. These two types of multiplayer offenders need to get their act together because multiplayer is the present and the future of gaming.

As much as I love Ratchet and Clank: Future Tools of Destruction and Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, these games for many are probably not worth the price of admission. Uncharted would have been a perfect game for both co-op and multiplayer and Ratchet and Clank featured a promising multiplayer in its last installment. Unfortunately the next generation versions of each of these games does not feature any online modes at all, which means they will not appeal to everyone because as great as they are, they can be beaten in under 12 hours. Now games like Ratchet and Clank and Uncharted can get by without a multiplayer because they are great games, but the same can not be said for many other titles. Games like Conan, Viking: Battle for Asgard and Heavenly Sword (just to name a few of the many) don't feature any kind of online gameplay and are fairly short games. If you want my $60 you are simply going to have to offer me more than 8 hours of average gameplay with nothing to do when the campaign ends.

Possibly even worse than the games without multiplayer are the games that feature a half-assed attempt at a multiplayer. These games may even be worse than the games without multiplayer because the developers at least seem to acknowledge the need for multiplayer; it's just that they don't seem to care. Games like Dark Sector, TimeShift, Army of Two and a slue of others that feature a multiplayer that is average at best isn't worth the money either. If you are going to make the attempt at a multiplayer that these types of games make (and you have all played one), then don't even bother, I would rather you focus on making the campaign better and just not worry about the multiplayer at all.

When it comes down to it we all have different things we look for in games. One of my most important features is replay value, which a multiplayer adds to. I think it's clear that multipalyer plays, and is going to play, a predominant role in the future of video games. It's the obligation of developers to understand that these games are not cheap and they are not going to get any cheaper, and if they want our money they are going to have to bring more to the table than a 7 hour campaign and some extra costumes.

[GutZ31]

I approve this public service announcement.

[DiLeCtioN]

i dun buy games unless its multiplayer online n my clan can also play

[MK_Red]

Well, I don't give a darn about multiplayer. Sorry but I'm a singleplayer gamer and for me, it's actually "No Singleplayer, No Money". I never buy multiplayer only games and most of the time, try to find games that lack multi (One of reasons why I love BioShock so much).

To me, games are an art form and only singleplayer can display that side. Plus, I hate mp in general except for when I can play with a buddy sitting / standing beside me and in gerenal, aside from arcade games, I don't like multiplayer.
Singleplayer FTW!

[BeaArthur]

I like single player as well but games like Bioshock are the excetption. I grew up on single player, actually I always try out the single player before I even think about the multiplayer. However I am not going to pay $60 for an experience that lasts 8 hours and then isn't fun to play after it's over.