I don´t remember smoking being cool................ohh wait, I do.
All the insecure people that hide behind a smoke to feel an artificial sense of confidence or an appease to anxiety problems, like those people who lean over a bar in a crowded club, with a scotch in their hand and look over the place like saying "Hey, I have a scotch in my hand, I am worthy of attention" :P

And then, all the copycats do their thing, like fashion.
It´s not about the quantity, it´s about the quality ; P

The problem is that you didn't phrase it as an opinion, but as a fact. You said "I can almost assure you most of the enjoyment in console games(or not) come from multiplayer, either locally or online". If you had said "I can almost assure you most of the enjoyment I get from console games(or not) come from multiplayer, either locally or online", nobody would have batted an eye.

Little fix :D

Oh definitely. A good MP experience is a great thing, albeit also a rare one, because the best MP experiences tend to attract the largest number of assholes.

But MP needs to be designed as such from the ground up, not simply tacked on. Correction: Huge number of people playing MP games designed as MP.

If you want examples: Tomb Raider, Spec Ops: The Line, Dino D-Day, Guns of Icarus, Metal Drift, Nuclear Dawn, Zero Gear, Rage, Two Worlds just to name a few. All of these games had MP that was more or less dead within a month.

Thanks for explaining it to me, I edited the original post to show that's simply my opinion. I apologize for any trouble to amok or anyone else who was confused.

You don't get more playing hours from a multiplayer game with dead or empty servers.

This idea that every game must have multiplayer is ridiculous. It leads to lots of developers spending a lot of time and money developing content that nobody will ever use past maybe the first week after release.

Given the competitive nature of most multiplayer games, they are usually more fun if you have at least some skill with them. In order to acquire those skills, you need to spend time on the game. The time you spend playing one game is time you don't spend playing another. Hence, I don't think most people who are into multiplayer games tend to play more than 3 or 4 at a time. Chances are that those 3 or 4 games will be among the top 20 most popular multiplayer games out there. In a field of hundreds or even thousands of games, you probably don't have to go too far down the list before all the servers are either ghost towns or just plain dead, because maintaining servers for a game nobody plays is not economically feasible.

The thing is that with most games that are not AAA or high profile indie titles, if you want to play their multiplayer, you'd better do so immediately after launch, or you won't get the chance again.
I doubt much trouble was involved ;-)

However, it's always a good idea to try to phrase an opinion as such online. God knows there are enough idiots on the internet who firmly believe that any subjective opinion they hold is actually an objective fact, and you don't want people to think you are one of those. If only to avoid drawn-out shouting matches between two people who are only at odds because they both seem to believe their opinions are facts, even though they both just phrased their posts badly.

Well, I grew up with games that had only local multiplayer (heck, we didn't even call it MP back then - we just "played together") or even only hotseat mode.

Later, LAN came on and was ok, too.

But nowadays it seems any game with the above mentioned MP versions -but without online MP- is automatically considered crap by a large part of the gaming community (or by a very vocal part of it, at least).

I too remember reading posts in the Steam forums regarding games without online MP, where lots of users posted things like:"No online MP - no buy!"

I find it sad, to be honest.

I personally don't enjoy playing with strangers - I prefer playing with people I know (aka: friends).

I mean, I understand (out of my own experience) that -as a grown up, with grown up friends, all of whom with RL responsibilities, jobs, families, etc., - it may be difficult to get together to play like we used to...but to me it seems, that most of the people that demand online MP, often don't have RL friends to play with, in the first place (?).


And to me (as someone who works in changing shifts, with friends who work changing shifts, too (but in different jobs)) it really makes no difference, if I try to get some friend to come over or to play online - in both cases it's hard to find a timeframe, which suits us both.

Just my 2 cents.

I didn't said that was my own mindset.That just seems like the way of thinking of the average consumer these days

I think the "very vocal part of it" is the main issue. If the people who don't care about multiplayer don't bother to post about it (as they likely don't), then the people bitching about the lack of it do not actually say anything useful to the developer.

It would be interesting if some developers started to sell the multiplayer component of their games as a separate add-on, meaning that you would have to make two purchases to get the multiplayer portion of the game (no bundle discounts). It would give actual data on just how many of the people interested in a given game are actually interested in multiplayer as well.

$10 is pretty high priced for a game like that to be rereleased without multiplayer added. And fighting games are one of the genres where people most expect it now.

No. I may be old, but I'm not THAT old! ;-)

Shut up kid. :P

Oh yeah,...that would be interesting, indeed!

But I can predict, what'd happen in this case: lots and lots aaaand lots of complaints of people whining about the fact, that they don't get the "full" game (even if they never intend to play online in the first place) and even more complaints of people that declare that they wont buy that game, since the online MP has to be part of the base game and nothing to pay extra for...oh, and of course a lot of "is the publisher /developer @§ck!&$ nuts????" -posts.

You know - humans... ;o)

You're what 15 then? I don't believe it was that long ago that Germans smoked damn near everywhere. IIRC, Starbucks having a ban on smoking 8 years ago was rather significant at the time.

Or at least that's what my German teacher said, last time I was in Germany was well before that and that was before we banned smoking damn near everywhere.

Personally is some kind of fashion which I lived when consoles started to have online gameplay. Every game was supposed to have multiplayer, and even reviewers would downscore a game without any online mode. I think it´s totally stupid and that any online gameplay should only be in if developers really wanted to do it. Putting in an online mode just "because everybody does" or "everybody asks for it" usually ends in lame multiplayer modes which aren´t fun and waste resources of what could have been a better game.

Both Batman Arkham titles were awesome and they didn´t even offer cooperative multiplayer. So what? Are the games any worse?

I´m personally tired of forced multiplayers, to the point I´ve stopped caring about online gaming at all. In every genre you have clones and more clones, but in online modes it´s even worse, to the point where just a few modes are used in thousands of games of different genres. Making a good online game is even harder than making a good game, so if the developer really doesn´t want to do it, or they can´t do it right, I prefer no multiplayer.

Those are my thoughts, though, and I know plenty of people disagree with me.