I don't usually play multiplayer, but when I do it's Yahoo pool.

hmm? I am very relaxed, just giving my 2 cent. MP is a nice idea, but it is ruined by the few players running around "pissing people off and hearing the hilarious reactions".

And if you take them that seriously you should perhaps find a new hobby, or go out sometime.

The REASON why I do not play MP games anymore, is the few idiots running around destroying the game for others, that is all. Now days I only play SP or co-op with my better half. I have no problems doing so, I have more than enough games to play, and it is very relaxing. I enjoy my hobby tremendously.

All I am saying that it is a shame that a few people like this manages to destroy a whole genre for me. but *shrug*, I have enough other games to play. It is a good idea, but the few manages to ruin it.

Hell I don't even get mad when it's done to me. Online games aren't srs bizness to me. I pretty much laugh it off and continue on my merry way. If you get mad enough to lose your temper and call off a genre, then it's probably better that you do call off that genre.

i dont get mad, i just quit the game

Which sucks, because you paid good money for the game itself.

I did not read all the replies in this thread, but I feel I have a pretty good idea what this is all about. You have to understand that the vast, VAST majority of people who buy games dump them fairly shortly for the next new game. Most people are NOT collectors or fans that keep coming back to their favourite games.

If you look at games that collect statistics from their connected gamers, about half the people finish the singleplayer campaigns. Multiplayer communities are often very busy for about a couple of months (maybe up to six months) until it is time for the next big release. This is probably why you see so many requests for multiplayer components, even in games where it doesn't make sense. The singleplayer experience to most people is a one-time thing and it only lasts 6-12 hours, so they think multiplayer can pad the playtime another 50-100 hours

Some people are seriously saying GTA V singleplayer does not count, and that is about 20-30 hours of gameplay without being a completionist.

to be honest i never understood it until halo 3 on the xbox since then i understand it! n wow.
ive mentioned this before in a thread and explained in depth. but thought id just add my little statement.

It has been my observation that people moan about everything even when they get what they want they'll moan about it, either how it isn't enough, or how it is too much. ;) A lot of people love multiplayer and prefer games that have multiplayer but everyone only has so many hours available to game and a multiplayer game has to be popular enough to have enough people playing it online at a given time to make it interesting for others to play it and people tend to gravitate in droves towards certain games. If you look at the Steam statistics page on Valve's Steam a good 8+ games dominate as being the most popular in the top 20 slots, at least 6 of them being Valve's own games and one a mod of one of their games. People gravitate largely towards what is fun and popular and what their friends and colleagues are playing and so at the end of the day many games that have multiplayer just aren't as exciting as some of the other multiplayer games that are out there, and multiplayer with no actual players available isn't too exciting either. ;)

Personally I like both single player and multiplayer modes, in particular co-op multiplayer but in terms of man-hours of gaming I spend probably 95%+ of my time playing single-player, and almost all of the rest playing multiplayer on private servers or invite-only private multiplayer. I'm not really into MMOs (although Path of Exile was fun), and not really terribly interested in multiplayer with random hordes of people of which I find too many people are cheaters or otherwise unpleasant.

There might be a lot of people who will only buy and only play multiplayer games, but just because some game puts in multiplayer and the person buys the game, doesn't mean they're going to enjoy the multiplayer or play it much or even at all.

I own a few multiplayer-only games but haven't really played many such titles and in general I try to avoid buying new multiplayer only games as I find they mostly just rehash the Quake 1 deathmatch experience with prettier graphics and weapons and I'm looking for games that are more immersive and in depth than that these days, whether they're single or multiplayer.

Multiplayer without a co-op mode is generally not terribly exciting to me although some games are exceptions.

Single player is king in my world!

You're right. That would be better. The singleplayer game should not be a requirement for the multiplayer one.

@anyone
I noticed that GamersGate is selling pre-orders to Elder Scolls online. The regular edition is $59.99 and covers you for 30 days.

I don't do MMOs and I'm not familiar with subscription services and such, but $59.99 for only 30 days sounds way too high to me. I'm not interested in it but curious about it. I would think that should get you a lot more than 30 days. Is that average?

The $60 is to buy the game. Buying the game also gives you the first month for free. Subscription fees should be lower.
Same deal as WoW at the start (and possibly now). Full price game with a month free, then $15 per month (unsure about Elder Scrolls Online subscriptions).

They'll probably try to hang on to that price tag for at least a year except for a few promos sprinkled in, knowing Bethesda.

Considering how popular the series is, I wouldn't be surprised if it winds up being pretty profitable for them.

Unfortunately the MMO industry can be a fickle mistress. Depending on how things go ESO could very well be completely free to play a year into it's life.

As with all things GOG, good things may come to those who wait. :P