Originally Posted by bloodydollface
I already do pay $60 for games where I don't play the campaign. Games like COD, Starhawk, and Need for Speed are just several in which I have never played the campaign on. I just have no interest in it. I get more lasting appeal from games like those through there online capabilities. I've tried the campaigns on them and I just don't like them that much. But games like Metal Gear Solid, Twisted Metal, etc... I play the hell out of the campaign and never even touch the online aspect, and I'll gladly pay $60 for them.
It just comes down to what you like to do and what you like to play. If I pay $60 plus dollars on a game, I usually make damn sure I get good use out of it, whether that be through campaign, multiplayer, or both.
I'll concede that the MP and SP markets are seperate entities, and I'm a little biased towards the single player experience. Personally, I don't think a strictly MP experience is worth $60, but that's just me. I realize there are legions of people who could care less about a campaign, and just want to hop online. In that respect, I don't really "get it". It seems cheap to me. Like when a franchise like Resident Evil releases a MP specific game, and scratch their heads at why it doesn't sell well. It's because they're not catering to their market.
All things considered, it's market specific. Like how a campaign in a Battlefield game seems like a half assed effort, when that's all you should be expecting. It's "Battlefield". A campaign is going to seem limited in comparison to the possibilties there are with the online capabilities, that made the franchise so popular in the first place.
I just think a lot of developers are getting their lines crossed, in trying to compete with one another, which is leading to this "sameness" of the entire industry. Everyone is borrowing from everyone, and it's all getting very bland because of it.