I just saw an article on IGN about how EA thinks that single-player games are a thing of the past. I kinda think they have their place. I guess I look at two single-player games, Dead Space and Bioshock. Both were very good games (in my opinion). Both had a good enough story, great graphics, and fun gameplay. Both sequels will now have a multiplayer component. Bioshock 2 is already out and the multiplayer was designed by a different company than the single-player. I suppose it adds to replayability conceptually... but that's if anyone actually plays the multiplayer. Dead Space 2 is coming out with a multiplayer too, and my first reaction is why? I would buy the game regardless, and frankly I'm not expecting the MP to be any good anyways.

I suppose the same is for multiplayer centric games. I actually have only played about 15 minutes of the COD:Black Ops single-player (more out of curiousity). Why not just give me a great multiplayer game and skip the single-player. Or perhaps split it into two games and make them cheaper. I suppose the gaming industry is reluctant to do that because they want to hold onto that $50-$60 price point just as the music industry tried to hang on to that $13-15 price point for CDs.

I guess my point is that I'm a little surprised that major game manufacturers feel the need to put both in a game. Putting my business hat on I suppose they want to get the most out of the franchise as they can... so they want to appeal to the broadest audience possible... the multiplayer AND single-player gamers.