Poll: Would you buy a game ONLY for multiplayer?

[Lost In The Void]

My two Multiplayer-Only Games

TF2
CS:S

I bought neither of those, both were gifted and I have yet to play either. One: because I am an idiot and don't know how the server systems work in Steam

Two: I hate playing with random strangers and none of my friends have this game and Steam to run it.

 

[linwolf]

Yes, but the only game that I have bought that fit this is TF2. And any game has to be bloody brilliant for me to buy it only for multiplayer.

 

[RN7]

I'd buy Lost Planet 2 for multiplayer. The only reason I say this is because that game is near impossible to beat on a higher difficulty, Hell, even on easy sometimes without a friend or 3. The friendly AI is just so incredibly inept and retarded that the game is given an arbitrary level of ridicolousness. This is not to mention that there is a boss in the game that you literally cannot do with the AI.

Other than that, probably no, because I prefer single player with a multiplayer option I'll never use.

 

[CheckD3]

MW2 I would buy discounted for online because spending full price on half a game is a waste. I wanted to love MW2 entirely, but the story couldn't really make me satisfied. The multiplayer did. It depends on the game. MAG is something I'd spend 30 max at, since new full experiences cost 60.

I'd buy a game only for multiplayer, but not for 60. And an only single player game better be lengthy and full for me to buy at 60. GOWIII could have waited, but I wanted it bad. FO3 GOTY, full price, don't care. Same w/ NV, though I'll prob. spend double that when the DLC hits the market

 

[sneakypenguin]

MW2 I bought another 360 just to play it... Ran through the campaign in 2:55 then spent days in the MP.

 

[Dommyboy]

Yes, Heroes of Newerth. Definitely worth it. Team Fortress 2 as well. HoN has provided far more hours of enjoyment for me than many single player games.

 

[The_Graff]

with the possible exception of purpose built online only games not really. I have no desire to deal with whiney 14 year old american retards on a regular basis (purely out of interest is there anyone other than the aforementioned retards playing online these days?)

 

[katsabas]

If it is like MW2, cause so far, every match has been different for me, yeah I would buy. Wait, without a single player campaign? Then, not so sure. I did not buy Warhawk on the Ps3.

 

[Kyber]

TF2 and MAG so yeah. (i think MAG is better)

 

[Plastic Muscles]

If a game has a good multiplayer then it is a bonus. I wouldn't buy a game for multiplayer. Never. Not even it was the best multiplayer in the world.

 

[veloper]

Only really cheap bargains that still get played, so pretty much a NO.

Multiplayer-only makes a game a long rental. Even games that stay popular for a long time like SC will eventually die (SC2).
Then there's the decline of dedicated server support to consider. Without dedicated servers in modern games, it's a sure bet someone will pull the plug on the multiplayer game.

 

[Illusive DiZ]

No. I buy all my games for the single player, because I hate multiplayer in almost every form it takes. The only time I play multiplayer is if I am physically at a friend's house and they suggest a few rounds of L4D or Halo 3 and I agree. I don't even have online connection anymore I hate it so bad.

Me too.In my opinion multiplayer in games are over-hyped these days when they play the same way as the previous games before it. Then again that's just my opinion.

 

[ethan22122]

no, i prefer games with a good single player.

 

[Lazy Kitty]

I bought Team Fortress 2...
Actually, I only have it because it was with Half-Life 2 in the Orange Box.

I did buy Counter-Strike: Source serparate though...

But it's not something I do regularly.

 

[Adecristo]

Actually, the only games I bought for singleplayer in last 4 years are Half-Life 2 + Episodes, Portal, Neverwinter Nights 2 and Settlers 6.. I've got many more games I've never played - or, played like once or twice - in singleplayer: Battlefield 2, Unreal Tournament 3, Team Fortress 2 (hell, it doesn't even have singleplayer), Left 4 Dead, Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, Worms 4 and a lot more.

So, yes - I bought game for multiplayer only many times.

 

[AzzA-D]

Its unlikely to be something I would do. If it was a damn good multiplayer then Id probably rent it first just to check it out, and then see how things go from there (I did that with MAG and I personally wasnt too keen).

Im not surprised at the fairly overwhelming yes's to no's though. The amount of people Ive played who have a zero gamerscore on CoD4 and MW2 is unbelievable, even though these games have been out for ages. Thaat means they havent even played the training mode in single player, let alone completed the campaign.

Anyways, MW2 has pretty much ruined multi for me. It was once all about CoD4 multi, then MW2 came out, and everyone moved over. Now its play in MW2's broken multiplayer, or play with myself in CoD4. Thankfully Ive got Bad Company 2, but its not quite CoD4...

 

[GeneticallyModifiedDucks]

No. Games need single-player. If the single-player is good then that's good enough. If there is multiplayer that's good too but I could live without it. I bought Uncharted 2 for the single player, and while I have spent a lot of time in the multiplayer as well, I would have considered it a pathetic excuse of a game if it had no single player, or if it had a bad one that's circa 6 hours long.

 

[Elburzito]

No, I wouldn't.
But a game that has a good multiplayer mode is a good incentive to buy the game, but it needs more.

 

[DrunkWithPower]

I bought MW2 and BF:BC2 based soley on the multiplayer. The singleplayer on both of them lacked the greatest as I expected.