I was asking myself the same question.
Maybe people think that nowdays multiplayer is a must have feature only because every "major" game has it, and its possible absence might be seen as an intrinsic fault based on simple percentage numbers: many games have multiplayer, so the average rage-filled irrational gamer feels entitled to demand it if it's not present. Trust me, I've seen this kind of reasoning way too many times since the "Mass Effect 3 Outrage". Fun fact is that the "forced multiplayer" in almost every game is a typical publisher trick aimed to copy control that has managed to become an habit. Like what happened for DLCs, people get used to it and then even start to want more.
(I don't know if I made any sense, my English is quite bad...)

Remember when smoking used to be cool?

Same thing.

I don't pay attention to console games much, but I can almost assure you most of the enjoyment in console games(or not) come from multiplayer, either locally or online. I don't use consoles either way so take anything I say with a grain of salt. Also, in consoles, games come out at least 8 years ago mostly, so usually you can expect games to have some players, albeit not much. In PC games, if you have a game that is mostly multiplayer and you can get a great deal of enjoyment out of playing said multiplayer, then you would want to play it. Descent 3 and Unreal Tournament 2004 wouldn't be as fun as they are if they didn't have multiplayer.

Edited not to sound pompous and selfish.

For some games I can understand, but those are usually not the games I'm playing. I'm just happy that there still are lots of games which can be played in single player mode.

That is an opinion not universally shared...

Give some examples and you might get some explanations. Saying that demand for MP never manifests itself is silly considering the huge number of people playing MP games. Just because some MP implementations are too poor to make players flock to them, or a game is old enough that people have moved on doesn't mean that it's not a feature players use.

My favorite games are single player focused, turn based affairs. Not exactly multi-player stalwarts. Not a one of them I wouldnt enjoy that much more being able to play my equally addicted friends online. Just my thought on why it would be a popular request.

I think people expected them to have implemented some form of online support with the new(ish) port. And considering the nature of the game, that's not such an odd thing to expect, as fighting games really are at their best when playing against friends. Many games are best played with friends, not random people. In such games it won't matter if the MP community is more or less dead, as long as you have the option to play the game with people you know. If Torchlight 2, Killing Floor, Magicka or Hearts of Iron 3 lacks active multiplayer lobbies, then that still matters little, as long as you can play the game(s) with the people that matter.
It's the games that require a relatively large number of people on the servers where you can actually judge a games MP value based on if the game has an active MP community or not. DOTA 2, Team Fortress 2 or War of the Roses are games where it actually matters.

I remember when Bioware said Dragon Age would not be multiplayer and I was not at all happy with it. They said that they made the decision long ago and that it would be far too difficult to add multiplayer.

Fast forward 4 or 5 years and I was making myself a computer version of the board game Conquest of Nerath so that I could play it with my brother and friends from afar. I built the foundation of the single player game and then I figured I'd add multiplayer.

Not so fast, said my computer. It took a ton of work to convert it into the framework of multiplayer and I still never got it to work correctly. I had to start all over from the beginning (which I still haven't done -- maybe one day).

I think that's why we see a ton of tacked on multiplayer games that use the assets from the single player game but are completely different in every way from the SP game (it's even very common for different developers to work on the two projects).

I love multiplayer experiences. Especially when they just work (Guild Wars, Battlefield to name a few). But the tacked on crap lasts a few days at most. It's a nice little addition, but it does not impact my purchase decision at all.

I´ve never played a game because of its multiplayer capabilites, actually, if it wouldn´t have a single player campaign (story), I would totally skip it.
Having said that, after playing some number of multiplayer games, I can conclude that multiplayer is as fun as the people you play with, that´s why I only play with friends and on rare occasions I play with anyone else, since humanity has a low percentage of worthy gamers, the rest just play to brag if they win or quit rage if they lose.
I wish I could play with aliens, or any more evolved species.

Of course it's not universally shared, what opinion is? :D

I was going to say something along these lines.


I've actually seen people say they wouldn't buy a game...because it doesn't have badges/achievements. At least multiplayer is a game mode, not the equivalent of a gold star you get for turning in your homework haha.




Edit: Wall of text removed.

it's all about getting as many playing hours as possible for your hard earned money.

I think it's because they've been trained to expect social aspects. I mean, hell, even iD went through that ill-advised phase where they didn't support single player gaming. I think for some of these genres it's because it's easier to use other players in lieu of AI.I just wonder where AI would be if they hadn't slacked off for a period during the late '90s.

Plus, it's hard to get enough trolling from AI, for that you really need 15 year olds locked in their parents' basement.