Let me be perfectly clear before I begin:
There are lots of fantastic single-player campaigns out there and in fact, I'd say the majority of excellent interactive experiences are often solo-centric. I also have no problem with 7-8 hour campaigns, nor do I have a problem with developers who choose to focus on the lucrative multiplayer market. That's their option.
I do have a problem with being treated as a second-class citizen just because I don't choose to be constantly connected every second of my life. We've seen evidence of the ongoing trend over the past few years, and it really came to a head in 2014. Thing is, what I'm referring to is relatively small; it's not like developers are saying, "sign in to such-and-such service or you can't play our single-player adventure." But they're starting to produce adventures that feel light or even incomplete if you don't bend over backward.
Throughout this year, I've played more and more games that really want me to either play co-op, utilize social media, log into a publisher's server, or download some sort of app. It has finally reached the point where I'm feeling bullied. Assassin's Creed Unity might be the culmination of that: You can't open Initiate chests unless you've got a Uplay account and you're logged in to progress, you can't open Nomad chests unless you download and use the Companion App, you won't be able to unlock certain pieces of equipment (shown clearly in the main game) unless you buy the upcoming DLC, and there are more Skill Points available in Co-Op missions than in solo missions, and it becomes painfully obvious that the solo missions don't offer enough Skill Points to max out your character.
The bottom line is that if you want the full experience, you have to do these things. And unfortunately, this is going to continue to happen as time goes on. It sucks because every time I sit down to play a new game now, I wonder what they'll force me to do outside the game; what other manner of electronic connectivity I'll have to endure just so I can get the most out of what I purchased. And let's not forget that a lot of this is often thinly veiled microtransactions, which is another thing I hate. It's not so much about multiplayer ruling the gaming roost, and it's not that single-player games don't exist. It's simply that just playing the game we bought , without anyone else and without any other devices, is becoming a rarity.
I can't be the only one who's tired of this.
That uPlay option in Ubisoft is quite useful. It gave me some great weapons in Far Cry 4. I do understand where you coming from though.
Even in real life people ask me for an instagram, Facebook, Whatsapp etc. and when I tell that I don't have any of that they look at me like I have three heads.
Furthermore, as you said it will continue to happen but as long as I don't have to socialize with strangers and put up picture of myself then I am a lot more flexible.
I get the same reactions. When I tell people I don't even have a cell phone most instantly think it's because of something out of my control and want to throw me a pity party. When I tell them it's to plan most don't understand at all, or start talking to me as if I'm from a different era or something. Or say they totally understand and wish they could do that too, only to bury their face right back into texting. I don't know, maybe I am a generation behind now. I'm almost thirty and can't identify with high school kids at all anymore.
Heh Ultra you should tell them to YouTube and watch "we text you merry Christmas" to see if any of that song rings true to them
@ mk ultra
I can understand the social media thing, but not having a cell phone is beyond bizarre.
At least own a cell phone for emergencies.
The best games this year were solo adventures, Wolfenstein, infamous.
I got Wolfenstein for Christmas, part of the appeal is that is an isolated experience. No online modes just a a FPS focusing on the story mode (Campaign..), really looking forward to playing it 🙂
Don't forget Shadow of Mordor as well – a great SP game :).
Fully agree with the article though – Ubisoft in particular went hard with forcing people to be 'connected' for their SP games, and it's nae a good thing.
"What, you want to play Destiny solo? Good luck killing things by yourself since we don't give you enough exp to keep up with the enemies"
I hope Internet connection going down like forever, that will teach them a lesson, probably that what those hacker want…
Last edited by FAREEZ on 12/31/2014 1:04:53 AM
U-Play is just the worst Idea ever. Didn't EA even get rid of their Online-Pass system after a while on the PS3? I just hate the idea of having to sign up to every developing company just to access special features – Admittedly the content in U-Play is usually junk anyway. But due to U-Play I couldnt Platinum FarCry 3.
But yes, this is why I loved Catherine from last gen. It had no online gimmicks, no DLC – all the extra modes were available from completing the story. It was just a polished game from the start and a lovely experience. I cringing when FFXIII-2 & Lightning Returns wanted me to access Fb… just no.
That's one of the reasons that I liked the Elder Scrolls and Fallout games last-gen. Loads of content and no forced gimmicks to force you to play the way that the devs say.
I feel the same way.
The first time it really bothered me was in GTAV, when it told me I needed to have an app on my phone to train Chop. At first I thought it meant the in-game phone. I don't have a cell phone on purpose, why do I need one to not feel left out in a strictly single player experience? I know it's just a small part of the game, but for the last couple of weirdos like myself that don't do any kind of social networking and don't have cell phones, it feels like Rockstar is dangling a piece of the game in my face that I'll never get to experience.
It would bother me less if I didn't love taking Chop with me every time I play as Franklin, only to be reminded every time that he's acting up and I need to train him. Again, it's very minor in the scope of the whole game, but something I really wish I could use as I love having a dog with me.
If this trend gets worse this generation, consoles should come with companion tablets in the future just for all the apps you need. Even if I had a phone or tablet I wouldn't want all that crap on it.
You made Unity sound terrible to me right there. When I play games I don't want to be bothered every ten seconds to be reminded I'm not logged into a Facebook account I don't have, or be told to download an app on my nonexistent phone. It's like they assume if you play video games you already have all that stuff and want it integrated into the game. It doesn't feel like it's just for the little gimmicky parts of the game or even a choice anymore.
Sorry for the rant I usually don't do that.
Last edited by mk ultra on 12/31/2014 1:19:42 AM
What if you are in an accident? How will you reach for help? Hope it doesn't happen but even having a cheap burner phone is better than nothing.
sawao: You know, believe it or not, people were in accidents for many years before cell phones came along. Somehow, the human race survived.
mk ultra: I respect your choice to not have a cell phone. There are times when I just want to fling mine into the nearest body of water. And yes, if you really don't like such annoyances, I'm afraid Unity isn't for you. As much as I love the game, it pisses me off no end. And by the way, let me add that the Unity App basically demands that you have a pretty new phone, as my three-year-old phone can barely run it.
pretty sure the number 1 cause for automobile accidents in the United States are cellphone related Sawao 😉
@ Ben
And vaccines and antibiotics weren't around before the previous century, and while humans survived, can we not agree that the inclusion of such modern medicines have increased our way of life and chances of survival exponentially?
Same could be said about cell phones. Yeah, people often survived without them in emergencies before, but how many thousands who could have called 911 would have survived if that tech was available back then? If your mom was on her death bed from being shot in a robbery attempt, and you were out buying groceries and she only had a few hours left to live, how could she or anyone call you if you aren't at home or work?
Lets say you're going to the bank and armed robbers come in and stopped the bank employees from hitting the silent alarm? Most phones come with a quick feature to rapidly call or text EMS.
Point is, this day and age, cell phones are just as important modern medicines and everyone should have one…IMHO.
Even if you want to play the loner part, you can buy a pre-paid cell from walmart or 7-11 for less than $15 and give only certain family members your contact information.
Hell without a cell, you might as well live in a forest and live off the land in a log cabin, miles from civilization.
I just can't fathom how anyone could live without a cell phone.
"And vaccines and antibiotics weren't around before the previous century, and while humans survived, can we not agree that the inclusion of such modern medicines have increased our way of life and chances of survival exponentially?"
Absolutely not.
We are in disgustingly abysmal condition, physically and mentally. We are facing the biggest health crisis in humanity's history. Living longer is NOT the same as living better, and our drug issues have become drug dependencies. We're depending on our drugs the same way we're depending on our cell phones, as if they're actually necessary for life.
The powers that be have somehow convinced you that everyone on earth should have a cell phone. Do you have any idea how depressing that is?
The fact that you believe you can't survive without a cell phone is indicative of the idiocy and deification of technology that we continue to suffer from. I see the walking wounded when I look around; I see NOBODY who's healthy. Odd that my grandparents can't recall a single overweight child in school, a single child who took medication for anything (and the theory that they needed them but we didn't have them is utter crap), and happiness and contentment levels are now at an all-time low. People can't even freakin' read anymore.
Oh yes. We're doing awfully well.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 12/31/2014 2:35:41 PM
This coming from the same guy who constantly accuses people of having selective reading…
When did I EVER say that having a cell phone was essential to human existence? I specifically wrote ENHANCES or INCREASES our way of life and chances of survival. The part about increasing survival can't be taken any other way other than being factual.
Back in the oregon trail days, when you got bitten by a snake in the wilderness while hunting by yourself, how were the chances of survival back then? Fact is, cell phones make receiving medical care WAY easier. And let me just say, I know and understand 1000% that people are able to survive without professional help…survivalists we call 'em…
But can you honestly say that having the convenience of being able to have help a call away a bad thing?
Same with medications. Penicillin was a wonder drug when it was invented. Prior to that, the common cold was deadly. Now, who do you know dies from the common cold? And your argument in your first paragraph makes it seem as if modern medicine is the culprit of all of todays physical woes…thats your opinion but this is mine:
*we live in abysmal conditions because the increase of ALL technology has made us lazy. Throw in the reduction and near extinction of morals because of increased free speech and the media/entertainment being more prevalent, and you wind up with our current predicament. Everyone is an entitled like ass…EVERYONE.
*there are a few drugs (ex. Opiates, man-made hallucinogens like LSD and ecstasy. Etc) that f'd up a generation of people and subsequently increased mental illness, but all of the other good drugs like penicillin, tylenol and others have ABSOLUTELY made our living situations much more manageable.
*I use my cell phone everyday talking, surfing the web and everything. I am 6 ft tall, 178 pounds. I THINK your are atleast 35 to 50 years old, which would put your grandparents age at around the great depression time or earlier, before the recent surge of medical advances and operation techniques that occured around WWI. Of course when your grandparents were young they didnt see anyone on meds…there were barely any invented! Lets also touch on the fact that you said you walk around and see no healthy people…actually lets not seeing as how that statement is so idiotic it makes my head hurt…unless you live in the only city/town in america that has no gyms and clinics or you really don't get out much. Either way, thats not a good look for YOUR living situation.
Oh, and the thing about people being over weight? That didn't really need to be said either because it had nothing to do with my points, which was cell phones and Medicine.
People are overweight because of all this unhealthy processed food we ingest, and MORE OF IT. We've come a long from having to raise farm animals and grow our own food. It's the individuals choice to eat, nobody else's.
And happiness and contentment levels are at a low…because of? Please don't say cell phones and medicines is the reason. Lets try to stay on topic. And i say that without any sarcasm or contempt for you Ben because I respect your viewpoint.
You said you think everyone should have a cell phone. I guess I interpreted that as smartphone. The manifest intent of a cell phone is what you describe; 99 percent of cell phone usage right now is purely trivial. That's my point; hence, it's hardly a requirement for life.
Other things I agree with. We are a culture increasingly dependent on technology, chemical alteration (drugs), and as such, an increasingly entitled group that is becoming less and less competent with each passing day.
However, aside from several important advances in medicine (like aspirin and penicillin), we're not ever going to agree that putting everyone on drugs to fix problems (most of which were caused by other drugs in the first place) is helping us. And no, I don't see healthy people. I really don't. I walked into a Walmart the other day and wanted to vomit. If all our advances in medicine are so great, why are people barely able to function? I thought medicine was supposed to help and cure, yes? Seems to me that the more medication somebody is on, the better off they'd be…and yet, their situations are hopelessly dire.
Even the ones who seem "healthy" typically aren't. They hit the gym but they also have other issues in other parts of their lives that I don't call healthy. Simple, healthy living has disappeared in my view.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 12/31/2014 4:46:52 PM
Wow, if you really feel that way, it illustrates my point perfectly PS3 Wizard. Why do you associate not having a cell phone and being a loner? I have more friends and social circles then I can keep up with. If people want to get ahold of me they know where I am. I'm either surfing, working, playing games or at the bar by my house. I also have a land line at my store and house.
Ben made a lot of the points I would have already so I won't repeat them all. I believe you, and most of the world for that matter, are suffering from some kind of collective insanity. I refuse to take part in it all, so I live life how it makes sense to me. I keep things simple. I surf almost everyday to stay in shape, I have my work, and my life long hobbies fishing and video games.
I would like to know how cell phones increase your life. Do you mean standard of living? Enhancing something or making it better is an opinion, which you seem to have trouble keeping separate from fact. You can also play the what if game all you'd like. Shit happens, I might get robbed, might miss my mothers last words, die in a car accident on the way to the party right now. I don't live life afraid of those things, and if you are afraid of not having your phone on you, and can't fathom how anyone can live without one, then maybe you've never woken up and started living in the first place. Unplug man.
I'm sick of people walking around with their phones out, documenting their existence, and not really paying attention to whats really going on. Every time I see something exciting happing to people, their first reaction is to start filming them selves and taking pictures with their phones. How about enjoying the moment for what it is with your own eyes, instead of through the screen of your phone?
Phones are not required for anything. If you think they are, and you rely on one, then you are an incompetent human being. I can run a store, stay in shape, have a healthy social life, and feel happy and good about myself without one. Oh, and feel perfectly SAFE while doing it. You really have your head mixed up if you feel they're that important. Stop letting the media dictate your decisions and live life originally.
Last edited by mk ultra on 12/31/2014 10:15:43 PM
It's amazing how threatened others seem to feel with cell phones… Clearly if the mention of "cell phones" gets one thinking of all those apps and live feed related to social media, and taking pictures of themselves commonly associated with smartphones as Ben admitted. Instead of the fact that they allow you to make a quick phone call anywhere (without cows and hayfields) without having to stop and ask to borrow/wait to use a local phone. Luckily there are still those pay as you go phones that avoid those expensive contract and are more meant for emergencies.
mk_ultra, you might want to rethink that in regards to teens or other people's kids. Wouldn't you want that instant contact with them if they just so happened to be out of your sight? My own parents did. Whenever I went out with my friends, I didn't feel the need to have one other than just letting them know I'm fine and not being kidnapped. Considering the lack of payphones around now, they're definitely a necessity just as much as home phones once were now a days.
Perhaps I'm just outdated in that cell phones to me are home phones but portable… with extra stuff that I don't really need but is useful on certain occasions (bill paying is nice).
Not threatened by cell phones at all. Just choose to look at life differently I suppose. I don't feel the need to be able to call someone at anytime, or get paranoid something might be happening to someone I love because I can't see them or get in touch with them immediately. I should have been more clear. I don't require cell phones for anything. If other people feel the need for them that's fine, but I think you're all paranoid for your reasons on why I should have one. If something happens to me and I can't call for help tough shit. That's a risk I'm willing to take being alive. I check my messages on my two phones everyday, which happen to be located at the two places I spend a majority of my time. When I'm out, I'm usually in the water anyway which wouldn't work, and I would just leave it in the house because I wouldn't leave it on the beach.
Last edited by mk ultra on 1/1/2015 6:36:47 PM
@ Ben
I said in an earlier reply that it doesn't need to be a smartphone. I could be a cheap pre-paid cell from a discount store. But mk-ultra doesn't feel the need to have one, so to each their own I guess. Not saying he isn't doing life right, I was just saying that I in general can't imagine life without having a cell.
I also agree about your views of the people of walmart. And I somewhat agree with the fact that healthy living has all but disappeared.
@mk ultra
I don't own a cell phone because its the popular thing to do…I need it for work and keeping up with family/friends and my kids. While I acknowledge that I don't need a phone as versatile
as my samsung galaxy note 4, I absolutely mainly utilize the basic call feature. I could do with a old school flip phone or T9 cell from the gas station.
And this isn't the apocalypse…so if I have access to emergency care, then I will utilize it. If nuclear war brings the world to a halt, I feel more than capable of surviving on my boy scout skills and books I've read. Point is, if i'm ever in trouble, I will be much more likely than you to save myself, in more situations. So i guess that counts toward standard of living and survivability.
Its the KIDS these days that were born in the 90's that I think you have me mixed up with. Those are the people who would rather take a twitpic of a guy who got shot and put it on worldstarhiphop than help the man…or take a picture of their pre cooked stir fry and post it to facebook. I was born in the 80's and lived a long time before cell phones became common place. I can do without one if forced to, but why would I?
I wasn't directing the "loner" thing at you, and admit that it was poor word choice. But you are generalizing me with a group of people I don't even imitate on a daily or hourly basis. I do use social media and take photos of my friends and family exploits, but I rarely share details of my intimate life. Although i do agree with you and Ben that the vast majority and younger people overuse their devices and share to much personal shit.
I'm far from incompetent. And I think I'm more rational than you give me credit for. I'm not the one living life on the edge everyday, unless I choose to do risktaking activities. So I guess we just have to agree to disagree…
I agree. It annoyed me a little that the best ending in Mass Effect 3 was originally out of reach without doing multiplayer (not too much since I did like the online) but it really got under my skin with Watch Dogs. You could be hacking something and get dumped back into the game world because some random had dropped into your session. Maybe you get them and maybe they get away clean, but essentially the game just grinds to a halt for two minutes while you deal with it.
I like the idea that progress in Ubisoft games can earn points that you can use to unlock extras in different titles, but I don't like having multiplayer forced on me. Even with the parts of uPlay that I do appreciate, I'm painfully aware that it really only exists as a means of copy protection-if you want the goodies, then log in so we can monitor you.
And for the record, I'm not against multiplayer at all. In fact It's where I spend the majority of my time. But you shouldn't feel the multiplayer or co op presence at all in a story driven single player experience in my opinion. It should be completely separate and just icing on the cake, as in TLoU, or CoD. Or be designed to be only online from the start like Destiny or CS:GO.
The bottomline is that single player games should stay SP without any MP influence – that would be great. To feel the immersion and story without worrying that you won't be able to get/unlock something without a friend.
THIS!!!
This is exactly why I feel that the COD devs should expercience building a online mp only game just like zipper did with MAG.
Last edited by AcHiLLiA on 12/31/2014 5:00:51 PM
playing games nowadays is starting to become more complicated than women.
When i read the title, I thought of something else nongaming related.
Just read it again and chuckled a bit.
Yea AC Unity is bad for it. I remember scouting armor or weapons and thinking "oh that one looks nice" but then soon realizing it wants me to cough up some real money to get it. Btw, don't no one buy the katana like I did if you're about to finish the story. The game just gives you the best sword in the game at the end anyway.
Wasn't it just a few years ago that people were so bothered by AC4 or 3 having like a naval online integrated element that ubisoft decided to yank that integration in response to negative feedback?
My thought that could solve the problem and it would be easy to do is why not just have a "hide" online elements in the game settings? This way those who don't want to encounter any of it can just have it all removed at their convenience.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 12/31/2014 10:14:54 AM
IT's safe to say that technology is going the way of connected everything…
Connected accessories (watches, fit bands)
Connected home
Connected games (mobile to mobile, mobile to console)
etc.
While I do understand the idea behind it, it takes away from some traditional things such as meeting in person, talking on the phone (which I don't like but others do), physical letters through mail, playing coop in person etc.
As consumers we determine what organizations put out there but something as convenient as playing with others and accomplishing things together and the convenience of that in the lives of young professionals is simply rewardubg for most.
Last edited by MRSUCCESS on 12/31/2014 11:29:09 AM
Sort of reminds me of the movie Surrogates, with Bruce Willis. Soon, nobody will leave the house and we will live our everyday lives through a replica avatar we control via V.R. devices.
I fear there is no way to stop this from happening, short of an apocalyptic disaster.
I liked Assassins Creed Unity, but the online crap has got me seriously thinking of steering clear of any future Ubisoft games. They'll miss me, just not as bad as Marlboro does.
Everything is geared toward collecting your data so they can sell it. I hate what's happened too, and I feel bullied. Ubisoft is the worst so far.
Uplay is absolutely horrible so I can't fault anyone for not wanting to use it but with co op skills and whatnot… what do you expect developers to do, offer no rewards for playing cooperatively with others?
If Unity forced you to play co-op at certain points just to clear what was otherwise a single player game, I could understand, but they're not doing that. They're giving you the choice, and some incentive, to do so.
It seems to me you just want every game to cater to your, let's face it, rather antiquated attitude towards an ever more social entertainment medium. It would be easier, on your blood pressure at least, to adapt and actually connect with people once in awhile. It won't kill you. Unless you're playing some form of deathmatch.
"Uplay is absolutely horrible so I can't fault anyone for not wanting to use it but with co op skills and whatnot… what do you expect developers to do, offer no rewards for playing cooperatively with others?"
I expect them to offer no MORE rewards than are provided in the single-player campaign, especially when the entire focus of the game – and the franchise in general – has been solo play. I also expect them to make it so those who wish to play completely solo (not connected to anything, no multiplayer) can enjoy the same full experience.
They DO force you to play co-op. If you want to get all the skills Arno has at his disposal, you have no choice. You can go out of your way to do all the optional objectives in every single solo mission (and I do), and it's still not enough. You always feel behind.
If it's "antiquated" to ask to be treated equally as a consumer, guess I'll have to be antiquated. Guess I'll just have to accept that I'll always be forced to buy DLC to unlock certain things in the game I purchased, and I'll have to have apps, social media accounts, and accounts with publishers in order to fully enjoy an experience I already paid for.
It seems to me that you've got no clue about the game in question, and you should probably be quiet. I know you hate Ubisoft and I'm relatively certain you've never even played Unity. And yet, here you are, speaking like an authority…something you never seem to stop doing.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 12/31/2014 3:23:09 PM
I've played Unity, briefly, only to see how terrible it is (pretty terrible).
Do you NEED all the skill points to beat or enjoy the game? No, so you don't HAVE to play co-op. You're just upset because the game isn't specifically tailored to your antiquated preferences.
It's fine if you don't like playing online. Do you, as they say. I just don't see how you can expect developers to not incentivize online play, when they know that these days that's the big draw.
Since Unity is the only example you offered of this problem you speak of, it's the only one I'm addressing here. There may be other games out there that do this sort of thing, but if there are I haven't played them, and you never brought them up.
And someone who once called Portal 1 a "silly multiplayer shooter" shouldn't lecture people on speaking out of turn 😛
You're actually that obtuse? To say that the enjoyment of ripping through an open-world game and sticking to the main storyline is the same enjoyment one gets out of indulging in all the optional stuff? The optional stuff in any sandbox game typically represents the MAJORITY of the game's content and in Unity, almost all of it requires some form of connectivity or multiplayer.
If you really believe there's nothing wrong with that, nothing else needs to be said. I also don't see anything wrong with asking for something tailored to my interests when multiplayer fans get something tailored to THEIR interests almost every day of the damn year.
Giving incentives to play online and connect in other ways is hardly the same thing as making it a requirement for those who wish to experience the entire game, as it was designed by the developers.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 12/31/2014 3:42:16 PM
Well Ben it sounds like Unity isn't the game for you, then. I personally see no problem with offering incentives for people to play co-op, so we'll have to agree do disagree, especially since a quick look at the skills you unlock doing co-op are all co-op based skills such as group healing and ammo sharing. Since you can play all the co-op missions solo, the only thing you're missing is skills you'd never use playing solo, anyway.
Personally I don't see why that's a big deal, but we all have our own priorities. I haven't been a completionist in a long time. Ground Zeroes, which just came out on Steam earlier this month, might be the first time I've bothered 100%ing a game in years.
You're still not getting it. This isn't about INCENTIVES. I have no problem with incentives; I've said that multiple times. I have a problem with REQUIREMENTS.
And no, you get Skill Points for doing co-op missions, which are used to unlock any and all of Arno's skills. You can attempt these missions alone but they're a colossal pain in the ass as they're obviously designed for 2-4 players. And they have double the Skill Points available when compared to the typical solo mission. Those Skill Points are used for Arno's base advancement and as such, this structure puts an obvious emphasis on multiplayer.
You'd know this if you'd played it for longer than five minutes.
Bio, you are dead wrong about Unity. You do have to play co-op to finish getting skills that are used in single player. I play the game and that is one of the problems I have with it.
Yeah, I still don't see why it's a big deal, the skill points I mean. If they leave the difficulty ramped up for 2-4 players even when playing solo, though, I'd agree that's bogus as hell.
I have plenty of side missions left that I won't do because no matter how many I do, I can't earn the points to finish training or acquire the remaining solo player skills.
The only thing that makes sense to me, is tying trophies to multiplayer not skill sets and training.
tes37: My point exactly. I had no way of knowing this when I did my review…you really don't get it until you've played for at least 40 hours or more.
bio: Yes, the missions are the same difficulty whether you attempt them with one or four players. It's pretty retarded.
Agreed Ben.
I don't want to be cynical, and I am, but in all likelihood they will have DLC to unlock all those things for that do not want to use phone apps or do co-op or multiplayer. I think Ubisoft has started calling them… Time Savers.
Us single player gamers will have to pay out to be able to get access to things. For me, I hate it, but I will play the game anyway regardless that I know I am missing something.
Keep playing!
I think developers live in this bubble where they have a lot of convenient options for playing multiplayer, and don't realize that for many of us finding someone to play with is a giant pain or just plain unrealistic (unless we want to go online with total strangers – I don't).
I also hate when a formerly single player game decides to include multiplayer and then suddenly 70% of the trophies/achievements are no longer accessible via the single player campaign.