Yeah, Seeker, but that's really only to those who focus on the online only in games. Many gamers play games with friends on couches (BEST kind of gaming IMO) or enjoy the single player. This generation has a lot of online gaming, but that's not necessarily a good thing . . . if it ends up taking complete focus over the entire game.

I fail to see how more games with online multiplayer will ever kill splitscreen. The best thing to do is to add BOTH splitscreen and online (or use both at the same time) options. And there's TONS of games with both options, though of course, splitscreen will never beat 16-32 multiplayer games...and online pretty much guarantees people coming into your games instead of waiting for your friends to get off work so you can use splitscreen.

Yeah but that depends on what you consider more fun. I enjoy gaming with friends, people I know, more than I enjoy gaming with strangers who can range from not knowing what they're doing in the game, to being downright pompous jerks. My friends though, we game for fun, not to get higher on the scoreboard and shove you out the way to do it (in a pompous, jerkish type of way).

So in my case, I prefer splitscreen over the 16-32 multiplayer.

But also single player is nice. I don't fear online would kill splitscreen. What I do fear is that gamers become so online-oriented that they pretty much turn devs into being online-oriented and they forget to put in an outstanding singleplayer or plot behind their games.

Oh no, I can work with free, as I've already downloaded it. The problem I have is some games without any online component. Rag Doll Kung fu looks like a game that relies on multiplayer and has NO online.