Allow me to elucidate. Your response amounted to "this game is designed around multiplayer", true enough, but left out the many design shortcomings that don't just make multiplayer imperfect, but in many cases impractical. Escalation Protocol - what does it take to get a 9-man fire team? Yet that's the max number of players able to join the event. Even getting a standard 6-man fire team required jumping through many hoops that resulted in far more time assembling your team than actually playing the content. Bungie stated this was because the content was designed for a 3-man team. That's funny, because at the time of the release no typical 3-man team would have gotten anywhere near finishing the final round - if they even got to the final round. That means, in short, if played as Bungie designed it wasn't worth doing. It was a lot of wasted time for a frustrating end. The multiplayer is so flawed in this game it makes what is printed on the box pretty close to being dishonest. Not quite, but close. I mean, where does it tell you you have to go to a third-party program to find a fire team? I've read both boxes, and it doesn't say that. Look, I've been in multiple clans, done hundreds of raids, I enjoy playing with others, but I will tell you EVERYONE winds up playing alone at some point. I can't see the loss in providing content for solo players.

Everything here is an opinion for the most part that I can’t really argue against. Except this. So you suggest even with flaws, despite developing a framework for a multiplayer game, suddenly building more solo content is smarter than just fixing what you had and adding improvements? In order to shift the focus, a lot of changes would be required. Adding solo content means less multiplayer content (everything you said before was adding new loot or matchmaking options), but what about full content meant entirely for one person? What if they took the time to develop a Shattered Throne type dungeon for solos? That still takes time and it would anger everyone else that they couldn’t play with THEIR friends (because other people have them, not meant to be tongue in cheek). Why sacrifice what you already built to only later on divide your attention? I get why you WANT it. I get where the MERIT is. But it simply won’t happen due to the economics of the situation. Or if it does, it’ll only be in giving solo as an option.

This game is now 5 years old, and every design flaw in multiplayer is still there and will always be there. There is no reason to suggest we should wait until multiplayer gets fixed to ask for solo content. Since you brought up Shattered Throne, let's use that as an example. Bungie likes to recycle content. Whether it's old exotics that have been taken away to drip feed us in the next expansion, or recycling old enemy types to create new ones (Taken, anyone?), ships, sparrows, armor... a great many things in the game are recycled assets from earlier revisions. That's how Bungie does business. So... do I think revamping old content for solo purposes takes away from multiplayer? No, not at all. I would go further to say it's an easier way to fill content gaps than many other things that could be done, and fleshes out the game at the same time.

I’m still not sure where in there there’s a justification for solo content being a dedicated content area in a multiplayer game. Should every game have every game type? Remember when Assassin’s Creed added PvP (it didn’t last)? Some things are just predominantly one thing, and that can be okay.

It can be, but we must also remember games evolve. Bungie is away from Activision now, free to create a new paradigm. In fact, that’s exactly what people want and expect.

Unrelated note: Detective Pikachu is good. On topic, they split from a publisher. I don’t expect different content due to publisher change.

Leaked intel says otherwise.

Feel free to share. I’ll shut up if it satisfactorily spits in the face of what I’m saying.

Data miners point to a “dark zone” ala “The Division”, ie a shared world PvP/PvE in zones.