I don't have many friends that play videogames. And even less that like Rayman (none).
Besides, since when is an added feature ever a bad thing?
Call of Duty generation? Welcome to the future, gramps. Shove your nostalgia somewhere else. I'm not paying $60 for a game bereft of a feature required in 2011.
Do you realize how dumb that sounds? Since when is anything required in a video game? An added feature is not a bad thing at all. Chastising a game just because of a feature that not all games have to have is just stupid. Someone earlier said that no game HAS to have anything. A great single player experience is important in any type of game, so why should it be wrong that a game focuses on just to be a fantastic gaming experience? Rayman has NEVER been a co-op oriented game, so who says this one has to be? As for co-op, there are people that prefer to have their friends come over to play rather than play with random people online, so why is that bad?
I'd be willing to bet money that you're going to praise all over Batman: Arkham City (which is amazing), which... wait for it... has NO MULTIPLAYER. But wait... it's required, right?
Maybe I do reminisce about games of yore, but at least many of the games in the past have true blood sweat and tears put into it for a great gaming experience unlike a good chunk of recent games. But then again I don't need to cap random people's heads off and waggle my e-penis in generic military shooter #3209. That's just my opinion.
So in conclusion, it's not necessary. Oh yeah, and bite me you young whippersnapper.
Anyway, BACK ON TOPIC: Rayman has been awesome for years, and I'm glad to see him come back in a non-Rabbids game, but I'll wait for it to go below $40.