Just because resources were used for other modes doesn't automatically mean that resources were taken away from the main game. For example, just because Dead Space 2 had a multiplayer component doesn't mean that resources were taken away from the single player component.

You don't know how many resources devs intended to allocate for each portion of the game. The single player portion of RE6 was most likely completed WAAAY before this mode was even conceived.

Assuming that RE6 was a single player campaign only game(no multiplayer, no extra modes), can you "prove" that Capcom would have used their extra resources to make the SP game better than the one we are getting now?

***Just because resources were used for other modes doesn't automatically mean that resources were taken away from the main ***

I didn't say it did. I said, specifically, that it depends on how much it DOES detract from the quality of the single player game. That could mean it doesn't (Zero Detraction).

***For example, just because Dead Space 2 had a multiplayer component doesn't mean that resources were taken away from the single player component.***

You don't know that it wasn't. But, we do know that many people felt that multiplayer did not add anything worthwhile to the game and felt that some of the 'horror' element was removed from it to make it more of an action game. Does this mean that focusing only on SP could have made a better single player experience? I don't know, but with the lackluster multiplayer, I think many people wouldn't have minded to find out. Or, they wouldn't have minded a much better multiplayer experience for the time and effort that was put into it.

***The single player portion of RE6 was most likely completed WAAAY before this mode was even conceived. ***

You don't know that, which you should know since your preceding statement said just that.

***Assuming that RE6 was a single player campaign only game(no multiplayer, no extra modes), can you "prove" that Capcom would have used their extra resources to make the SP game better than the one we are getting now?***

No, but I can say that if the single player game is lackluster compared to the previous games that they should have invested more money into it. If they couldn't, it could very easily be determined that money that was used to make the multiplayer game could have been used to improve the single player experience.

Would it be 100% accurate? No, but it would still be a fair assessment of the situation. Does that mean the multiplayer sucks because the single player experience doesn't hold up well? No, but that's beside the point, isn't it?

Again, I never claimed they had, but I said that it depends on how much it detracts from the quality of the single player game. I didn't say it did, I said if it does.