No single player only game that is story driven has good replay ability IMO because what makes the game so good is wanting to see what happens next, once you know what happens it becomes boring. The only single player games that need good replay ability are action games.

To put it one way I wouldn't exactly call a game a timeless classic or masterpiece if I play it once and never touch it again. Other people may disagree saying certain experiences need only be played once to leave a strong lasting impression on you like journey. But that raises the question as to whether that's a good "game" or "experience". (maybe an "unconventional" game instead).

Cutting it short, to me replayability does matter (money doesn't grow on trees people lol).

Can't count the times Iv'ed played Uncharted 2.

For me Souls games are the definition of re playability , i probably finished Dark Souls 1 like 6 times, plus countless hours of PvP and getting ganked.

Yes, especially in an age were budgets are tight and people are hesitant to buy a game without getting their moneys worth. Trophies and achievements are good enough for replay ability, we want content, we want secrets that are super hidden and difficult to obtain. This is why a lot of news/SNES/64/psone games are still played today, not because they have achievements but because they have tons of replay ability and were still finding hidden secrets today.

It only matter's when its supposed to be replayable. RPG's for instance, giving you the ability to play a whole new game with a different character can be fun even if you are going to be asked the same questions and do the same quest. Replayablity is not putting hidden collectibles around the game, expecting players to play the game again just to get the ones they missed, in no way adding a different alternative story what so ever. Collectibles are just for achievement hunters in no way does it mean replayability.

I think it depends on the game. If the replayability is "phoned in copy and paste then no I would I rather have an enjoyable game without filler.

If the replayability adds legitimate quest lines that divert and entertain or give a difference look at something. As long as it contributes something to the overall story or progress skill enhancement what have you then yes it matters.

Actually come to think of it the only time I am ok with a game not having replayability is if it is a small indie game that I know going into it isn't long and is one of those one off type experiences.

Most developers are smart enough to implement important extra side quests and such to do the rest tack on an online multiplayer whether the game needs it or not.

oh yes it does adds so much value to games.

I prefer my $60 games to be short and unplayable a second time. Said an EA slave.

I'd like to think that it matters but I tend to play linearish games (rather than, say, RPGs), and the closest I've come to playing a very replayable game is Dishonored.

But whilst I have replayed a few missions the idea of replaying the whole game again in a different way is unlikely to me. The game is simply no longer entirely fresh to you and it is the mulitplayer element that generally serves to keep people going back to the game. So, I have never replayed The Last of Us (and frankly I don't want to replay much of it as it is scary) but I always play its multiplayer. And it became clear to me that the choices available in The Last of Us were often illusions anyway. You learn through dying that there's often a best way to play. It's like reading a choose your own adventure novel where there's always only 1 choice that doesn't lead to
death.