Back in my day....

[TPiddy]

We played games with friends in the SAME HOUSE. We bought little adapters to add more and more controllers to a single system, single game.

Why is it that now that our TV's are bigger than ever, the only local co-op we get nowadays is sports and flailing motion controls all over the place?

Halo: Reach has 4 player local, but only in certain game modes, and firefight is not one of them. Gears of War? 2 players. The last truly good 4+ player local co-op game I've tried was the Marvel Ultimate Alliance series and a special nod to Castle Crashers.

So my question to you escapists, is why? Is it the developers trying to squeeze more sales by requiring each user to have their own copy? Is it the designers who want us to look at their beautiful environments? Is it too complicated to code local multiplayer co-op anymore? Is the Wii to blame?

 

[SammiYin]

Sales mainly, games and consoles sell for more than extra controllers.
It's also easier to just play together online than having a gathering.

 

[Kaytastrophe]

I really don't know why I think because online is more immediate (i.e. if you want to multi player you don't need to wait for your loser friends with jobs or school, you can play immediately with random strangers). This sucks for us romantic gamers though who want to include our significant others in our hobby; there are but a few games to share. I personally have little interest in playing multi player. I have portal 2 and I have yet to take it online because it is more fun figuring the puzzles out with someone beside you. I would like to see split screen co op come back.

Also while I am doing my old man rant: What the hell is with the screens in split screen. I mean I played CoD:WaW and its two boxes in front of an image! I did not get a 46in lcd tv so I could look at a weird 17 inch screen. It is called split screen i.e. you split the whole screen!

 

[TPiddy]

Yeah, that's what I don't understand.... there were countless games for Super NES, NES, even Playstation 1, 2 and the original XBox that accommodated 4 local players.... now that everyhing's online this and XBox Live that..... the local co-op is dying.... a slow, painful death....

 

[Broady Brio]

PS2 Multitab (Allowing 4 extra players.) + WWF Smackdown! Just Bring It = THE MOST ELECTRIFYING EXPERIENCE IN MY HOUSE.

 

[Javarock]

PS2 Multitab (Allowing 4 extra players.) + WWF Smackdown! Just Bring It = THE MOST ELECTRIFYING EXPERIENCE IN MY HOUSE.

Sad in a way however that a wrestleing game that allow's co-op beats the rest?

However must be fun.

I want a 4 player dungeon crawler D:

 

[M0rp43vs]

PS2 Multitab (Allowing 4 extra players.) + WWF Smackdown! Just Bring It = THE MOST ELECTRIFYING EXPERIENCE IN MY HOUSE.

Sad in a way however that a wrestleing game that allow's co-op beats the rest?

However must be fun.

I want a 4 player dungeon crawler D:

So far the only thing that springs into mind is the champions of norrath series for ps2.(never could get the second game to work past that damn water level though)

I agree, I wish there was more local multiplayer games. I never cared too much bout online

 

[Artina89]

It has already been mentioned: Its all about the money. Consoles and games fetch more revenue than spare controllers (even though they are pretty expensive, it's roughly £40 for a spare PS3 controller) not to mention there will also be subscription fees that someone has to pay before they can play online (at least in the case of the Xbox, when I last checked at least). I don't play online, I much prefer to play local co-op with my brother and/or a couple of our friends and members of our family, but everything seems to be switching to online play (sigh...)

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Local co-op is just plain harder to implement and code into a game than online. With online, you just have to add in some netcode, which you can basically just copy and paste from another game (assuming the dev has made another game with online or the publisher allows them to use the netcode of another game they published). With local co-op, you have worry about graphics and framerates and such, you just can't allow 2 players to be both playing a game without issue when that game was optimized for only 1 player to be playing. Graphical quality has to be lowered because the system now has to process double the amount of graphics. With online co-op, you don't need to worry about lowering graphics.

 

[Piorn]

I remember the discussions who would get the cheap, broken controller. I guess that improved.

 

[funguy2121]

Sales mainly, games and consoles sell for more than extra controllers.
It's also easier to just play together online than having a gathering.

I'd say it's lazier to play online together than having a gathering. I predict that, now that online isn't all new and sexy, there will be a split screen resurgence.

True story. I purchased an EA product, with a 4-controller logo on the back and boasts of split-screen badassery. I spent several minutes trying to access the split screen mode, which didn't exist. I called EA to confirm this. They said it was a typo, half-assed an apology, and offered to send me a $10 coupon for a game on a system I'd told them already I don't own. EA got hung up on. Not like it hurt their feelings, but I was happy to take the thing to my local Gamestop the next day.

EA really got the ball rolling on this. It's their electric car, and they made it their mission to kill it.

 

[MindBullets]

It can't be that hard to do, seeing as it was done all the time in the past, so it's clearly just for the sake of money.

Thing is, once a game's popularity fades, online multiplayer is more or less useless, since there's nobody to play against any more. Local multiplayer would give the game a longer lifespan, so there'd be more reason to buy the game.

So it all comes down to whether the sales gained from local MP outweigh the sales lost. My guess is the publishers/developers don't think so, or haven't realised how the ability to play with friends on the same sofa might be a deciding factor in whether someone chooses to buy a game. Who's right in this regard is a bit hard for me to tell, though.

 

[MercurySteam]

When my copy of Mortal Kombat arrives, I'll have another game that can be played with more than two people (the others being all my Halo games).

 

[loc978]

...I still have local co-op in my house, it just requires a PC per player. Thankfully, we can accommodate up to 8 here, currently.

 

[William MacKay]

money. consoles, games, headsets probably, internet, XBL if XBox. it all adds up.
plus lots of people are getting consoles for themselves instead of just a couple of them having it.

 

[Catchy Slogan]

I miss it when I played a good co-op campaign with my brothers.

Side Note: Also, remember when kids knew what a video cassette was?

Times change. Along with technology, and people have become lazier. Not all people, but enough.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Sales mainly, games and consoles sell for more than extra controllers.

Consoles yes, games no. The DualShock 3 retails for $55 to $60. Sure there are third party options, but from personal experience they're the ones you give to people you don't like. Can't speak for the 360.

I also remember a fifty year old professor laughing about twenty-somethings using the phrase "Back in my day."