No split-screen co-op: is it just greed?

[Sonicron]

I think it depends on the game, really. There are a lot of games where a split-screen feature works well, the prominent sticking out in my mind being racing games. Some 3rd-person shooters may work, too, if the game itself is not too visually busy... Gears of War is a prime example of why I'm on the fence here - it works, but it detracts heavily from the immersion. Then again, local multiplayer works astonishingly well in Army of Two, a game where fun is instantly quadrupled by playing split-screen co-op with a buddy.
Also, local multiplayer is an absolute must in any 2D/2.5D sidescrollers and platformers, such as 'Splosion Man or Super Smash Bros.
In most of these cases (racing games in particular), if a developer decides against local multiplayer, then yes, I agree with you, OP.

In some games, however, I am decidedly against split-screen, because the game itself is too visually busy and I really don't want to share my screen with someone because I want to marvel at what's going on around me. This is where online co-op comes in handy.
It may be a bad example because it hasn't actually been released yet, but take a look at how Transformers: War for Cybertron deals with this issue - the way they implemented drop-in/drop-out online co-op looks extremely convincing to me, and the reason they did it (according to them, so this must be taken with a pinch of salt) was that there was too much going on on-screen for them to split it.

Then again, money is always a factor, so what do I know.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

This just doesn't wash. Older systems were no different; the devs pushed the SNES, N64, and PS2 just as hard. If local co-op required split screen, they took hits to frame rate, resolution, draw distance, etc. - whatever they had to do to make things playable in those modes. Even when there was gobs of slow down, people had fun. Because they were playing videogames with their friends instead of sitting alone in their rooms with a headset.

Except that the games that tended to use split-screen didn't push their systems hard to begin with. Now, games are expected to push as far as possible.

Perfect Dark says you're talking out of your ass.

I'm sort of surprised that people are defending the lack of local co-op in modern games. This is a hobby based entirely around enjoying yourself, and a LOT of gamers will point to these sorts of experiences as some of their most cherished. We should ignore them because it's more cost effective or sensible? regarding a purely leisure activity? Insane.

In some games, however, I am decidedly against split-screen, because the game itself is too visually busy and I really don't want to share my screen with someone because I want to marvel at what's going on around me.

This is a decision the player should be able to make. If the game has a lot of elements that would be entertaining in a local co-op mode, I think it should have a local co-op feature. End of story. If you're worried about the screen being too small, understand that some people happen to have large televisions. If you're worried about the game slowing down or losing visual quality, understand that some people value playing with real, live friends more than optimal framerate or graphics.

 

[Brotherofwill]

This just doesn't wash. Older systems were no different; the devs pushed the SNES, N64, and PS2 just as hard. If local co-op required split screen, they took hits to frame rate, resolution, draw distance, etc. - whatever they had to do to make things playable in those modes. Even when there was gobs of slow down, people had fun. Because they were playing videogames with their friends instead of sitting alone in their rooms with a headset.

Except that the games that tended to use split-screen didn't push their systems hard to begin with. Now, games are expected to push as far as possible.

Games were always expected to push as far as possible. That's a load of crap.

Yeah, I get it. It's hard on the hardware, ofcourse it is. But that's not an excuse. They have to make it work, frame rate drops etc included. Gears of War 2 was a recent title that had 2 player splitscreen with very good graphics and it turned out for the best.

There's no excuse. Who cares if the graphics take a drop? You can have your polished singleplayer, but leave the chugging, ugly and beaten splitscreen to the guys that just want to have fun.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

My absolute best gaming memories involve local co-op. Playing together with a friend in the same room is just the best way to game, in my opinion - and my friends agree. In fact, we've played a lot of admittedly average games just because they were smart enough to include local co-op.

Great example: Borderlands. Simplistic graphics, repetitive gameplay, nonexistent AI, horrendous balance... and we played the shit out of it because it has split-screen co-op.

So in a time when every dev is trying to shoe-horn some kind of multiplayer into their game, and more games feature computer controlled allies throughout, why do we seem to have fewer quality local co-op experiences than ever?

A big part of me thinks it's pure greed. If your game allows 2-4 friends to play together using one disc, you've just sold one copy to four people. You'd certainly rather those 1-3 additional players purchased their own discs - even if the end result is four friends playing "together" from their separate homes.

Might sound strange, but it feels like gaming is becoming more reclusive *despite* all the networks and connectivity. I liken it to the texting/twitter/facebook revolution, which purports to keep everyone connected while frequently replacing real, face-to-face communication.

Long story, short: greed + technology = the irreversible destruction of our humanity.

Yeah, I just wish Borderlands had 4 player coop and I might buy it for console as well to play with my family, ah well.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

This just doesn't wash. Older systems were no different; the devs pushed the SNES, N64, and PS2 just as hard. If local co-op required split screen, they took hits to frame rate, resolution, draw distance, etc. - whatever they had to do to make things playable in those modes. Even when there was gobs of slow down, people had fun. Because they were playing videogames with their friends instead of sitting alone in their rooms with a headset.

Except that the games that tended to use split-screen didn't push their systems hard to begin with. Now, games are expected to push as far as possible.

Games were always expected to push as far as possible. That's a load of crap.

Yeah, I get it. It's hard on the hardware, ofcourse it is. But that's not an excuse. They have to make it work, frame rate drops etc included. Gears of War 2 was a recent title that had 2 player splitscreen with very good graphics and it turned out for the best.

There's no excuse. Who cares if the graphics take a drop? You can have your polished singleplayer, but leave the chugging, ugly and beaten splitscreen to the guys that just want to have fun.

Word.

 

[JEBWrench]

Perfect Dark says you're talking out of your ass.

I'm sort of surprised that people are defending the lack of local co-op in modern games. This is a hobby based entirely around enjoying yourself, and a LOT of gamers will point to these sorts of experiences as some of their most cherished. We should ignore them because it's more cost effective or sensible? regarding a purely leisure activity? Insane.

You mean, a game using a three year-old engine? That required additional hardware to get a resolution on-par with other games on the same system?
Thank-you for proving my point.


I'm not saying I don't dislike split-screen co-op. (Well, I don't. I like to be able to see what's going on. But I don't care for multiplayer games anyways.) I'm saying is that it's rarely worth it from a technological standpoint.

 

[JEBWrench]

Games were always expected to push as far as possible. That's a load of crap.

Except for multiplayer games. Their technological advancements were second to the novelty of multiplayer. That's why the games that really pushed their systems were single-player. Because it's easier to do.

There's no excuse. Who cares if the graphics take a drop? You can have your polished singleplayer, but leave the chugging, ugly and beaten splitscreen to the guys that just want to have fun.

Who cares if the graphics take a drop? The majority of consumers. Because most people are shallow.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Perfect Dark says you're talking out of your ass.

I'm sort of surprised that people are defending the lack of local co-op in modern games. This is a hobby based entirely around enjoying yourself, and a LOT of gamers will point to these sorts of experiences as some of their most cherished. We should ignore them because it's more cost effective or sensible? regarding a purely leisure activity? Insane.

You mean, a game using a three year-old engine? That required additional hardware to get a resolution on-par with other games on the same system?
Thank-you for proving my point.


I'm not saying I don't dislike split-screen co-op. (Well, I don't. I like to be able to see what's going on. But I don't care for multiplayer games anyways.) I'm saying is that it's rarely worth it from a technological standpoint.

What does that even mean? I play games to have fun. I don't care if it's not optimal from a technical standpoint.

Also, saying you don't care for multiplayer games kind of precludes you from this conversation, so you're coming off as a bit of a pointless contrarian.

And do people honestly have such small televisions/poor eyesight? It's really not that hard to see split-screens, especially with high definition televisions.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Games were always expected to push as far as possible. That's a load of crap.

Except for multiplayer games. Their technological advancements were second to the novelty of multiplayer. That's why the games that really pushed their systems were single-player. Because it's easier to do.

There's no excuse. Who cares if the graphics take a drop? You can have your polished singleplayer, but leave the chugging, ugly and beaten splitscreen to the guys that just want to have fun.

Who cares if the graphics take a drop? The majority of consumers. Because most people are shallow.

The graphics only have to take a hit when split-screen. They can be unaffected in single player. Also, Gears of War 2 makes a lot of your points fairly moot, as it's one of the most graphically impressive games on 360 AND 100% local co-op friendly.

Why does it feel like you're in this thread to grind multiple axes rather than discuss the merits of the subject? You don't care about gaming with other people, so how is posting here not a waste of your time?

 

[Drauden]

Some developers say that "the system cannot process two screens at the same time, herpy derp", but I think it's all about making our friends buying the same games as us to play multiplayer. Or I know that it's all about that.

 

[JEBWrench]

What does that even mean? I play games to have fun. I don't care if it's not optimal from a technical standpoint.

You don't care, but the average consumer does.

Also, saying you don't care for multiplayer games kind of precludes you from this conversation, so you're coming off as a bit of a pointless contrarian.

But I understand from a technical aspect the difficulties of split-screen co-op.

And do people honestly have such small televisions/poor eyesight? It's really not that hard to see split-screens, especially with high definition televisions.

Not all of us have high-definition televisions. Back when I actually played games like Goldeneye, most people didn't.

 

[Feriluce]

I dont own a console, but the times I've played splitscreen at friends, I've hated it throroughly. Local coop is fine if its all rendered in one scene, but splitscreen is just horrible.
You keep looking at the wrong part of the screen, and get confused by it. It looks horrible as well. Good riddance I say!

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

You don't care, but the average consumer does.

These days the average consumer is wasting his/her life on Farmville or the Wii. Seriously, you think the absence of split-screen co-op has more to do with some arbitrary sense of duty to optimal system output than the simple greed of forcing friends to buy the same game 2+ times?

But I understand from a technical aspect the difficulties of split-screen co-op.

You run multiple versions of the game with reduced draw in, resolution, frame rate, texture detail, etc. It's the easiest shit in the world on a PC, and modern consoles have never been more similar to personal computers. I'm well aware that nothing is ever as easy as it sounds, but the "challenges" involved can't be the primary reason these modes have disappeared.

Not all of us have high-definition televisions. Back when I actually played games like Goldeneye, most people didn't.

Nowadays, most gamers do. Goldeneye, back in the day, didn't have nearly enough detail to require HD, so that's kind of a pointless statement. Also, I'm struggling not to say something along the lines of "do you miss having friends?". Can I just summarize your argument as "It takes more than zero resources to include these modes, and I don't use them because I don't play with friends, therefore I disagree."?

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I dont own a console, but the times I've played splitscreen at friends, I've hated it throroughly. Local coop is fine if its all rendered in one scene, but splitscreen is just horrible.
You keep looking at the wrong part of the screen, and get confused by it. It looks horrible as well. Good riddance I say!

Ug. I guess I should have known this thread would attract a) people too young to remember when local co-op was more common and b) exclusively PC gamers. Neither group of people knows what I'm talking about in the slightest.

 

[Doclector]

I absolutely hate split screen's death. I'm no programmer, but would it really taken that much time/effort to put in a split screen mode? I want to believe it's greed, but alot of activision's games feature split screen, and they're the greediest corporation on the planet. XD

 

[Baby Tea]

Yeah, I get it. It's hard on the hardware, ofcourse it is. But that's not an excuse. They have to make it work, frame rate drops etc included. Gears of War 2 was a recent title that had 2 player splitscreen with very good graphics and it turned out for the best.

There's no excuse. Who cares if the graphics take a drop? You can have your polished singleplayer, but leave the chugging, ugly and beaten splitscreen to the guys that just want to have fun.

Gears of war was designed with Splitscreen in mind. This means that the development team had a part of the team dedicated to split screen, which means they had a budget for it. Not every company want to put extra money into a project for a minority of players.

And graphics DO take a hit. My wife and I used to play Left 4 Dead split screen, and the graphics were noticeably worse. Not only that, but the load times were longer, and the frame rate during the busy sequences was pretty bad. One 'Survivor' mode came out, the FPS hit so low that it would almost be unplayable. I love split screen it wasn't 'fun'.

And while you might not care that graphics and frame-rates hit the floor in split screen, guess who does? No, not 'sold out consumers', but the developers. The average gamer is already crazy-ass picky about 'poor products' coming out, so what if they released a buggy, crappy looking split screen for their game? How would gamer reaction be then? And if you don't want it to be crappy and bug-ridden, then you're asking companies to spend more money for a minority group, which they probably don't have the budget for, and then who is being greedy?

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Okay, that's the best counterpoint I've seen. If Activision isn't doing it, there's a good chance it's not greedy.

 

[Delusibeta]

Ultimately, Nintendo's pretty close to having a monopoly in local multiplayer. Hell, they're adding local multiplayer of sorts to what really should be single player games (see: Sin & Punishment 2 and the Super Mario Galaxy games).

I suspect it's the popularity of internet play that killed off local multiplayer. The publishers can now call the shots on what modes should be played, what maps should be played and ultimately enables publishers to sell DLC to enable online play (I'm not talking of the Online Pass here, but rather the annoyance of getting kicked out of most games when you haven't bought the map packs). So, yeah, I would imagine that there would be an element of greed in there. (Obviously, most of this doesn't apply to PC games, Modern Warfare 2 being a notable exception to this exclusion)

As for the graphics argument, it's perfectly possible to strip out the decarative features in multi player while still maintaining the graphics in single player (F-Zero GX comes to mind). Whether anyone wants to bother with that these days when they can make plenty of DLC dollars by not including it and forcing people to go online is another question entirely. (Exception: Wii. No DLC dollars, barring single player modes e.g. Rock Band tracks et al. You do wonder if Nintendo had this sort of argument in mind when they hobbled their online play)

 

[JEBWrench]

These days the average consumer is wasting his/her life on Farmville or the Wii. Seriously, you think the absence of split-screen co-op has more to do with some arbitrary sense of duty to optimal system output than the simple greed of forcing friends to buy the same game 2+ times?

Look at how quickly games get panned for having sub-optimal output. I'm sure there's an element of money-making involved, but hey, that's what companies are supposed to do.

You run multiple versions of the game with reduced draw in, resolution, frame rate, texture detail, etc. It's the easiest shit in the world on a PC, and modern consoles have never been more similar to personal computers. I'm well aware that nothing is ever as easy as it sounds, but the "challenges" involved can't be the primary reason these modes have disappeared.

But then you need to pay your gigantic staff to recreate those lower-resolution lower-detail versions of the game. All with the publisher pounding on your door wondering when the game is going to get released.

Nowadays, most gamers do. Goldeneye, back in the day, didn't have nearly enough detail to require HD, so that's kind of a pointless statement. Also, I'm struggling not to say something along the lines of "do you miss having friends?". Can I just summarize your argument as "It takes more than zero resources to include these modes, and I don't use them because I don't play with friends, therefore I disagree."?

I'm sorry that you take such offense to someone who disagrees with you.

If you want to summarize my argument, feel free.

 

[Ghostkai]

Gotta say I agree with ya OP, and sadly, it's not going to change.
Online Gaming has sadly caused the death of Split-Screen in the long run.
Alot of people would rather play anonymously with strangers across the world, than with people they know in the same room.

It's very sad, but I fear theres no going back.