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

[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!

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.

Eh..I have tried splitscreen and I didn't like it. Do I need to be a fanboy to post in this thread or something?

 

[ThePantomimeThief]

Split-screen co-op is always my favourite way to play a game. From Chip'n'Dale and Probotector on the NES through to, most recently, Borderlands, I've always looked out for split-screen co-op games. And most people I know feel exactly the same way about it. Why? 'Cause it's fun.

But hey, what do the consumers know, eh? I'd wager that most people would at least like the option of split-screen co-op. But yeah, it's going to die out pretty soon. And I'm going to miss it a hell of a lot.

 

[lSHaDoW-FoXl]

It's just greed. We're talking about corporations that ***** about copyright infringement when you share anything with a friend or two online. If they had it there way, you wouldn't be able to even watch a movie with a friend unless they bought it as well.

I personally think any game that even has online multi-player should have split screen.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

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.

It's sad that a minority of players want gaming to be actually social as opposed to faux social.

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 yet you were able to play a game with your wife locally. Wasn't that fun? If the experience is playable 95% of the time, isn't it a fucking blast? Of course the graphics take a hit, but isn't it worth it when you can see and hear the person you're playing with?

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?

I'm being greedy because I want the most entertaining modes I've experienced in my entire time as a gamer to be a bigger part of modern videogames? What? I suppose I'm being greedy when I want my role playing games to have significantly better writing because a lot of gamers are actually idiots who cannot tell the difference between good and bad writing. Also, I'm greedy because I want my games to have smooth and balanced difficulty curves because the majority of gamers are actually unskilled hacks who need a helping hand every step of the way. You're making the argument for the devolution of all art/entertainment into pure, lowest-common-denominator crap.

How would consumers react to the inclusion of a less-than-perfect split-screen mode? Well the ones who don't care about the mode in the first place probably won't render a verdict, and the people who crave such experiences will at least appreciate the effort. Yeah, that's unrealistic. But again, we're getting back to the pure business side of this hobby, which more or less supports my original supposition, doesn't it?

 

[JEBWrench]

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

I gotta say, that made me laugh. Good show.

 

[Giantcain]

I miss split screen *looks at dynasty warriors strike force*

 

[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.

I gotta say, that made me laugh. Good show.

Bleh, I'm a fairly tongue-in-cheek kinda guy. If I came off aggressive or incredulous, trust me, it's a not-at-all-serious, ranty sort of thing.

I mean... finglonger. C'mon.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Splitscreen is, in my opinion, the single best thing about games. it's also what causes me to defend MW2 so vigourously; it has superb spiltscreen, possibly the best of any FPS. Don't like online? Get some friends!

There is no finer thing in gaming than a shoot up with your (real) friends with a few beers and pizza.

 

[AMMO Kid]

I was very happy when Splinter Cell Conviction had split screen. Very VERY happy.

 

[Baby Tea]

It's sad that a minority of players want gaming to be actually social as opposed to faux social.

Irrelevant.
The original argument was 'developers are being greedy', but not catering to a minority of gamers isn't 'being greedy', it's good business sense. IT would be a waste of time and money for something that wouldn't get them money in return.

And no, that's not greedy. They are trying to make profit. That's what companies do.

And yet you were able to play a game with your wife locally. Wasn't that fun? If the experience is playable 95% of the time, isn't it a fucking blast? Of course the graphics take a hit, but isn't it worth it when you can see and hear the person you're playing with?

Simply: No.
The game wasn't nearly as good on split-screen. One of the thing that made Left 4 dead so great was the attention to detail. Now I have disappearing bodies, lower textures, a noticeably lower framerate (Even in 'light' areas), and half the view. It wasn't nearly as fun as playing online. I'm not so insecure that I need to see the person next to me in order to consider it 'socializing'.

But again, we're getting back to the pure business side of this hobby, which more or less supports my original supposition, doesn't it?

A company wanting to make money doesn't mean that the company is greedy.
It means they have a business plan.

You know what greedy is? The 1200 MS point ($15) map-packs for MW2. That is greedy.
A company omitting a 'feature' because they won't see the pay-out to cover the cost to include that 'feature' isn't greedy.
Again: Good business sense.

This is just the loud minority hoping their squeaky wheel gets some grease.
Which is weird, since split-screen is far from dead. Halo has always had it, Modnations racers has it, Blur has it, MW2 has it, both Rainbow Six: Vegas games have it, Lost planet 2 has it, COD4 has it, Army of Two (Both of them) is practically made for it, and I could go on. So the complaint doesn't seem to be that split-screen gaming is gone, but that it's not in games that you like.

 

[afaceforradio]

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.

Edit: just a hunch, but I'm betting the majority of folks who disagree with me on this one cannot legally purchase alcohol.

I've been legally purchasing alcohol for almost 9 years and I disagree. I agree with the money making bit (it's a business after all, they gotta make their money), but I hate splitscreen - I'd rather play on my headset with my friends and have the whole 36 inches to myself, plus it's often easier to organise.

In fact one of my gaming buddies is my housemate - we often have online games just 2 doors down from each other.

 

[carpathic]

I don't know what the reason is for the death of split-screen, I just know that it makes me a sad panda.

I totally agree...I miss split screen.

 

[Fantastic Foxkins]

I personally love split screen gaming. Out of my friends I'm the only one who owns a 360 and I can't afford a PS3 so we all take it in turns to host gaming nights and game together. Online gaming will /never/ capture the experience of having your best friends right there in the moment with you. More games /should/ cater for this.

 

[SnipErlite]

Bah. I miss co-op. I miss the days when every game had it.

Bah indeed.....

 

[Brotherofwill]

we often have online games just 2 doors down from each other.

That's the saddest thing I've read all week.

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'.

I know very well they take a hit and I don't mind it. I don't buy that "Poor developers only want to get out polished stuff". It's their fault they are in the position that they are in. All the developers put so much care and effort into presentation that a lot of young kids are becoming spoilt players and forget what it's all about. Who cares about technical shortcomings (aslong as they aren't detrimental), I mean honestly? If that's the kind of thing that is high on your list when thinking about a game and jugding it (like it is with almost all major reviewers) then you're in a way missing the point in my opinion.

Developers don't realise the money and fame that can be made here. Look at Gears of War: It was designed with split-screen in mind (didn't know that, thanks for the heads up) and it's become a huuuuuge cult hit. The resources they used for coop were money well spent. People play the game with firends locally all the time. It's almost the biggest attraction. The online multiplayer is buggy and unreliable, has that lowered the score of the reviewers and made people enraged by the product? No, atleast not majorly. It could work the opposite way aswell. Good solid online multiplayer, patchy local coop.

Also think about this: What makes you bond with a game? It's the kind of experience that local coop can give. It's the sitting around having fun with buddies type of thing (which marginally also works through online modes, if managed well). The talking about the game with your friends after spending a quality evening playing together. That's what builds brands. God of War 3 is as polished as they come with an amazing single player, but you'll breeze through it never to touch it again. That doesn't exactly strike me as brand memorabilia, and having a large brand is where the money is at.

then who is being greedy?

The developers?

 

[Zannah]

Now I'm probably not old enough to be considered 'worthy' of commenting by the Op, but - what the hell is so great about split screen? I agree, sitting in the same room with people, playing co-op on a lan is great (and more games should include full coop, beyond four people preferably). But split screen? I suppose it's great if you need to dump your performance, or don't want to see as much from the game your playing, but seriously all I can imagine is nostalgia (Then again, I'm speaking from a Pc-only point of view here, and correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't tvs and consoles be as transportable as desktop pcs at the very least?)

And, what is more - not everyone has all his friends in a five minute walk distance - and playing splitscreen with your friend from austria, your friend from sweden and your friend from russia suddenly becomes a whole lot less convenient.

 

[Midou's Jagan]

People played split screen co-op because they had too if online technology was out then it would be online only just like now and we dont all own 50 inch plasmas and playing left 4 dead split screen on a 28 inch standard def tv blows.

 

[SnakeF]

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.

Edit: just a hunch, but I'm betting the majority of folks who disagree with me on this one cannot legally purchase alcohol.

I think this is one of the things that actually makes Halo decent, me and my friends were all able to play the game together in one room, heck we could even play all together in the same room even if there were 8 of us. While online gaming is alright you cannot beat the fun of a bunch of friends who know each other all playing in one room.

I have one problem with your post though. I'm underaged and I still understand your point, don't tar all of us teens together with the same brush.

 

[Jesus Phish]

Agree with the OP 100% here. There's no replacement for being in a room with some buddies, with some drinks and snacks, and ribbing each other while playing a game together. It's much more fun to be able to see your friends reaction when you pop their head off with a sniper than hear them on xbox live "oh ma=-----(crack) fu(crack) bull(wierd xboxlive lost data sound)".

I believe it to be greed as well. I cant imagine it can be that difficult to stick in at least two player co-ops to a games story, or 4+ players to a multiplayer game.

I used to play playstation two games, four player split screen on a 15" television. Now most people seem to have the HD standard giaganto screen, which would result in everyone getting a portion the same size as my entire old tv.