Scott Pilgrim: The Game Adds Online Multiplayer Gameplay

[Earnest Cavalli]

Scott Pilgrim: The Game Adds Online Multiplayer Gameplay

Two and a half years after it debuted on the Xbox Live Arcade and PlayStation Network, Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World: The Game will finally see online multiplayer thanks to a new DLC addition.

Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World: The Game made its debut on August 10, 2010. Ostensibly it was created as a promotional tie in for the then-current Scott Pilgrim movie adaptation. However, while most people have forgotten the film, the game continues to see sporadic downloadable content additions. The most recent one, which just went live on the PlayStation Network (and will presumably hit the Xbox Live Marketplace tomorrow), is perhaps the game's most important content update so far, as it allows players to enjoy the game's four-player beat 'em up action with friends over the Internet.

Of course, simply adding that feature to the game would be too simple and consumer-friendly. Instead, the online functionality is included as part of a new $5 DLC pack which also adds Scott's pal Wallace Wells to the game as a playable character. PlayStation Plus subscribers can buy the DLC for only $4 for the next two weeks, but regardless, there is an entry fee for this thing.

Is $5 too much to ask for a feature that arguably should have been in the game from the start and a minor supporting character being added to the title's playable roster? That's pretty subjective. If you're a huge fan of novel ways to punch dudes in the face, then yeah, that $5 is probably worth it. Likewise if you really, really want to play the game alongside someone far away, then $5 is a small price to pay for online functionality.

That said, Castle Crashers includes more characters, weapons, and online options than Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World: The Game, along with a more modern art style and very similar gameplay concepts. Not to dissuade you from playing the latter, as it's an excellent beat 'em up, but just know that if you'd rather not drop another $5 on what is essentially a dated movie tie-in, you do have other options.

Source: IGN [http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/03/11/scott-pilgrim-dlc-adds-online-multiplayer-wallace-wells]

Permalink

 

[neonsword13-ops]

I don't even...

I mean, sure, I still have the game on my PS3 and play it occasionally when friends come over, but really, Ubisoft? Three years later and NOW you decide to throw in a new character and online multiplayer?

*sigh*

Well, at least it's cool to see that they haven't given up on the game entirely.

 

[FoolKiller]

Wow. I was happy to hear that it was getting online support and then rather sad to hear they want to charge me for it. I liked the game a lot but $5 for multiplayer for a game I already paid for is asking too much. No thanks.

 

[drisky]

People have forgotten the movie? I hear about more people discovering it all the time. Besides that fans of the comic have a lot of love for the franchise and are still willing to get more stuff related to it. Although 5 dollars is a lot, Wallace Wells is awesome.

 

[Steven Bogos]

+ Include a much requested feature...

- Two and a half years later

- And chage $5 for it

This is really scumbag level tactics here. I really enjoyed this game because of the pixel art by Paul Robertson [http://probertson.tumblr.com/] but not $5 for a shitty extra feature. Jesus

 

[Fasckira]

Remains one of my favourite films, I love the books and while I loved the game I sucked heavily at it. Don't think I'll bother paying out for the pleasure of getting my ass kicked

 

[MacSkops]

I have no problems with the DLC being added itself. Hell, even the pricing doesn't bother me as others have already mentioned, as it's not that expensive for what you're actually paying for.

However, the delay seems quite unnecessary and a bit of a strange move seeing how a majority of the game's players that would have loved this feature will likely be done with the game and may not bother going back to it just to try the DLC out.

 

[juyunseen]

So wait, 5 dollars for a new gameplay feature and a new character (one of the more beloved characters in the franchise) and you're saying that's a lot? Other games charge 15$ for three new maps that you're not even going to play.

I'm definitely gonna buy this. I wanted Wallace to be in there from the beginning, and now that I can get him, and play with friends, 5$ seems like a small price to pay.

 

[Trivun]

My points have already been made by others, but yeah, biased much, Earnest? Also, just so you know, the game wasn't really created as a movie tie-in - it was an extra thing to the franchise at the same time but based more on the books (we see characters in the game such as Hollie, for example, and the actual robots and proper fight with the Katayanagi Twins as opposed to a battle of the bands, and so on). Although the music is freking awesome for both the film and the game xD.

But yeah, I see no problem with this. It's cool that they're still updating the game at this point, and it's DLC that wasn't developed at the same time as the original game, meaning the cost is perfectly justifiable (as a 'journalist', Earnest, if you'd actually bothered to do any research or utilise simple common sense then you would know that making content like this isn't free, it does cost money in time and manpower and such to actually code this stuff and distribute it...). I'm personally more than happy to pay about £3 for this extra stuff. Also, Wallace Wells is awesome. Though my heart will always belong to Kim. Sorry, Wallace...

 

[Trivun]

Also, everyone who says $5 or £3 or whatever is a lot is a complete idiot. I'm sorry, and I mean no offence to you all, but seriously. It's half an hour's work at minimum wage, if that. I'm pretty certain everyone here either works at least part time or else has pocket money or an allowance from their parents - if $5/£3 is too much for you to spend then gaming is clearly not the right hobby for you, given what you have to drop to pay for a full game. That small price is NOTHING. So yeah, think about what you're saying or else stop complaining about the obscenely tiny cost for something nobody is forcing you to buy.

 

[Riobux]

Two and a half years after it debuted on the Xbox Live Arcade and PlayStation Network, Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World: The Game will finally see online multiplayer thanks to a new DLC addition.

Instead, the online functionality is included as part of a new $5 DLC pack which also adds Scott's pal Wallace Wells to the game as a playable character.

These are the two lines are summarise my thought processes. $5 (probably £5 knowing Microsoft exchange rates) for one additional character and a mode that should of be shipped with the game, for a game that's two and a half years old. Not even EA games do this.

 

[Detroit]

Is it actually here? Is it finally available? PS Plus discount softens the blow.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

Finally after 2 years I can play this favourite game with friends and also play my 2nd favourite character.

This just tickles my fancy all too much.

 

[Mask Gibson]

I haven't been able to find this on the Canadian PSnetwork(if it is different) is it there?

 

[Al-Bundy-da-G]

Finally after 2 years I can play this favourite game with friends and also play my 2nd favourite character.

This just tickles my fancy all too much.

Wait if you play as Wallace is he still in that part of the game? Just chilling while his less lazy, yet more manly clone just wails on guys with his roommate?

 

[Lugbzurg]

+ Include a much requested feature...

- Two and a half years later

- And chage $5 for it

This is really scumbag level tactics here.

Huh?

That doesn't even make sense. Why should it matter how long it's been? How about when Serious Sam HD: The Second Encounter got DLC? A remake of a game that came out eight years earlier? Or how about them lots and lots of Valve games? Team Fortress 2 came out over five years ago, and it's still getting DLC. What's the age got to do with it? Would you rather they just shovel out a sequel (AKA "A $60 map pack")?

 

[Something Amyss]

People have forgotten the movie? I hear about more people discovering it all the time.

I think you'll find you're in the minority here.

 

[Something Amyss]

Would you rather they just shovel out a sequel (AKA "A $60 map pack")?

That sounds an awful lot like a false dichotomy. Neither are exactly what most people would call good.
Also, TF2 has had near constant support, a lot of it being absolutely free. While I don't like Valve, you might want to pick your examples a little better.

 

[Mictarmite]

I think you'll find you're in the minority here.

SP basically ticks every box of 'Cult classic'.

These are the two lines are summarise my thought processes. $5 (probably £5 knowing Microsoft exchange rates) for one additional character and a mode that should of be shipped with the game, for a game that's two and a half years old. Not even EA games do this.

GASP... developers need to get paid for the work they do! Those scroundrels!.
The developers weren't given enough time or money to do this at launch, the fact they are able keep supporting a game so long after the release is applaudable. Compare this to SkullGirls, which needed IndieGoGo to fund their DLC... $150,000 per character.

That said, Castle Crashers includes more characters, weapons, and online options than Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World: The Game, along with a more modern art style and very similar gameplay concepts. Not to dissuade you from playing the latter, as it's an excellent beat 'em up, but just know that if you'd rather not drop another $5 on what is essentially a dated movie tie-in, you do have other options.

If you liked the movie and beat em' up games, you'll have fun times. If you love everything Scott Pilgrim, you probably already have the game, and you'll already believe it's as good as, if not better than Castle Crashers.