So I recently went to the local Gamestop to look at Medal of Honor and CoD Black Ops and when I referred to the backs I found out that MoH only supports online multiplayer. Now I was looking at these games for the express purpose of being able to play multiplayer with friends and family without going on Live so MoH was straight out of consideration for me. I can somewhat understand why most games with co-op mode won't allow more than two players to co-op on a single console due to FoV considerations and such but why is local(up to four players on a single console) disappearing?
Whatever happened to local multiplayer.
- Thread starter Ken Sapp
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Basically, online means each player has to have a copy.
Most companies would rather have you buy four copies than have three moochers on your couch.
Most companies would rather have you buy four copies than have three moochers on your couch.
I had the similar thing with Dirt 2 last year, a racing game without the option to play split-screen multiplayer is just poor form in my opinion. I can only assume that the developers have access to the figures and that less and less people are playing games in that way, so it gets left out...
i know, it sucks, i have a ps3 and my friend has a 360, so we cant play online, so the only way we can play is to use local multiplayer, but it has been a massive drop in all of them, i was mostly annoyed with the fact AC:Brotherhood didnt have it
The simple answer is "because they can." There really is no excuse for a multiplayer focused console game not to have local splitscreen, with the possible exception of console based MMOs -- although even Monster Hunter Tri has some sort of local splitscreen mode. Unfortunately, with more and more consoles being hooked up to the internet these days, the devs and publishers are able to get away with making people play online, since that's the mode they want anyway.
If I had to guess, I'd say the percentage of consoles connected to high speed internet has to be close to or better than the number of PCs connected to 56K or better internet around the beginning of last decade, and the only time people complained about online only multiplayer then was when the game was essentially multiplayer only, as was the case with Quake III and X-Wing Vs. Tie Fighter. Funny thing about those games: the single player was literally nothing but the multiplayer modes with bots instead of human players. Considering that those were some of the best games of all time, I really have to laugh at the people complaining about the 6 hour campaign in MW2. At least it has one.
Back on topic, the publishers love it, because that means everyone playing multiplayer has to have their own copy of the game, while most consumers don't mind, because it's rare that local multiplayer is an issue these days. Before I started college, I might have played splitscreen a couple of times a month. Now that I'm living on campus I play daily, assuming I have the time, but that's a result of having roommates who also game, not a result of a shift in my personal multiplayer habits.
If I had to guess, I'd say the percentage of consoles connected to high speed internet has to be close to or better than the number of PCs connected to 56K or better internet around the beginning of last decade, and the only time people complained about online only multiplayer then was when the game was essentially multiplayer only, as was the case with Quake III and X-Wing Vs. Tie Fighter. Funny thing about those games: the single player was literally nothing but the multiplayer modes with bots instead of human players. Considering that those were some of the best games of all time, I really have to laugh at the people complaining about the 6 hour campaign in MW2. At least it has one.
Back on topic, the publishers love it, because that means everyone playing multiplayer has to have their own copy of the game, while most consumers don't mind, because it's rare that local multiplayer is an issue these days. Before I started college, I might have played splitscreen a couple of times a month. Now that I'm living on campus I play daily, assuming I have the time, but that's a result of having roommates who also game, not a result of a shift in my personal multiplayer habits.
It's a bummer, local multi player is a lot of fun, I mean, who never had a fun time playing a game against their best friend? I used to play hours against my brother in James Bond Nightfire, sooo fun!
Because if you have unprotected connections you could get a CTD (Connectionally Transmited Disease)!ZippyDSMlee said:
That's pretty much accurate all 'round.Zachary Amaranth said:
Call of Duty and Little Big Planet are the exceptions that proove the rule. With such a huge emphasis on online multiplayer these days, there's a few developers capitalizing on people's urges to, y'know, interact with people, thus games like LBP, Warhawk, CoD4, MW2, World at War, BlOps and a few others include really decent multiplayer gaming options.
My picks would have to be Warhawk and LBP. LBP got the whole online sharing, exploring 4 player thing to work perfectly, and Warhawk still has IMO the best setup for a multiplayer game to date. 4-player splitscreen online with up to 28 other players? Yes please!
While I've never played much local (on the same machine) multi-player, I do miss LAN multi-player that seems to not appear on newer PC games.
exactly this. welcome to the assholes that make games, they don't care about you, they care about money.Zachary Amaranth said:
Why? Why this thread? Every time this thread pops up, I feel like the single-teared Indian saddened by the litter surrounding him. The greedy fucks took our local multiplayer away and wrongly place blame on it diminishing graphics/framerate. It's annoying to want to play games with friends and then telling them to go home so you can.Ken Sapp said: