Why Is Local Multiplayer So Rare in Consoles Nowadays?

[crusador90]

With the PS3/PS4 and Xbox 360/Xbox One and to a much lesser extent, the Nintendo Wii/Wii U, Local multiplayer gaming feels like its becoming a lost art, with games boasting local multiplayer becoming less and less common.
Many times, I feel like its a total waste to have more than 2 PS4 or PS3 controllers, as very few games support that many players for local play, and it feels like developers are dropping local multiplayer support in favor of pushing online.

Why do you guys think this is?

 

[RJ 17]

Well if MS and 343 Studios are to be believed, it's because "It's just too hard for people to get their friends to come over to their house for a local multiplayer game. That's why we nixed splitscreen from Halo 5."

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Well if MS and 343 Studios are to be believed, it's because "It's just too hard for people to get their friends to come over to their house for a local multiplayer game. That's why we nixed splitscreen from Halo 5."

Well they're not making it easier by removing local MP.

 

[StatusNil]

It's because many games are explicitly designed to herd the player into online multiplayer these days. That's where the "micro" transaction money is. Why take the trouble and waste resources to build features that run counter to the main objective of promoting online play?

That's also why the alleged "toxicity" of "gaming culture" is suddenly such a huge issue. All barriers to continued "engagement" with the "service" must be eradicated.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

I think some of it is because they want us to play online because they make more money that way. You need to buy 2-4 copies, a gold account and sometimes more then one console.

Another aspect would be the tech. A lot of games are really really optimized. They don't even render the world behind you anymore. Adding a second camera hurts this a lot as they need to render 2x-4x. (Also aspect ratio is nuts now with wide screen TVs)

 

[Fappy]

Another aspect would be the tech. A lot of games are really really optimized. They don't even render the world behind you anymore. Adding a second camera hurts this a lot as they need to render 2x-4x. (Also aspect ratio is nuts now with wide screen TVs)

To be fair, this only applies to split-screen games. I've noticed that many "same screen" multiplayer titles still pop out of the indy scene quiet regularly nowadays.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I think a part of it has to do with society today as well. Before, if you wanted to hang out or talk with your friend, you had to go see them. You walked over to their house, or you all went out for lunch or whatever. Now though, people are less connected in the real world because they are so connected online. Cell phones, Facebook, Twitter, whatever you use. The image of a group of friends sitting at a table and all of them are on their cells, not paying attention to each other, has become very real.
People "hang out" more online now instead of in person. "Hey, you want to play X?" before involved setting up a time and then one of you going out of your way--be it two minutes or twenty minutes--to the other person's home. Now, it's as simple as turning on the system and linking up.
Local, split-screen multiplayer is becoming like a pay phone. Yes, they still work and serve their purpose just fine, but people just don't use them as much.

Yes, there will always be those fun party games where you can get a group of friends together and you all have a blast while eating pizza, but the idea of two people sitting down on a couch to play a non-party game is becoming a dated idea in society now. While older gamers probably have fond memories of going over to John's house, younger gamers today most likely find the idea very strange. "Why can't I just play with him online? Why do I have to go all the way over to his house to play the same game that I already have too?"
That's another thing too, I think. Consoles are more present in homes now than before. Before, Joey around the block was the popular kid because his parents bought him the new N64 or whatever and everyone wanted to play at his house. Now though, odds are Ricky and Jessie also have a PS4, just like Joey, so they see no reason to go over to his house when they can just play with--or against--him online.

 

[Bad Jim]

Another aspect would be the tech. A lot of games are really really optimized. They don't even render the world behind you anymore. Adding a second camera hurts this a lot as they need to render 2x-4x. (Also aspect ratio is nuts now with wide screen TVs)

I don't think tech has much to do with it. In the early days, the main limiting factor was fillrate, and dividing the screen up into four screens didn't change the fillrate required. Then, as simple fillrate became a non-issue, polygon counts became important and dividing the screen into four screens meant drawing 4x more polygons.

Now however, we are seeing diminishing returns as higher polygon counts do not make games look much better. It's shaders that count, and because they operate on a per pixel basis, we once again find that dividing the screen into two or four need not hurt performance. We also find that developers are already making models at various levels of detail so distant objects get simple models that don't hurt performance. This means that for games with large worlds, no extra art needs to be created even if polygon counts are high enough to affect performance.

Also, no serious 3D engine has ever rendered objects behind the camera. This is because rendering anything offscreen will end up writing data into random memory locations, corrupting and crashing the game. And anything behind the camera will be outside the view frustrum, so engines will consider them offsreen.

 

[Xeorm]

I don't think tech has much to do with it. In the early days, the main limiting factor was fillrate, and dividing the screen up into four screens didn't change the fillrate required. Then, as simple fillrate became a non-issue, polygon counts became important and dividing the screen into four screens meant drawing 4x more polygons.

Now however, we are seeing diminishing returns as higher polygon counts do not make games look much better. It's shaders that count, and because they operate on a per pixel basis, we once again find that dividing the screen into two or four need not hurt performance. We also find that developers are already making models at various levels of detail so distant objects get simple models that don't hurt performance. This means that for games with large worlds, no extra art needs to be created even if polygon counts are high enough to affect performance.

Also, no serious 3D engine has ever rendered objects behind the camera. This is because rendering anything offscreen will end up writing data into random memory locations, corrupting and crashing the game. And anything behind the camera will be outside the view frustrum, so engines will consider them offsreen.

No, I'm betting it has a lot to do with it. There's more than just rendering speed that can cause problems. We didn't have the era of hallway shooters for nothing. That was a design decision mandated by the technology of the time. Having multiple viewports means not only that you need to draw everything, but that you have to keep more in memory than you otherwise could, along with losing some control you had over what needed to be loaded. Don't underestimate the polygon count either, as if they're already pushing the hardware for a single player, then it could go over the edge for more than one.

But, the last bit is bogus. You can send anything offscreen that you want, with no corruption to the game state. It's outside the view frustrum, so the basic algorithms handle it by not showing, because it's not on screen. It's even recommended that you not worry about culling objects that can be seen unless you need to, because it's a waste of time otherwise. I've made more than one game where I could be thankfully lazy about what is seen or not seen.

 

[Zhukov]

a) It's been at least partially supplanted by online multiplayer.

b) The people selling the games would rather that five people buy five copies of the game rather than all be able to play on the same copy.

c) Developers can save themselves some time, money and effort by not including local multiplayer features.

 

[fenrizz]

I think a part of it has to do with society today as well. Before, if you wanted to hang out or talk with your friend, you had to go see them. You walked over to their house, or you all went out for lunch or whatever. Now though, people are less connected in the real world because they are so connected online. Cell phones, Facebook, Twitter, whatever you use. The image of a group of friends sitting at a table and all of them are on their cells, not paying attention to each other, has become very real.
People "hang out" more online now instead of in person. "Hey, you want to play X?" before involved setting up a time and then one of you going out of your way--be it two minutes or twenty minutes--to the other person's home. Now, it's as simple as turning on the system and linking up.
Local, split-screen multiplayer is becoming like a pay phone. Yes, they still work and serve their purpose just fine, but people just don't use them as much.

Yes, there will always be those fun party games where you can get a group of friends together and you all have a blast while eating pizza, but the idea of two people sitting down on a couch to play a non-party game is becoming a dated idea in society now. While older gamers probably have fond memories of going over to John's house, younger gamers today most likely find the idea very strange. "Why can't I just play with him online? Why do I have to go all the way over to his house to play the same game that I already have too?"
That's another thing too, I think. Consoles are more present in homes now than before. Before, Joey around the block was the popular kid because his parents bought him the new N64 or whatever and everyone wanted to play at his house. Now though, odds are Ricky and Jessie also have a PS4, just like Joey, so they see no reason to go over to his house when they can just play with--or against--him online.

Good answer.
I think you're sport on with you're assessment.

Also, to add to your post, I think the average age of gamers have risen the last 10-15 years.
I'm 28 now, have 2 kids, and I just do't have the time to go over to John's to play.
I do however have 30 minutes to do some online multiplayer with him.

 

[Something Amyss]

a) It's been at least partially supplanted by online multiplayer.

b) The people selling the games would rather that five people buy five copies of the game rather than all be able to play on the same copy.

c) Developers can save themselves some time, money and effort by not including local multiplayer features.

I would add:

d) people will pay.

If consumers actually demanded couch MP, it'd make a comeback. Because one sale may be less than 5 but it is better than no sale.

 

[FPLOON]

Spoiler: Answer

But seriously, if the markets more online than offline, then that's where the multiplayer's heading... It's keeping up with the Kardashians times to the point that those that don't either assimilate with the times or get left behind, spend the rest of their days at a local multiplayer retirement home, and then die off camera because the camera glitched something fierce again when it had no idea what the term "splitscreen" meant...

Other than that, just like old gaming mechanics and Frankenstein's monster, even if it came back to life, it would later be killed by fire for its primitive behavior as well as bring forth the discriminating mentality of handling something that cannot be understood by the generation at large once again...

 

[Valkrex]

I think its a hardware issue. Modern console games can barely even run (outside of the WiiU which runs all games at 1080p 60fps) at a respectable resolution/framerate with the level of graphical fidelity people have come to expect from the new machines. I mean we see games running at 900p 30fps for fucks sake. That's just ridiculous.

Running a game with splitscreen would cause a major increase in what's being rendered on the screen and put more stress on the hardware, which while its a quantum leap above the PS3/360 kit, is already running on fumes. Since publishers are STILL obsessed with graphics above all else, they've probably decided that instead of dialing back the graphics so the hardware can actually run the game in splitscreen, that they would just axe the feature entirely so they're "next gen" systems have games that look pretty.

 

[Leg End]

Spoiler: Answer

Son of a ***** I'm late by two minutes and I get ninja'd for it.

But yes. Why only have one copy sold when you can have people buy multiple consoles and controllers, headsets, online subscriptions, DLC/Season Passes and microtransactions for an assload of money? It's a shitty answer for the consumer, but when was the last time a company gave a fuck about those people?