Split Screen/Local Multiplayer

If by chance you find this, I appreciate the look. I am no modern poet with a weekly blog, just a guy like many others who has a concern about the direction our beloved hobby is taking. So thanks for taking the time to dig around
and read!

1. Waxing eloquently on my purchase, for a reason
   
   I own an Xbox One, I haven’t had the pleasure of playing a PS4 yet (though I’d love to snag one for The Order!), and I have no desire to get involved in the fan war. I bring up my personal choice in console for one purpose and one purpose only: to
   emphasize the Snap feature. It’s brilliant. It’s handy. And while no one can deny that it needs work (particularly in the size department), it was the reason I eventually leaned toward the XB1. Having my wife cuddled up next to me on the couch watching
   a show while I play Killer Instinct or letting the kid watch Dora while I shoot Peggle balls is an outright incredible feature.
   
   
   
   It also is the perfect recognition of one of the elements of console gaming that makes it unique from computer gaming: the couch, that long strip of wood and fabric on which more than one person sits. While games like Final Fantasy and Mass
   Effect certainly have their place on a console, what truly separates console gaming is the ability to play games with friends and family on the same screen. Microsoft recognized that and took it a step farther, granting household members the ability to watch
   and play things on the same screen. Nicely done, M$.
   
   
   
   So what the hell is going on with the games these days?!
   
   
   
2. The sheer and total idiocy of developers…
   
   To reemphasize the occurring theme of this blog, most people don’t buy consoles just to play games by themselves. They buy consoles to play games by themselves AND with other people. From Mario to Goldeneye to Halo and Smash Bros and Little Big
   Planet, if a game has multiplayer it is almost invariably more fun to play with a friend. In acknowledgment that friends do enjoy coming over to grab a beer, local multiplayer mode has long provided gamers the ability to play competitively or cooperatively,
   clinking bottles with each victory.
   
   
   
   And on a personal note, there is no marital bonding like having your wife run to your aid (screaming like a banshee in real life) and saving your butt with an anti-Horde chainsaw binge. Good times, my love.
   
   
   
   Yet making games that support couch crashing with buddies appears to be a dying interest in the game development community. A little overdramatic? Perhaps. But allow me to list off the big name games that have multiplayer of some sort on next gen
   systems. Note that I am skipping several PS4 games, most noticeably Warframe and PS2, due to lack of info. I’m also skipping sports games since they have never been my cup of tea and I don’t want to do them an injustice by saying something I know nothing
   about. Finally, I’m sorry Nintendo, I’m going to not count you as next gen, because you are a complex conundrum that needs more than 3 pages.
   
   
   
   Ryse.
   
   Killzone: SF.
   
   Killer Instinct.
   
   Peggle 2.
   
   Battlefield 4.
   
   CoD: Ghosts.
   
   Dead Rising 3.
   
   Assassin’s Creed 4.
   
   Forza 5.
   
   Titanfall.
   
   PVZ: Garden Warfare.
   
   Destiny.
   
   
   
   Out of these 12 games, only Killer Instinct, Forza, CoD and PVZ have local multiplayer.
   
   
   
   Let me say that again. Out of that list, KI, Forza, CoD and PVZ are the only games to have local multiplayer. For you stats nerd out there, that is only 1/3 of the available multiplayer games.
   
   
   
   What. The. Hell?
   
   
   
   Now there are a few caveats, starting with Assassin’s Creed. Since its multiplayer is stealth based it makes zero sense to have split screen. It would be like playing five-card draw when you can see the other player’s hand (I never understood five-card
   stud). I think we can all agree that it gets a pass. There are also (allegedly) patches in the works for Peggle and Killzone that will allow local multiplayer of some kind. Hopefully with enough noise others will follow suit. Finally, no one really knows
   about Destiny yet, so I still have my fingers crossed. It remains in the no-splitscreen pile, however, given the graphics intensive nature and MMO style.
   
   
   
   But we are still left with the “vast majority” of multiplayer games for the next gen being online multiplayer only. This simply baffles the mind. If you want to be entitled, you could call it is a snub to the community. If you’re an old school gamer,
   it’s an affront to tradition. If you’re a person who loves to chainsaw people in half with their significant other, it’s a tragic loss of opportunity to bring a partnership closer together through viol- errr, teamwork.
   
   
   
   No matter how you look at it, though, it’s not good business sense. How many more people would have bought Dead Rising if you could chainsaw zombies in half with your drunk buddies? How many are going to pass on Titanfall or Destiny because they
   can’t save the respective sci-fi world with their brother or sister? And Peggle… Come’on man! How in the name of Bill Gates did you ship with no local multiplayer! Oh yes, I would love to play with random people online while my wife sits there clawing her
   eyes in boredom. Thank you for that.
   
   
   
   But even beyond simple sales, the hours played will be less. Am I going to play Titanfall when my friends come over or when my wife wants to play with me? No, we’re going to play PVZ. Not because we don’t want to stomp around in giant mechs
   and engage in the ultimate chess match of battlefield mobility, but because we are forced to choose PVZ. That shouldn’t be a choice a company should want to impose on their customers, not when your sole focus is multiplayer action.
   
   
   
3. … Or much to do about nothing?
   
   As nice as it is to rant and rave about the loss of a game feature, there are logical rationales for not allowing local multiplayer in most of the listed games (you will never get a pass, Peggle). The most obvious rationale, of course, is power or
   lack thereof. Killzone is a beautiful game with tons of lighting and effects. Ryse has incredible textures and facial animations. Dead Rising has, no joke, a thousand zombies running around. It’s insane. And BF4 has destructible environments. Can we
   really fault developers for not being able to approximately double the graphical output requirements? Of course not.
   
   
   
   Or how about gameplay situations like Resogun or the aforementioned Assassin’s Creed? The latter, as noted, is stealth based. Local multiplayer simply isn’t an option. Resogun plays in a circle, so two ships on the same screen is not a viable
   option. You can’t fault developers for creativity.
   
   
   
   So maybe the damage overall is less than first imagined. Maybe the community isn’t being abandoned so much as reshaped as developers play to different desires. After all, you can’t appease – or like – everyone.
   
   
   
4. But if you can do it, do it
   
   Even if this satiates our anger, however, it should not defeat the concern over the lack of local multiplayer. As we enter what has the potential to be the last console generation, manufacturers, developers and producers all need to have a bulletin
   posted on every door in every office: remember what makes consoles different. Consumers don’t need them to be simpler computers or more advanced tablets. What we do need is a device that remains “couch friendly.” Every other aspect of a console, from the
   single player modes to the online multiplayer to the media streaming is easily replicable on other devices. Local multiplayer is not. That, right there, is the determinative reason we buy consoles. That, right there, is why we buy multiplayer console games.
   Tone down the graphics, remove some particles, rework it so things render differently in split versus single screen. But make it work, or you risk losing the console population.
   
   
   
   There’s no other way to conclude. Respawn, Bungie: as great as your products will be, you are fools not to include split screen functionality in your upcoming shooters. I want to smile as my wife to screams “TITANFALL!” next to me, right before
   she smashes her Ogre fist into some weakling trying finish me off. I want to be able to run downstairs with my buddy and fly off to Mars for a few adventures while the ladies are upstairs doing crafts with our girls.
   
   
   
   And I don’t think I need statistics to back me up when I say, I am not alone in this opinion. Please, don’t abandon what makes consoles so fun…
   
   
   
   
   
   Haon the Great
   

:)

 

Xbox Live not available

Online multiplayer yes - local multiplayer would not require a Gold Sub, like split-screen/ system link.

 

Unable to play as a split screen multiplayer .

Hi

I don't think Halo 5 supports local split screen multiplayer if you want to play split screen I would suggest you try Halo Master Chief Collection.

 

The death of split screen is one of my only complaints about current and next gen gaming. Borderlands was really the only split screen game that me and my gf enjoye together. The one that really boggled my mind was when madden released without the ability
to play coach co-op. That was all me and my buddies played growing up. Do children even hang out wih each other anymore? Or do they just sign into xbox live and yell profanities at strangers?

 

I got halfway through #2 before deciding it's TL;DR material. I agree with you, though, me and my friends play splitscreen all the time, and we always talk about how we need more games to play that are splitscreen. As a result, we're pretty much stuck playing
Nintedno 64 and Gamecube, which is still fun, but it's a pitty we have next to nothing that plays (well) in splitscreen on Xbox 360 that is competitive. Even when you do find splitscreen games, they're only two player. I don't understand why we went from 4
player to 2 player and downgraded over the years.

 

Despite our amazing advances in tech, consoles can't seem to handle more than two players via Split-screen these day.

 

Sonic All Star Racing Superstars.



4 player split screen for whatever mode you want, be it career, local multiplayer or even online multiplayer.



Only one of you needs LIVE. The rest have access to all of your unlocks.

 

I'd like to bring another perspective to point #3 - a devil's advocate point of view, if you will.



With the emergence of internet enabled consoles in Gen 7, developers have used telemetry data to acquire some sort of metric of how their customers use their product. It's no secret that the multiplayer experience has gravitated towards online encounters,
but I wouldn't be surprised if that was to the expense of the couch players. I find it hard to believe that Gen 8 cannot provide this experience - with a huge canvas and effective resource management, anything's possible. But the case may be that dedicating
development time to a feature (split-screen) that will be used by, say, less than 10% of their customers is simply not worth it.



It could also be that the game's concept doesn't lend itself to this feature. Not every game is designed around co-op or the concept suits co-operative play and, by default, development time and resources aren't dedicated to this. Sorry I can't provide examples
of this, but I've never been one for co-op games.



I believe every design decision that occurs during the development process has a purpose and only in the understanding of this purpose or possible scenarios one can be enlightened as to why stuff happens. We may agree or not agree, but it was all for the
better good.

 

It really depends on what games you play. I wouldn't expect online centric MP games to have local co-op. Especially since households now have more than one console in them these days.

 

[quote user="Kanaye x"]
I'd like to bring another perspective to point #3 - a devil's advocate point of view, if you will.



With the emergence of internet enabled consoles in Gen 7, developers have used telemetry data to acquire some sort of metric of how their customers use their product. It's no secret that the multiplayer experience has gravitated towards online encounters,
but I wouldn't be surprised if that was to the expense of the couch players. I find it hard to believe that Gen 8 cannot provide this experience - with a huge canvas and effective resource management, anything's possible. But the case may be that dedicating
development time to a feature (split-screen) that will be used by, say, less than 10% of their customers is simply not worth it.



It could also be that the game's concept doesn't lend itself to this feature. Not every game is designed around co-op or the concept suits co-operative play and, by default, development time and resources aren't dedicated to this. Sorry I can't provide examples
of this, but I've never been one for co-op games.



I believe every design decision that occurs during the development process has a purpose and only in the understanding of this purpose or possible scenarios one can be enlightened as to why stuff happens. We may agree or not agree, but it was all for the
better good.

[/quote]Great post, but I'm the Devil's Advocate around here!

Perhaps they want more people to buy subscriptions to play online.

 

[quote user="Pyramid Head15"]

Despite our amazing advances in tech, consoles can't seem to handle more than two players via Split-screen these day.

[/quote]That's what they want you to think. The reality is that they don't like to support splitscreen because they make more money via online . A lot of game that support split screen still do good with a good balance between offline and online MP . Good
example of that are CoD games, Borderlands, GoW games and a few others. I don't get how some people don't like and support local MP because they rather play with friends online than playing with their own family in the same house.

 

I'd rather play on my own TV than split half of it with my friends. This is especially true with me since I used to take a whole TV with me on the bus to play local-MP back in the day.

 

[quote user="Bad Instincts"]

[quote user=""]

Despite our amazing advances in tech, consoles can't seem to handle more than two players via Split-screen these day.

[/quote]That's what they want you to think. The reality is that they don't like to support splitscreen because they make more money via online . A lot of game that support split screen still do good with a good balance between offline and online MP . Good
example of that are CoD games, Borderlands, GoW games and a few others. I don't get how some people don't like and support local MP because they rather play with friends online than playing with their own family in the same house.

[/quote] I can believe it. That's what I love about Nintendo. Playing Super Mario 3D World with my family was one of the best mp experiences ever.

 

[quote user="Burst Axe"]

I'd rather play on my own TV than split half of it with my friends. This is especially true with me since I used to take a whole TV with me on the bus to play local-MP back in the day.

[/quote]I do respect and understand that but not wanting splitscreen in games just because you don't like ; like some people suggest is another thing IMO. I rather support in games for both offline and online MP ; instead of only for online.

 

I must admit, I am not a fan of split screen either, or local co-op, I'd rather online multiplayer or LAN rather than split screen.

Having said that, I actually prefer single player games nowerdays.