136 réponses à ce sujet

[The Enforcer OS]

^ That.

I know they really want to push EA / Origin, but I don't see how consoles would impair that. I think its a more intelligent business move to help again have a longer lifespan than completely sever possible sales for those who only game a certain way.

Unless it has something to do with people stat grinding offline and paranoia of cheating, but since its co-op why should that even matter?

[Arbiter156]

bump is deserved

[The Enforcer OS]

/Bump Bruhaha

[phbruintjes]

I support this.

EA is indeed a company that has a habit of closing servers after a few years.
also, the servers arent all that stable always.

And besides, i'd love to have a ME3 lan party. ;D
VIA LAN!

[The Enforcer OS]

phbruintjes wrote...

I support this.

EA is indeed a company that has a habit of closing servers after a few years.
also, the servers arent all that stable always.

And besides, i'd love to have a ME3 lan party. ;D
VIA LAN!

Yeah, I've already seen posts related to server maintenance a couple of times, and the game isn't even out yet. 

That would be epic, indeed!  Anything with friends vs aliens in the same room is a great time. 

[Cody211282]

Almost nothing come out split screen anymore and that makes me sad as hell. Split screen rules, and online just doesn't have the same feeling to it.

[The Enforcer OS]

Cody211282 wrote...

Almost nothing come out split screen anymore and that makes me sad as hell. Split screen rules, and online just doesn't have the same feeling to it.

Truth,
I prefer linking systems over split screen, but if we don't have enough when we play, it's always nice to not have to make someone sit out because of it.  Getting all friends involved is always more fun than not being able to do so.  

[GuardianAngel470]

Cody211282 wrote...

Almost nothing come out split screen anymore and that makes me sad as hell. Split screen rules, and online just doesn't have the same feeling to it.

It really doesn't. Being able so sit in your room with a friend/relative and play together is a great thing. I'm not going to buy Syndicate for the sole reason that it doesn't support local coop. It defeats the purpose of having a coop game for me.

Anyway, @OP, how did you know that I wanted local coop? My thread way back when?

[The Enforcer OS]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Anyway, @OP, how did you know that I wanted local coop? My thread way back when?

StowyMcStowStow's thread had a lot of people requesting, so if they voted in his or either of mine, I added their names.  

I didn't think I was speaking out of place if they wanted it at some point.

Modifié par The Enforcer OS, 29 février 2012 - 02:57 .

[Paw The Ox]

Well I am right with you on needing some sort of Lan/splitscreen added, as that is how I play most of my multiplayer games with friends, so add my name to the list.

[Sammuthegreat]

I hope it's not too late to add my name to this petition!

It's a sad and depressing trend in the videogame industry these days. Developers are, as a general rule, moving away from local multiplayer, which has always been a staple of many, if not most players' gaming lives. It's economics (some might say greed) at their most simple - if two people want to play the game, then they need to buy two copies.

You can understand why developers think this way, after all two sales are better than one. I just think what's being overlooked is that many gamers will actually choose not to buy a game purely because it has no local multiplayer. Fine, online is the future, but why does that have to come at local's expense?

If EA/BioWare were to include local multiplayer, they would gain an enormous amount of credit from the worldwide player base for making a stand against the slow death of local multiplayer.

I'm not holding out much hope, though. Look at SSX - a game I really really want, but I've cancelled my preorder because there's no local multiplayer, despite the fact that every prior SSX game has included split-screen.

[The Enforcer OS]

Sammuthegreat wrote...

I hope it's not too late to add my name to this petition!

It's a sad and depressing trend in the videogame industry these days. Developers are, as a general rule, moving away from local multiplayer, which has always been a staple of many, if not most players' gaming lives. It's economics (some might say greed) at their most simple - if two people want to play the game, then they need to buy two copies.

You can understand why developers think this way, after all two sales are better than one. I just think what's being overlooked is that many gamers will actually choose not to buy a game purely because it has no local multiplayer. Fine, online is the future, but why does that have to come at local's expense?

If EA/BioWare were to include local multiplayer, they would gain an enormous amount of credit from the worldwide player base for making a stand against the slow death of local multiplayer.

I'm not holding out much hope, though. Look at SSX - a game I really really want, but I've cancelled my preorder because there's no local multiplayer, despite the fact that every prior SSX game has included split-screen.

Not too late, by any means, Chaps!  I'll try to keep this running and updated as long as I can while the window of hope for support post release exists. 

Sammu, I understand that economic argument against (from their perspective) splitscreen because its one less copy potentially per househould, but for consoles, system linking still requires a second one which doesn't make any sense in terms of sales.  It still requires two accounts, two discs, possibly even two sales if both people want to use everything.

I'm baffled, This site is called Bioware 'Social' Network which is incoroporating less and less 'social' means of gameplay.   

[Sammuthegreat]

The Enforcer OS wrote...

Sammuthegreat wrote...

I hope it's not too late to add my name to this petition!

It's a sad and depressing trend in the videogame industry these days. Developers are, as a general rule, moving away from local multiplayer, which has always been a staple of many, if not most players' gaming lives. It's economics (some might say greed) at their most simple - if two people want to play the game, then they need to buy two copies.

You can understand why developers think this way, after all two sales are better than one. I just think what's being overlooked is that many gamers will actually choose not to buy a game purely because it has no local multiplayer. Fine, online is the future, but why does that have to come at local's expense?

If EA/BioWare were to include local multiplayer, they would gain an enormous amount of credit from the worldwide player base for making a stand against the slow death of local multiplayer.

I'm not holding out much hope, though. Look at SSX - a game I really really want, but I've cancelled my preorder because there's no local multiplayer, despite the fact that every prior SSX game has included split-screen.

Not too late, by any means, Chaps!  I'll try to keep this running and updated as long as I can while the window of hope for support post release exists. 

Sammu, I understand that economic argument against (from their perspective) splitscreen because its one less copy potentially per househould, but for consoles, system linking still requires a second one which doesn't make any sense in terms of sales.  It still requires two accounts, two discs, possibly even two sales if both people want to use everything.

I'm baffled, This site is called Bioware 'Social' Network which is incoroporating less and less 'social' means of gameplay.   

I agree entirely. I was merely pointing out what must be the ovverriding commercial viewpoint in the industry at the moment. I think it'd be a damn shame if there were no more splitscreen multiplayer games out there. I have far more interest in playing with and against people I actually know, which is why after 7 years of having an Xbox Live account I still have zero people on my friends list that I don't know in real life.

The best games are those that allow online multiplayer with more than one person on each console - i.e. the best of both worlds. It has to be a key component in why CoD does so well, and it's the principal reason that no game has sat in my Xbox for such extended periods as Halo 3 and Reach. Four players on the same console, playing against other people online... Nothing beats it, except of course playing co-op with three others on the same console!

In short, what do the following games have in common, other than that they stayed in my Xbox's disc tray for months at a time?

Halo 3, Reach
Gears of War 2, 3
Left4Dead 1, 2
Dungeon Defenders (ok, not a physical disc, but you get the idea)

There are no doubt many more, I'm just in a rush and have to go out...

Modifié par Sammuthegreat, 29 février 2012 - 05:11 .

[The Enforcer OS]

Yeah, the bulk of my multiplayer games consist of Halo and Gears of War. Some other games that I even liked better did not last as long w/out split screen support such as Frontlines and Shadowrun.

[GuardianAngel470]

The Enforcer OS wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Anyway, @OP, how did you know that I wanted local coop? My thread way back when?

StowyMcStowStow's thread had a lot of people requesting, so if they voted in his or either of mine, I added their names.  

I didn't think I was speaking out of place if they wanted it at some point.

No, its no problem. I was just curious. Thanks for including me, I was going to vote in this thread until I saw my name there.

[DJStarstryker]

I definitely support this, for the reason that I like playing games with my husband and it's annoying to buy 2 copies of a game to be able to do that. However, I don't see Bioware changing this. This is a problem with a LOT of modern video games, mainly because 1) game developers focus more on online gaming than offline gaming and 2) gamers complain about split screen, and have been doing so even before online gaming existed.

[The Enforcer OS]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

No, its no problem. I was just curious. Thanks for including me, I was going to vote in this thread until I saw my name there.

No, problem, thanks for sticking with the cause,

DJStarstryker wrote...

I definitely support this, for the reason that I like playing games with my husband and it's annoying to buy 2 copies of a game to be able to do that. However, I don't see Bioware changing this. This is a problem with a LOT of modern video games, mainly because 1) game developers focus more on online gaming than offline gaming and 2) gamers complain about split screen, and have been doing so even before online gaming existed.

Added.

Did you really hear a lot of grief in your gaming circles?  I worked gaming retail for a while, and split screen was usually pretty low on the gripe list.  The only time I usually heard it come up was when people we're playing online against those w/ split screen.  (cheating accusations, etc) xD

[robmokron]

adamashepard wrote...

The Enforcer OS wrote...

adamashepard wrote...

robmokron wrote...

sorry i skipped the entirte thread to respond, however

xbox cannot render 2 players views, if one player looks one way, and the other player looks another way, the xbox will explode

erm yes the xbox can it does it with alot of games.

Not only that, Halo still supports 4 player split screen.

and supports it while you are playing it online aswell gears, black ops {hate it} & all the halo's allow you to play split-screen while in an online game.

Look at dead island, the xbox version was advertised on the box for local co-op but it could not due to hardware restrictions, due to the highly graphical nature of Mass Effect 3. I assumke its a similar situation. Halo is unfortunately designed in such a way to allow the 4 player split screen (basically a graphics trick)

[The Enforcer OS]

robmokron wrote...

adamashepard wrote...

The Enforcer OS wrote...

adamashepard wrote...

robmokron wrote...

sorry i skipped the entirte thread to respond, however

xbox cannot render 2 players views, if one player looks one way, and the other player looks another way, the xbox will explode

erm yes the xbox can it does it with alot of games.

Not only that, Halo still supports 4 player split screen.

and supports it while you are playing it online aswell gears, black ops {hate it} & all the halo's allow you to play split-screen while in an online game.

Look at dead island, the xbox version was advertised on the box for local co-op but it could not due to hardware restrictions, due to the highly graphical nature of Mass Effect 3. I assumke its a similar situation. Halo is unfortunately designed in such a way to allow the 4 player split screen (basically a graphics trick)

I haven't played Dead Island, so I can't counter that.    And even if Mass Effect 3 is that intensive which I suspect is, it has more to do with the design of the game more so than the Xbox's ability to handle it.   I think that was how that argument got a bit off track.

[robmokron]

The Enforcer OS wrote...

robmokron wrote...

adamashepard wrote...

The Enforcer OS wrote...

adamashepard wrote...

robmokron wrote...

sorry i skipped the entirte thread to respond, however

xbox cannot render 2 players views, if one player looks one way, and the other player looks another way, the xbox will explode

erm yes the xbox can it does it with alot of games.

Not only that, Halo still supports 4 player split screen.

and supports it while you are playing it online aswell gears, black ops {hate it} & all the halo's allow you to play split-screen while in an online game.

Look at dead island, the xbox version was advertised on the box for local co-op but it could not due to hardware restrictions, due to the highly graphical nature of Mass Effect 3. I assumke its a similar situation. Halo is unfortunately designed in such a way to allow the 4 player split screen (basically a graphics trick)

I haven't played Dead Island, so I can't counter that.    And even if Mass Effect 3 is that intensive which I suspect is, it has more to do with the design of the game more so than the Xbox's ability to handle it.   I think that was how that argument got a bit off track.

your right on design. The thing is (at least for me) it would be hard to implement a guests stats into single player, or too much hassle anyways. You's have to start from level 1 each time (the guest) and level up each time. etc etc. so forth and so on

[The Enforcer OS]

robmokron wrote...

your right on design. The thing is (at least for me) it would be hard to implement a guests stats into single player, or too much hassle anyways. You's have to start from level 1 each time (the guest) and level up each time. etc etc. so forth and so on

I'd believe that.  I don't think it'd be an issue if guests weren't allowed to play online.  If guests played locally it should save to their own profile.  Some games have done that since the original Xbox. 

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Considering that the multiplayer was put on disc (Silver members can't play it) while "From Ashes" (SP-story content that all players can play) is put on sale...

Adding splitscreen offline support (atleast on the 360 for Silver Members) would be a good thing for value's sake.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 29 février 2012 - 07:33 .

[madclaw]

In total support of this.

[The Enforcer OS]

@Mr. Gogeta, You bring up a good point about it being content inaccessible w/out 3rd party support. It's tough to sell them on the lack of willingness to spend on things (even though I agree with it) like Live, but I don't know if publishers see any kind of kick back for that sort of stuff or not.

@madclaw, Added!

One more to hit 200

[Eumerin]

Signed.

Multi-player gaming should be social, and nothing's more social than doing things with people who are in the same room with you. The idea that a group of friends can only play together when they're not hanging out together is seriously screwed up.