MR_Soren posted... Whether deliberate or simply a side effect, the isolation of humanity is happening.
Instead of getting together to chat, people are using facebook and text messages.
Instead of sitting on the sofa and having a blast, people are putting on headsets and playing online.
Online certainly offers more convenience, but a lot more than fun is being lost as a result.
Generally, when people get older, they have less time to go over to a friend's house for video games and pizza rolls. Although the behavior of GameFAQs forums suggest otherwise, the average age of a gamer has been rising, and as such, (with the exception of Nintendo's family party games) there is less of a demand for four-player split-screen games, and more demand for online games for the adult who wants to play with his old college friends in another city after work.
Moss_27 posted... I don't think it's even disputable. Why make the effort to make splitscreen play when you can put more towards online modes/features and make every person buy the game in order to play together?
This is exactly what Need for Speed Hot Pursuit did.
Yes, because online play clearly shares the same demographic and is a perfect substitute good for split-screen play.
I didn't say that. I have seen articles where EA talks about how their focus on online interacitivty...they are pushing the envelope more than anyone else to maximize their profit. Those who like splitscreen are going to suffer...but they clearly don't think it's going to make a dent into their sales to need to accomodate them anymore. And if they can get them to buy their own copyt to play online with friends, even better. They have no choice if they want to play with their friends.
There is no other real excuse for games like Battlefield and Need for Speed to not have splitscreen play available.
EA has made it difficult for friends to borrow games with the online pass...why would they want people playing one copy of their game in the same room when they can make up a lame reason and force them to all need their own copy of the game (preferably new, or paying $10 extra for the pass) to play together? It's all business, not limitations.
"Keep watching whatever crap you like, and people with brains will make Whitney a success." Pretty_Odd on Whitney. Classic.
Mutant1988 posted... "The hardware limitations excuse is pretty lame IMO"
It's also absolutely bull****.
Gears of War anyone?
Time might be a limitation, but not the technology, with FEW exceptions (Battlefield series mainly, what with rendering massive environments for an FPS).
I agree with you 100%.
demundo posted... I'm 36. I understand just fine. But who wants to play on half or a quarter of a screen with reduced graphical quality or fps? I've played tons of split-screen and it's time to move on.
If you can see that half or quarter of the screen, then I don't see a problem. If you're playing a game with a friend in person, then you're not playing to stop and be nitpicky about every little graphical detail. You're playing to have a good time with your friend. So what if you can't read "wheaties" on the side of a box in a pile of debris.
Online MP will never ever replace split screen (or at least it won't do a good job of it), and to me that's just not negotiable.
"Anti-religion quote from some famous writer or scientist." - Every quote desktop wallpaper ever
Online multiplayer is the evolution of split-screen multiplayer. We are no longer stuck with at the most 4 players to a console game. It has grown of age as we have. Gaming has stayed with the generation who has grown up with Atari, NES, Sega to what we have now in the 360 and PS3 (Wii to a certain point). It was only natural for it to evolve.
Can one fill rooms with furniture in Forge? Personally, I can't wait to furnish the fight.--Sb27441X Epic