# Why do games nowadays seldom have couch co-op?



## Freechoice (Oct 26, 2015)

Is it a ploy to get people to buy more copies or extra consoles?

I have fucking real friends that I want to

you know - play with them... in the same room.

What the fuck is this

Like is there a legitimate reason for this? Basically all Ps2 games I played as a youngun and previous generations had some form of couch co-op.

Nowadays it's a fucking rarity 

Am I the minority in this shit? This thread is inspired by my recent revelation that Halo 5 - a franchise famous for couch co-op - doesn't have it


----------



## Xiammes (Oct 26, 2015)

Split screen is hard work man.

I don't know the exact reasons, its definitely a conscious choice to not include them. Either its is actually hard to program good splitscreen or as a way to sell more copies, there has to be a reason.


----------



## Jυstin (Oct 26, 2015)

I think they're trying to gear people more towards playing online and everyone having to have their own console and copies of the games.

Seemed that way with the way the XBone operates.


----------



## Freechoice (Oct 26, 2015)

Xiammes said:


> Split screen is hard work man.
> 
> I don't know the exact reasons, its definitely a conscious choice to not include them. Either its is actually hard to program good splitscreen or as a way to sell more copies, there has to be a reason.



Yeah true I didn't think of the split screen difficulty thing

But it doesn't hold up when you consider that some games offer couch co-op for campaign, but not for multiplayer eg Halo 4, some COD, probably others I can't think of.

Perhaps it's something to do with sending data for more than one person on multiplayer is difficult nowadays? I don't know.

It's an aspect of gaming I really miss. Also one of the reasons why I fucking love Borderlands, they still have great co-op.

Even games like Far Cry, where it seems like they are made to be couch co-op campaign, don't opt for it.


----------



## Xiammes (Oct 26, 2015)

lol said:


> Yeah true I didn't think of the split screen difficulty thing
> 
> But it doesn't hold up when you consider that some games offer couch co-op for campaign, but not for multiplayer eg Halo 4, some COD, probably others I can't think of.
> 
> ...



Gaming is becoming more and more complicated, however I don't know if splitscreen has gotten any harder now that games are far more complex then they were just even 2 generations ago.

In short it might not be worth investing in developing a functioning split screen mode if its truly that much of a hassle when online is almost a good substitute.

Of course they could also just be a plan to sell more copies, no matter if its hard or not to develop split screen.


----------



## Canute87 (Oct 26, 2015)

Because they have successfully turned consoles into PC's. and have no real advantage anymore.

A 65 inch bloody television can't have issues with split screen...as an example


----------



## Enclave (Oct 26, 2015)

Think about which answer results in the greatest profits and you have your answer.

Yes, it's to sell more copies of the game and more consoles.

A couple of generations ago it was unheard of for a single house to have multiple of the same console, now you hear about it because people want to play together.

This isn't just an issue with the Xbone but also PS4.  Only Nintendo seems to still push for same couch multiplayer.


----------



## Monna (Oct 27, 2015)

This trend is annoying. Even versus games such as animu fighters are starting to lack the option for local play. At least nintendo still seems safe for now. I got Yoshi's Woolly World about a week ago and it has co-op.


----------



## Seraphiel (Oct 27, 2015)

go on steam, type in local coop


----------



## Jυstin (Oct 27, 2015)

Jane said:


> This trend is annoying. Even versus games such as animu fighters are starting to lack the option for local play. At least nintendo still seems safe for now. I got Yoshi's Woolly World about a week ago and it has co-op.




The moment you see Smash Bros becoming "online multiplayer only", you'll know the gaming industry is totally fucked.


----------



## Keollyn (Oct 27, 2015)

You know, this didn't dawn on me as an issue until I read this thread. I honestly haven't had the need for it lately, but I sure do understand what you mean. It was fun playing co-op with my bros. 

Who hasn't done the "slap controller out of other person hand" shenanigans? Good times. Good times.


----------



## Big Bοss (Oct 27, 2015)

Yeah, that is one of the things I miss, everything nowdays is aimed at online playing smh.


----------



## Kaitou (Oct 28, 2015)

There's still indie games have local co-op or splitscreen. It's usually the AAA games that are dropping it due to what was mentioned above and probably higher costs as well.


----------



## Enclave (Oct 28, 2015)

Keollyn said:


> You know, this didn't dawn on me as an issue until I read this thread. I honestly haven't had the need for it lately, but I sure do understand what you mean. It was fun playing co-op with my bros.
> 
> Who hasn't done the "slap controller out of other person hand" shenanigans? Good times. Good times.



My wife and I quite like playing Diablo 3 together and we just started playing Divinity: Original Sin Enhanced Edition.  Local co-op is amazing and it's really a shame that money grubbing executives are taking it away from us.


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Nov 2, 2015)

Games have always been a family thing for me, as far back as I can remember.  Every person in my immediate family is a gamer.  It's incredibly annoying that local co-op is such a rarity, or when modern games put arbitrary restrictions on your local co-op (see newer Tales of games).


----------



## Nemesis (Nov 11, 2015)

Kaitou said:


> There's still indie games have local co-op or splitscreen. It's usually the AAA games that are dropping it due to what was mentioned above and probably higher costs as well.




Note that this reply is in regard to AAA/AA only.  Indi does not apply here.

Higher costs definitely have something to do with it.  This may not be good to read but in a way AAA games are just too cheap.  New releases have been hovering between $50-$60 Since the SNES/Megadrive (Genesis) era.  When you have inflation putting the said cost at as far back as 2010 at $75-$100.

While the move to CDs/DVDs/Digital Downloads have stemmed the costs a little but then you have to counter devs/publishers staff needing to be paid more with inflation and the actual costs of development, advertising, tax levels on sales the companies are going to have to bring back that money from elsewhere or make cuts on certain items.

It sucks, I hate it, but that is how it is. Companies are going to try to make back these higher costs through DLC, through removing the split screen to get an extra sale, through encouraging preorders.  

But the worst of it is,  the outright worst and this is publisher side only.  Through RUSHING the development teams to bring out games to a standardized release target that is outright unrealistic.  Rome 2:TW, near enough every Assassin's creed, the PC version of Arkham Knight, PS3 version of Bethesda games, every game with a yearly release.  They all come out with bugs that prove that the games needed more time to develop with a "patch it later." outlook. 

But at the same time we, the customers need to take a look at ourselves.  Why do these companies do what they do, because we keep buying them, if we keep purchasing CoD in 15-20m per year sales, or the Sin Creed, Fifa, madden, HALO etc without the split screen/local multiplayer then companies are going to keep releasing.  

I would have added MGS V to the List but that seems to be more Konami gonna Konami.


----------



## LivingHitokiri (Nov 12, 2015)

Because fuck you give me more money thats why.
Split screen was never hard to implement.


----------



## Nemesis (Nov 14, 2015)

LivingHitokiri said:


> Because fuck you give me more money thats why.
> Split screen was never hard to implement.



As games get more complex then yes they do get harder to implement.  Simply put what worked 20 years ago doesn't work today.  You can't just add something here and something there and behold split screen.


----------



## Chrollo Lucilfer (Nov 18, 2015)

I found a good article that illustrates just how rare couch co-op games are in this day and age



> PlayStation 4
> 
> 38 games that support up to 4 local players
> 3 games that support up to 3 local players
> ...



It's sad that the very feature that attracted me towards gaming in the first place is in decline.

I think it's due to a combination of 

Lmitations in hardware - Obviously games have gotten a lot more injunctively authorising to run, and splitscreen gaming requires the console to render two separate screens which is far too often infeasible while keeping the same graphics quality.

and 

Money. Simple as that. Considering the fact that all developers nowadays are expeditious to cash in on online passes and DLC galore, it comes to no surprise that they aren't putting couch co op on the top of their must-do list. Not to mention the fact that DRO is a perplexed issue and the nuance of console ownership among multiple people.


----------

