An ode to split screen
In-person multiplayer is more fun than playing online. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. On consoles, playing online is mixed bag that never compares to just sharing a couch with your friends. So why are so many console games nowadays shipping with online-only multiplayer?
- It’s not a priority for publishers.1
- Everybody has to buy a copy.
Everybody’s favourite console shooter games have great split-screen multiplayer. Halo and Goldeneye are two huge examples. However, for everybody to play split-screen Halo at Tim’s house, he only needs to buy $50 worth of Halo. To fill one battleground of the new PS3 game MAG, you’d need $13,000 worth of MAG copies. Now, you probably weren’t playing 256-player split screen Halo, but still.
Yes, 256 players. What the fuck. At 256, you’re not even pretending that an individual effort can turn the tides, nor is playing with friends reasonable. The MAG article on Wired discusses just some of the reasons adults don’t have much fun getting the shit kicked out of them by 14 year olds online, let alone 255 of them.
So I bought Resistance 2 because it’s the only split-screen PS3 shooter anybody could recommend. It turns out it only has co-op multiplayer. This would be passable, but the game is designed around large online teams, so without at least somebody playing each of the three classes, you’re screwed. Nice.
Despite this attitude, most of the huge titles this generation have been shared-screen multiplayer:
- Music games (Guitar Hero and Rock Band, but not the failed DJ Hero)
- Platformers (Super Mario Wii and LittleBigPlanet)
- Shooters (Halo and Modern Warfare 2)
- Fighters (Street Fighter IV and Super Smash Bros.)
- Sports (Wii Sports, NHL, MLB)
Do they actually think people are buying Rock Band so they can play online against randoms? Playing games with people who are actually there is what’s fun. Getting your ass kicked by Korean teenagers isn’t fun. So this is my message to game publishers. Either make split screen a bigger priority than online in your games, or I’ll personally force you to play MAG online without the ability to mute the kids on your team. To death.
- Split screen support often gets punted late in the development cycle when there’s frame rate or lag issues. At least, this happens when publishers put the priority on graphics and online play over in-person multiplayer. [↩]
February 11, 2010
1:50 pm
Sorry, no. I want to agree, but I can’t.
Split screen is a rather large priority for publishers. In fact, if your game has multiplayer it’s usually an action item from the get-go.
The problem is that graphics are more important. Dynamic physics as well. So is porting at least two of the three major platforms. This leaves you with minimal ram (PS3) and a middling GPU (360) on which to do all your magic.
Now, because of the way the ‘big’ engines are designed, you’re basically rendering twice for splitscreen. You can cheat a lot, mind you, but overall you’re seeing a significant resource increase to support it.
That doesn’t stop publishers from constantly inquiring about split-screen support. They want it, because they know that checkbox will sell significantly more copies. They realize their core market plays together in the same room, and they’re quite aware that less than a third of all Halo 2 owners every popped online. Most popular 360 MP game for a time, and less than a third would ever even attempt an online match.
It’s really just the hardware and the other priorities. They /have to/ make the game look as good as the best looking game out their now; or at least close. They know that if they don’t they’ll take a harder hit then if they don’t have split-screen. It’s just what the consumers prefer.
February 11, 2010
2:16 pm
Good insight from somebody who has more experience in the industry, thanks Dan. I’m glad to hear that publishers are pushing for split screen more than it seems.
I’ll do disagree, though, about the graphics vs. split screen priority. For something that focuses on the single player game like Uncharted or Bioshock, I see the challenge. For primarily multiplayer games, though, I don’t think the graphics matter nearly as much. When you’re laughing and joking and drinking with friends on a split screen, the immersion factor doesn’t contribute nearly as much to the fun as the gameplay does.
I mean, freaking Mario Kart does fine on 1/4 of a Wii, which is what, 33Mhz?
February 11, 2010
9:01 pm
I agree on gameplay versus immersion, I take gameplay any day. And I enjoy the split screen / shared screen games much more than the deep, immersive games. Even the immersion games are better on a local LAN, because hearing the frag–knowing you’ve crushed someone you know–is golden.
I didn’t enjoy any of my time with online/random gaming, but I suspect that no one has figured out how to connect people well. Twitter is an example of a forum where the connections become real. In fact, basing it on twitter connections may just be worthwhile.
Most of the PC/XBox/PS3 gamers I know, however, worry a lot more about the immersion factor and shiny things. Those same gamers love the split screen some of the time, and the immersion for their deeper gaming time. They all have a lot more free time than I do, and spend a lot more hours gaming by themselves. I suspect that they are a huge market too.
February 11, 2010
9:36 pm
On the PC, I’ve successfully had fun with random online players. With a keyboards to properly chat, headsets to make people real, and a matchmaking/friends UI that persists between games and sessions, it can actually work. PC gamers are older on average too, which helps.
On consoles, it’s a lot harder. More casual gamers are probably not going to use headsets, and certainly won’t use keyboards. On the PS3 the matchmaking and friends features are really rough, and on the Wii they’re nonexistent.
It would be awesome if they could find some way to matchmake gamers based on the social networks they already have. Since we’re casuals none of our friends might be online, but the system could try to match us with people our age, with similar interests or professions. Then hardcore 14 year olds can play with hardcore 14 year olds, and casual old fogies can play with casual old fogies.
February 11, 2010
11:06 pm
I agree on game play vs immersion. I think most everyone does, in theory.
I’ve been told the sales numbers don’t back it up. I’m not certain that’s not a belief of those calling the shots, rather than a fact, but it’s a genuine concern I’ve heard voiced many a time.
Basically, shelf space and box art at Walmart are big sellers. Huge. An ok-looking game that has great game play just doesn’t shine in that situation.
I had a bunch more written here, but I don’t want to tip my hand too much re: NDAs. But you folks seem to have the general idea.
Oh, and re: social networks. That’s a beers conversation.
February 11, 2010
11:19 pm
Fascinating. I’m curious what kinds of metrics publishers have on these kinds of things. I imagine they at least think they have formulas to predict the success of a game based on genre, features, etc. I also imagine that focusing on gameplay and innovation is riskier than graphics: it’s a lot easier to measure prettiness than it is to measure fun.
February 12, 2010
1:59 pm
This is actually a great discussion. I agree with Dan about the intent of the manufacturers and I’m sure there are metrics published about graphics/immersion vs gameplay. But, I tend to side with Allen more on the split-screen and playability.
Nearing the top of the gamer target demographic for age, I find myself getting games that my friends and I can play in the same room. Mario Kart Wii is one as well as Smash Bros. It’s also nice that I can play against them and them only if I choose online. Because like Allen said, it’s no fun being destroyed by hordes of 14 year olds. And the joking/eating/drinking is what makes up part of the fun.
Also, I would gladly play Perfect Dark or Golden Eye on N64 over MAG any day of the week.
February 13, 2010
10:48 am
OTOH, I’d rather play an 8 or 12 player deathmatch than an only 4 player one, even if it means putting up with a few 14 year olds. I agree 256 is probably overkill though. Halo, GoldenEye et al. were fine in their day, and definitely introduced a lot of people to multiplayer shooters, but they WERE released on platforms that didn’t have online multiplayer support. I don’t have any hard numbers, but I have it on reasonably good authority that these days a LOT more people play competitive multiplayer online than same console (though co-op is a bit more of a toss up).
Shooters might just be a bit of an outlier here, most other genres do have a heavy emphasis on same console multiplayer, and have been very successful because of that. But the culture of shooters seems a lot more centred around online, most likely due partially to historical reasons (quick, name a PC shooter with split screen multiplayer), and partially to the sweet spot for a fun match (particularly a fun team match) just being >4 players.
Pingback Antipode - Link – Four-way racing coming to PS3
March 24, 2010
5:59 pm
[...] a follow-up to last month’s article on split screen, it turns out that Vancouver’s United Front Games feels my pain. ModNation Racers is bringing [...]
April 9, 2010
11:27 pm
I’m gonna have to say I agree with you and dis-agree too. Just fyi Resistance 2 does have split-screen online… its easy: 1. turn on second controller 2. press the start button on that controller 3. choose who to log in as (guest or some other account on the ps3) and then search for an online game! i do it all the time! I like it more than halo 3 BUT since halo 3 has 4 person split it seems we always play that when we have other ppl around.
But i agree games need to have splitscreen (2-4) online and off! it would be nice for them to add this to games like MAG which deal with only online play! i’m upset that no games on the ps3 have pulled a halo and done this and i’m still waiting for it!
August 5, 2010
8:17 pm
This has been an excellent read. Great to see both sides of the coin.
My 2-cents: I’d happily forfit graphics/physics for a limited-player split-screen ‘versus’ online version of a playable game (sorry for the mouthful). An example of ‘playable’ is something like the Modern Warfare series – not too crowded, plenty of spots to hide but always vulnerable.
There is nothing fun about having a friend over for an offline 2-player splitscreen on the PS3, especially when they don’t know how to play (I know, shooting them in the back of the head while they’re staring at a wall is fun the first 3 times but then…). Opening it up for others to join the splits-creen would give an experienced player something to do, and an inexperienced player a chance to get a scalp. :)
Considering there’s currently nothing in this market I’m surprised someone hasn’t produced the equivalent of Halo for the PS3… and please don’t bring up Warhawk or Resistance 2.