Topic: Is local multiplayer bad for business?

I was kind of baffled last generation when Nintendo kept a dedication to couch-side multiplayer, while the 360 and PS3 kept only making online multiplayer, with no option to play with someone in the same room aside from having two consoles, two copies of the game, two televisions, and an internet connection for each. The 3DS is much the same way, made simpler by the fact that the TV is built in and there's a dedicated local wireless connection, but you still need two consoles and two copies of the game. From a business perspective, this makes sense. Why would I buy another console when the only time I play a certain game is with friends, and my friend already has one?

On a related note, do you think more powerful hardware on the PS4 and Xbone will lead to more games with local multiplayer support? Will we ever see a portable console with splitscreen? PC splitscreen?

PC already does splitscreen, you just need multiple controllers. More powerful machines don't mean more game options sadly. Most companies see more powerful machines as a way to increase graphics. Due to the uprise of Online Multiplayer less companies concern themselves with local multiplayer. Local multiplayer is viewed as cheaper as you don't need to provide servers and what-not. I don't think we will see a major shift to local multiplayer until online multiplayer is overplayed to death, so only time will tell. I personally think there are some experiences that should only be Local Multiplayer (Perfect Dark comes to mind) and some that should be online (Call of Duty)

There are only a few games on PC with splitscreen, and even less that support it without mods. It'd probably be a better idea to release local multiplayer support for PCs in the form of multiple monitors on a single machine now that I think about it. On the last generation, a game developer could use the excuse that they needed to make their game look as good as possible in singleplayer to tell us why local multiplayer either isn't there or doesn't look as good. I recall the local multiplayer in Left 4 Dead had some serious problems with draw distance to compensate for having two cameras, and you couldn't even play with all 4 people on one console. I don't think Perfect Dark is a good example of a game made for local multiplayer either. Any fighting game would be a better example. On top of that, Call of Duty is just not a very well designed game, and only becomes fun with tons of people or tons of things to shoot at. A game that's truly designed for online multiplayer would probably not have a single player component at all outside of a tutorial, which may explain CoD's short campaigns actually...

One change I would make to your post is about 3DS Local Multiplayer. You don't always need two game cards, like Mario Kart 7. But you do need two for games like NSMB2 and the upcoming Smash Bros. It depends on the situation.

No. At least not from first parties. Why? Because you don't need an online membership to use local multiplayer. They have to nickel and dime you somehow.

A) Companies are still in the mind set that better graphics = better sales
B) I used Perfect Dark as an example because it has a remake which added online multiplayer but it isn't as much fun. We can have a real comparison between online multiplayer design to local multiplayer design, same with Call of Duty. (only reversed)
C) Most fighting games work better local multiplayer, not because of design choices, but because of internet problems(lag, disconnections, servers, etc.)
D) In splitscreen the machine (console or PC) has to display everything twice, forcing the machine to work harder or forcing the developers to tweak what is displayed in splitscreen. I noticed it was pretty bad in Halo Reach when going from single-player to splitscreen co-op, a lot of detail was missing.
E) Handhelds probably won't have splitscreen as Handhelds as designed to be personal machines. At least Nintendo tries to allow some multiplayer without owning 2 copies of a game with download play.

We're in 2014...making online games isn't a big deal now. It's not (too) hard to implement for the most part, and a lot of people have relatively fast Internet speeds and lower ping now when compared to the past.

Nintendo is just lazy. They COULD have implemented multiplayer online in games like Super Mario 3D World (I mean seriously, it made no sense that they didn't include online), and Pikmin 3 too. The reason they didn't put online in Pikmin is because they claimed that they couldn't keep everything in sync. I call BS on that because I've played Pikmin 2 online with netplay and no de-syncing issues whatsoever... and Pikmin 2 wasn't even MADE to be played online. That says a lot.

I really wish Nintendo would focus more on online implementation, but sadly, I doubt they will. We'll get online for games like Smash Bros. and Mario Kart, but not many more, unless they change their ways.

Online Multiplayer is not just a flip of a switch. Online Multiplayer needs to be worked on from the beginning of a project. It actually takes a lot of work but a lot of companies see it as a good way to sell g ames so they make sure their game has it, even when the game doesn't work with it (like Batman Arkham Origins)

I don't mind a game missing online multiplayer if it isn't being designed with online in mind (such as Super Mario 3D World)

PC games aren't splitscreen usually because there's an assumption, quite rightly, that most people will be playing them on a monitor not a TV. Usually with a single KB/Mouse rather than multiple controllers. The options there but it's an option not the default.

As for the 3DS multiplayer point. Well looking at my games I have about 7 with multiplayer modes. Of those 5 are online and 4 allow "download play". The ones that don't allow download play make sense because the multiplayer relies on progression in the single player mode. Like Pokemon, how would download play Pokemon work...

I believe this is changing, quickly, through Steam support and a crowd of indie games (where a unique control scheme could be a hook).

I prefer local multiplayer over online, honestly.

I don't think it is.

I think most games skip out on local multiplayer due to poor performance. A game that supports 4p local multiplayer will have to have a lower fps & less visual fidelity to be able to render the four players on the same screen. In an age where developers rather make a 30fps game with small environments just to make it look like a PC game n a console local multiplayer is out of the question.

I personally miss the N64 days where pretty much every game with multiplayer offered local. Today, IMO, every multiplayer game should offer both local & online though.

Back in my day, LAN multiplayer was the coolest.

I think we all do..it's an experience that can't be beaten. The first day I got my Wii U and played Nintendo Land with a bunch of friends was probably one of most fun times I've ever had while gaming
But the convenience of online is so great, and very fun especially when you can find new people at your skill level
I have no friends that are interested in Pikmin 3, so I've never really had the pleasure of experiencing the multiplayer, unfortunately. Having online would be a benefit in a case like this. However, even online features like in Rayman Legends can greatly compliment the game! I was HOOKED to racing other people's ghosts for the first few months the challenges app was out. They really handled the online and competitive leaderboards in that game well, even though you never directly interact with other people online.

local multiplayer is not gone, split screen multiplayer is becaues of technical issues but games that can have local multiplayer without split screen such as fighting and sports games would keep getting it.

Online is a nice option, but local multiplayer is a must; especially if you have kids. That's another reason why the Sony and Microsoft options have zero appeal to me...

From a business standpoint online multiplayer is the way to go. Especially if you got a recurring series. That way you will pretty much force players to buy the new game because your friends are switching too. Or you can just shut down the servers to force the switch.
I bet CoD would not sell that good every year if it did not have online multiplayer in every new instalment.

I keep hearing people say that technical issues would keep developers from releasing a game on the PS4 and Xbone with local multiplayer. I don't think these consoles have the same limitations as the PS3 and Xbox 360 though. On those consoles, you'd have to sacrafice frame-rate or resolution or have a lot of draw distance issues or texture pop-in, but the PS4 and Xbone are significantly more powerful, so I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that a game can run at 60FPS at 1080p, with the same visual fidelity overall as single player. You wouldn't be pushing the graphics of single player, but you really wouldn't need to considering it'd still look good enough that the average consumer couldn't tell the difference.

To clarify, I was more or less joking when I suggested that PC or handhelds should get splitscreen, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have local multiplayer of some sort. PC games in the past had LAN support, and that needs to come back. It's not out of the question that local multiplayer could be done with two monitors either, though that might require a customer to frequently rearrange their monitors. Also, how cool would it be if you could play 3DS download play on the Wii U gamepad, with no Wii U required. A device like that would just take a video streaming signal from the 3DS and kind of pretend it's a Wii U tower. I don't see this happening until the next generation of handhelds, but it's not out of the question that you could play a handheld game multiplayer with only a single console and one copy of a game.

I'm just questioning whether local multiplayer in general is a good idea. As I said before, it's something to play with friends. So if my friend already has one, why should I buy one?

Wait, I thought that split screen was still a thing on the other consoles last gen too? At least on the 360. Gears of War, Halo, and Forza all had it, and you could play online with your couch friend as well. That wasn't as much the case with PS3, but Microsoft still kept it in tact (it's part of why I mostly stuck with 360 last gen). They just also had online as well as split screen.

As for the question at hand, yes, local multiplayer is a good idea. It keeps people from trading in their games just as much as online does. If your friend already has one, well, were you planning on buying it before anyway?

You have to consider that everything keeps improving though.

Sure, Ps4/XBO can do 4p splitscreen game with the same visual fidelity as a Ps3 or 360 game in 1080p 60fps. But a game that does will look bad compared to a game that doesn't on those same systems. People are going to want their games to look like the new standard & keep up with the PC, not look like Ps3/360 games in 1080p.

Nothing would piss me off more than not being able to play Mario Kart or Smash Bros. with my family because we share the same house and usually the same console. One of the things I'm most looking forward to when MK8 comes out is having racing marathons with my brother since we don't really have many games in common that we play anymore.

All the people I consider friends live near me as well (and they usually don't make a habit of buying gaming consoles) so an online only option would simply kill multiplayer for me. Sure I could play with some forum members every once and a while but meh would rather play with the people closest to me than strangers personally. So maybe it is for the majority but local multiplayer certainly isn't bad for MY business.