Quick, what do the best-selling IPs Call of Duty, Wii Sports, Rock Band, Gears of War, Halo, Gran Turismo, and Forza all have in common? They can all be played with others on the same machine!
I've talked about it before, but it still matters. I know, I know. "Nobody plays split screen any more." "Online is better." Both of these are false, but how did the belief come about they're true. First, here's my theory:
Why People Think "No One" Plays Together
I have this theory. Maybe it's wrong. Maybe it's crazy. But at the offices of major game reviewers, and at the development studio, everyone's got a machine, a monitor, and a copy of the game at his desk. Of course these people truly never play split screen. Two guys in IGN offices, sitting in adjacent areas, can load up Call of Duty and play together over the Internet. And they will. And on forums like this one and neogaf, a lot of them are heavy gamers who play online a lot (by themselves, of course), and their main gamer friends are people they know only over the Internet and play with over Xbox Live or PSN.
"But online is so much better!"
Here's the basic problem in reasoning. Online and split-screen are not better or worse. They're different things entirely. It's an easy mistake to make because there are lots of similarities, but it's still a mistake. Online gaming is focused on the game. The game is the experience, whether you're on public servers or with friends. Split-screen gaming is an accessory and enhancement to meatspace social gatherings. It does the same job that playing euchre together does. It's not "better" or "worse" than online. It just does a totally different job that online gaming is completely incapable of doing. Playing video games together has been fun since Pong. It hasn't stopped being fun. The industry's just...stopped making games we can play together. But why cede that area of entertainment to other industries?
"Nobody plays split-screen any more!"
Go to Walmart or Best Buy. What peripheral takes up a big chunk of the shelf space for all three consoles? That's right, extra controllers. Store managers aren't stupid; they know what people are buying. Why are people buying second controllers if they have no intention of ever using them? If they're buying the controllers, they're going to buy at least a couple games to use them with, even if the primary feature of the game is its campaign or online mode, if you need a game to play locally, it doesn't matter what the primary feature is. And I know for a fact young men in college still play games together. For shooters, their only options are pretty much COD and Halo, and no one else is even trying to compete.
Bonus: It's free marketing.
Hearing that a game is really cool can convince someone to pick it up. Seeing screenshots and videos helps, too, if you manage to get him to see them. But you know what really works? Putting the controller in his hands. That strategy was part of how Nintendo successfully sold so many Wiis.
So that's my case. Tell me if you agree, or why you think I'm an idiot!
I've talked about it before, but it still matters. I know, I know. "Nobody plays split screen any more." "Online is better." Both of these are false, but how did the belief come about they're true. First, here's my theory:
Why People Think "No One" Plays Together
I have this theory. Maybe it's wrong. Maybe it's crazy. But at the offices of major game reviewers, and at the development studio, everyone's got a machine, a monitor, and a copy of the game at his desk. Of course these people truly never play split screen. Two guys in IGN offices, sitting in adjacent areas, can load up Call of Duty and play together over the Internet. And they will. And on forums like this one and neogaf, a lot of them are heavy gamers who play online a lot (by themselves, of course), and their main gamer friends are people they know only over the Internet and play with over Xbox Live or PSN.
"But online is so much better!"
Here's the basic problem in reasoning. Online and split-screen are not better or worse. They're different things entirely. It's an easy mistake to make because there are lots of similarities, but it's still a mistake. Online gaming is focused on the game. The game is the experience, whether you're on public servers or with friends. Split-screen gaming is an accessory and enhancement to meatspace social gatherings. It does the same job that playing euchre together does. It's not "better" or "worse" than online. It just does a totally different job that online gaming is completely incapable of doing. Playing video games together has been fun since Pong. It hasn't stopped being fun. The industry's just...stopped making games we can play together. But why cede that area of entertainment to other industries?
"Nobody plays split-screen any more!"
Go to Walmart or Best Buy. What peripheral takes up a big chunk of the shelf space for all three consoles? That's right, extra controllers. Store managers aren't stupid; they know what people are buying. Why are people buying second controllers if they have no intention of ever using them? If they're buying the controllers, they're going to buy at least a couple games to use them with, even if the primary feature of the game is its campaign or online mode, if you need a game to play locally, it doesn't matter what the primary feature is. And I know for a fact young men in college still play games together. For shooters, their only options are pretty much COD and Halo, and no one else is even trying to compete.
Bonus: It's free marketing.
Hearing that a game is really cool can convince someone to pick it up. Seeing screenshots and videos helps, too, if you manage to get him to see them. But you know what really works? Putting the controller in his hands. That strategy was part of how Nintendo successfully sold so many Wiis.
So that's my case. Tell me if you agree, or why you think I'm an idiot!
