richardhutnik said:
I do question the obvious, particularly when large numbers seem to mindlessly going somewhere on what looks like to me as mindlessly assuming things. For me, I have yet to find online multiplayer mattering to me. I am also highly aware of how online fails to really meet the social needs of people in a meaninful way. What I do see it is serves a use as a providing humans instead of bots. However, if you do have friends, it is an alternative way to play, particularly if not local. BUT, it gets spun as a MUST HAVE, as I saw in a recent Bonus Round video where one of the media types was bashing Nintendo for being so far behind Sony and Microsoft on things. It is presumptively pushed as the killer and essential feature, and I question that. You see cases, like with Spec Ops: The Line, where online multiplayer was ramrodded through. How about having more aysnchronous online multiplayer and playing for points and leaderboards? What I saw is this feature had been taken out of games, and it was a feature important to me trying to run events. How about something pretty much different? |
Like I said, it subjective. Some people value the prospect of playing against people not in their living room (even if they're strangers). Some people don't. Nothing about it is inherently valuable or not valuable. The reason is gets spun as a must-have is the same reason other subjective features get spun as a must-have - because a lot of people want it. Businesses and media outlets usually try to appeal to as many people as possible. This leads to them placing value on what the majority of people find valuable, even if you disagree with the majority. It's not difficult.
