DivinePaladin said:
It's also likely because the game would have to be entirely reworked to run in split screen, having both characters in different places, which would probably be too rough for most players' Internet to run. Old 360 games got away with it because the maps were tiny by comparison. But there's a reason these games don't do it as a whole anymore: not enough people play this way to make it worth the effort put in. Why reprogram the online in a way that may not even work for what's likely less than 5% of players to use it SOMETIMES? You act like it's a baffling decision but it's baffling why any shooter dev WOULD do it. Though Halo 5 having no split screen at all for the Co-op did still bug me quite a bit because that's not exactly a strain on the bandwidth nearly as much as full online split screen would be.
I'm sort of grateful this game has it at all because this will be the only casual shooter this gen (from beginning to the eventual end) that does this, I promise you. |
Well...for one, you made up a statistic (5%), so we actually have no idea what that is. Because we don't know this, we can't really judge whether or not this is a baffling decision. However, taking options away from the players is always a bad thing. To deny this is stupid and I think it's odd that you would say it's baffling that a developer would give the gamers more options just because it requires a little bit of effort on their part. I'm certain it can't be that difficult to "rework" the game (if they even have to do that) and just because most people on VGChartz enjoy singleplayer experiences doesn't mean that a large percentage of people don't enjoy multiplayer and playing with their friends on a couch. And I'd like to make a bet with you on that last statement.
I bet the Wii U would sell more than 15M LTD by the end of 2015. He bet it would sell less. I lost.
