Read my first post again.  I said splitscreen is a big draw just that online is now bigger for that genre (FPS).  And the inclusion or exclusion of the feature likely was not a concious effort simply to leave it out but because they didn't want it but because they wouldn't have the time to include it. 

If there are still technical reasons they can't do it, I'll accept that in ways.

But how can you just insist that is online a bigger draw when local multiplayer games (split screen or noe) have sold better on the Wii*? Has there been something done to prove it's a bigger selling point? I mean something that follows the proper method in business statistics, or at least follow a scientific method.

If there hasn't been something done, then just assuming it's a bigger draw is a very risky assumption.

Plus what I mean allows that online could be a bigger draw. I just don't like the assumption it is without some proper proof.

When I took statistics, I learned that companies don't just assume their 20oz sodas are that size. They actually take representative samples to verify they is that much in the bottles, so that they neither shortchange the customers with too little, or cut their own profits with too much.

So has the video game industry done something like this to prove anything sells better through statistical methods, or are they just spending millions upon millions for mass assumptions?

* And please don't give me "those games are casual" nonsense. People who just like to enjoy some rounds of an FPS are playing casually. The same applied to Goldeneye and Halo 1 back then.

Publishers are constantly running samples, taking polls, measuring demographics, etc...but even without that, you need to look at 2 factors here.

1. The genre.  The single largest draw to buying a FPS is online multiplayer.  You don't need a single test to verifty this at all.  Just look at the sales and trends.  It's all there for you.

2. Time constraints.  The X360 being the lead development platform for the title means that Wii iteration doesn't get time to add in "extras".  It gets what they can cram and then we're lucky to even get that in working order.  Given this, they have to choose the features that will best attract gamers to the Wii iteration.  And that means sacrificing one of those big features.  Local multiplayer is far quicker to get axed because of bullet 1 above and because the game engine is already deisnged to run online multiplayer on Wii and it's not designed to run local multiplayer on Wii.  So you'd need major engine modifications (again) just to get a feature added while also sacrificng a feature that is a larger draw anyway.

I get 2, but I will not give in to "you don't need a single test to verify". Plus looking at the sales and trends, the bestselling FPS/TPS (Gears is so much like an FPS in most cases), the bestsellers have split screen as well. So to assume that oline is a bigger point is still assuming correlation=causation.

Plus if the publishers were really that dilligent in being accurate and certain in their polls and samples, they wouldn't have both bet so wrongly against the Wii, and have worked so hard to refuse to correct that mistake. Nor would they have allowed costs and development times to get out of hand.

Heck, EA is on this "we must get good reviews for our games", when it's clear it's not helping their sales.

I didn't say their testing was accurate, just that they perform it.  You asked if they did.  So I told you.

But we can just as easily throw it back in your court by asking for proof that local multiplayer is the bigger draw.    And don't bring up sales and trends given that you just labelled that as a fallacious correlation=causation logic.

I meant the "just" looking at those parts. As in assuming that the sales of games that had both meant one mattered more than the other. I say it would be best to commission Gallup or Zogby to talk to gamers who buy FPS, or even other games, and ask the determining factors for why they did or didn't buy certain games.

Anyway, havong both unfortunately means that Goldeneye outselling this wouldn't even be proof. But it would mean that having both online and split screen would be a good idea, and that it would be best for CoD games on the Wii to have both. This was actually my main point.

Also, I asked if the HD versions will have split screen or by online only. If the former, that will mean that the supposedly more online dependent versions will ironically still have split screen.

Of course it would be best to have both.  But when strained with the circumstance of only have alloted time to include 1 and having a game is already suited towards only one you can't really have both. 

Let me ask it this way.  If local multiplayer was the biger draw, why would almost ALL Wii FPS's have an online component but not a local componenet?  Do you think they all just assumed it be the bigger draw of the 2 features?

Consider the pros and cons:

With online you get much higher player counts and there 's always players to play against.  With local splitscreen, you are limited to 4 players max (many games allow only 2), you need many controllers, you have to schedule time to play and you reduce system performance.  Online has become more appealing as broadband accessibility has increased and free time for aging gamers has reduced. 

1. Did you miss the several times where I stated if tech reasons keep it out of this version yet again, I'll accept it?

2. Wii FPS have also not broken the 2 million mark. Furthermore, only CoD and Red Steel have broken the 1 million mark. One has local only, and two of the the others have online only (with limited local multiplayer). All this proves is that FPS on the Wii have yet to break through.

I really don't like that "we chose to make this as proof alone the games sell". It should be "X game sold well and Y didn't, so we chose to make a game like X". The former has been the mindset of most developers, and that's been a huge reasons just costs have gone up, not sales.

Wait a minute.  You told me not to use sales and trends to verify my claims and then you go and use sales and trends. 

Furrher more, I already told you to look at FPS's as a whole.  The whole genre has moved toward online multiplayer given it offers a far more dynamic expereince with more players and play anytime capabilties.  The Wii is no different in that regard.  You are not going to sell a FPS on the grounds of local multiplayer better than you will on the grounds of online multiplayer. 

That part in bold there has just put to rest everything you have said. You may not like the principle, but it is what it is. People who want local multiplayer are in the minority nowadays, publishers and developers have noticed this, and it explains why many modern online multiplayer games have no splitscreen multiplayer. One game for example was Killzone 2. Why did that game sell so well but had no splitscreen? It's simple, splitscreen is no longer a focal point for multiplayer games anymore, people buy games due to hype and a good marketing push nowadays. Not what's in the game. Get out of the past. Stop trying to make it seem as if we are saying Black Ops shouldn't have local multiplayer, nowhere has anyone said that, or even hinted at it. What this entire time we have been saying is that the Wii doesn't have good enough hardware to handle the splitscreen AND the Call of Duty engine at the same time. Give up your baseless argument and stop posting on this thread if you are going to be stupid. Goldeneye will NOT be outselling Black Ops, I repeat it will NOT outsell Black Ops. Keep in mind both games are coming from the SAME publisher within only a few days apart, Activision is going to be pushing Black Ops a LOT more than they are Goldeneye. This is my last post to you, so you might as well just not even respond to this.