RolStoppable said: Online is not the be all, end all. Too often it's made out to be a super important component of a game when it really isn't. Here are some things to think about: 1) Why don't other developers add online multiplayer to their platformers (like Ubisoft for Rayman)? Perhaps it's problematic to implement. LittleBigPlanet has online multiplayer, but characters can't bump into each other. Maybe that's a clue that it's hard to deliver a quality experience at 60 fps where high precision counts. Yes, fighting games have implemented online for years now, but over the same timeframe their sales have cratered. Conventional wisdom dictates that that shoudn't have happened, because more options is better. 2) With co-operative gameplay, it's not just a matter of the connection, but also the quality of your companions. Luigi's Mansion 2 was the horror with random people; they were bad at the game, sometimes they didn't even know how to use a key; not to mention that you can run into the occasional troll every now and then who enjoys ruining it for the others. Add online to Super Mario 3D World and you get the same problems; you will quickly learn that organizing a group of people you can hold responsible is the only way to go, if you want a quality experience. Then it becomes clear that schedules of the individuals rarely line up to get to play the game together and you are looking at one or two opportunities per month. With that comes the realisation that online doesn't add a whole lot to the package and isn't a difference maker. 3) You want good word of mouth for a game, but if the above two issues turn out to be real problems, then online implementation actually hurts the game more than it's going to help. Sure, no online means that the KylieDogs of this world will whine about no online, but it's not hard to imagine that online would mean that the KylieDogs of this world would whine about a bad experience, because random partners don't have the same skill level (KylieDog never loses in any game, ever) while real life friends have hardly any time to play online. 4) A lot of the people who complain about this don't own a Wii U or worse, never had any intentions to own one. |
1. Fighting games sales really haven't cratered. The transition from the PS2 to the PS360 saw a split in sales between the two. Early in the gen (Dead or Alive 4, Tekken 6, Soul Calibur 4, Mortal Kombat 9, Marvel vs Capcom 3, Street fighter 4) saw healthly sales when combined. the later stage games (Injustice...sorta,Tekken Tag 2, Soul Calibur 5, Ultimate Marvel 3) were casualites of declinng sales of those said consoles. The fighting game audience tends to be older (later 20s, 30s) and the transition from the arcades to online have been smooth. While many perfer local competetion, online has proved to be more than enough, with constant improvement in speeds and reduced latency. With Evo and other tournament based events having all time attendence and viewership, the scene does not fit your description at all.
2. For many games you can easily filter by skill level. If its just a free for all, yes you can get very good companionship or very crappy ones. Now a days games are matching up based on skill level, so if you are looking for somone to be your equal in a game, you can find them. IF you want to be in a more support role and hlep new players, you can do that as well.
3. We live in a world of instant information. Word of mouth will get out whether a game is online or not. By offering it as an option, you are just doing that, having an extra option.
4. I have a Wii U and outside of mii verse battles of people saying why SM3DW is good and laughing at xbox360 and PS3 users for missing out the online community is very sparce. A game like this would have easily put it on the map...but oh well.