Fr0dus Maximus said:
PC and PS3 don't have that fee. ^_^
Right, but every single person who wants to play has to then buy a console/PC and a copy of the game. That's a lot more expensive than an extra controller. And, I know you were kidding so I don't mean to correct you by saying this, it still misses the point of playing video games
with other people, in real space-time, not in the virtual world. :lol
Fr0dus Maximus said:
And Online Multiplayer is so you don't have to have a friend in the same room as you.
If that was truly the sentiment then I wouldn't be complaining at all because split-screen, single console, multiplayer experiences would exist on every game that supports online. The problem is that online multiplayer is moving from what it once was, a back-up option, to being the
only option.
Fr0dus Maximus said:
Everyone needs to have their multiplayer online instead of LAN due to the fact of it's convenience.
Is it more convenient to buy 8 Xbox 360's, 8 copies of one game, 8 separate Live accounts, and round up 8 different TV's, than it is to get 2 consoles, 2 TV's, 2 copies of the game, and 8 controllers together?
It's also not convenient when I'm at someone else's place, or they're at mine, and in order to play a game together we have to be in two separate locations. Not only is it inconvenient for one of us to then leave and go home, but it also cheapens the experience by forcing us to play something separately when the initial reason to play it was to play it together.
CreepinDeth said:
To be honest, I haven't played a multiplayer game yet that requires Xbox Live. Can anybody name any?
In the past 6-8 months?
GTA IV (I know you've played this one Creepin
)
Too Human
Civilization Revolution
C&C Red Alert 3 (understandable, but the game is engineered for two people to play through the campaign -- not an option w/o Xbox Live)
Fallout 3 (again understandable due to the nature of the game, but the PC supports online multi...)
These are just a couple games I thought of off of the top of my head because my friends and I own them and found out after buying them the advertised multi was online only. There are several others we didn't buy because we caught the "online only" portion in time, and if I go further back in time I'd find several more
Plus there are a ton of games out there that only support 2 player split screen, or some sort of scaled down splitscreen mode (though quite rarely is any splitscreen mode added at all) in addition to the fully functioning online multi that supports 4 players or more (4+ players would ideally also occur via LAN for offline multil, but it rarely is, such as in CoD 4).
It just
sucks how the industry seems to be moving toward a "one console, one TV, one player" experience when the majority of time
I spend playing games is
when I'm hanging out with friends. Also, given the statistics for Xbox Live subscribers per Xbox 360 owner this direction is obviously out of touch with Microsoft's actual customer base as well, so its not just me that's getting left out in the dust.
I'm not saying every game should support offline multiplayer to please people like me, it's not the single player experience in general that I'm attacking, but if a game sports online multiplayer, its equivalent (or even slightly scaled down version of it, take out some particle effects, that's fine) in offline gameplay should exist, and it should take advantage of the amount of controller ports per system. Online is great, but it shouldn't be the main focus, or the only focus, of creating the best multiplayer experience possible.
I remember in High School we had a LAN party in one of the class rooms. :lol It was pretty funny when I beat them (or got really close in some matches).