Fair enough, bt I never suggested allowing anyone to play fully and unrestricted for free.
I’m not sure why posts requires review sometimes. Maybe the phrase about 343 you had in there?
Without further elaboration on how your idea of free access “could look a thousand different ways”, I assumed that is what you were defaulting to a ‘yes’ on blanket free access through co-op. My mistake.
i can tell you for sure a lot off people understand that really good since this is a open forum and not a region lock forum.
so yea you get people that are not good in english also on the forum.
its still better then what some others do by posting it in there own language what is not english at all.
thanks i have learn english for the most part from online game’s like MMORPG game’s and not from school.
I’m just happy that this is still an active topic for some reason.
You should have to own campaign to play coop campaign. Only makes sense.
No I think Microsoft should let us all choose 5 players to play coop games as if mates were coming round the house.
Mimics the old with the new.
Let’s say Microsoft does this, what would be the incentive to developers to make co-op games for Xbox?
Microsoft not letting them on their system if they don’t.
.
Why would developers want to be on a system that cuts their sales by 4/5?
1 Like
Besides game companies made coach co ops for years - no difference.
It would probably encourage more to play the game
Game companies made coach co-op games in an era where online play was growing. Now that online has become the base standard these developers have almost unanimously stopped including spilt-screen. This era of gaming is sadly dead since most companies would rather sell more copies of a game than give people access to it for nothing.
Couch Co-op and Online Co-op are not the same thing. There is a huge deal of difference in the set up, coding, logistics, and practice of these two different features. The only thing they would have in common is that the price tag of free.
Yes more people would play the game if 4/5th get to play it for free if they know a guy. “More people will play if you take a major loss” is an awful sales pitch to game developers. These are entities that want to make money at the end of the day. Weather it’s to continue to make games or break even with the last game they made, a 4/5th cut to sales would not be and incentive in an era of very high video game cost production.
For this to be a viable choice, Microsoft would have to give them a huge bag. Or more likely than not the campaign experience would also have to shift towards a stingy MTX model that is seen in most Free online games.
They’d just start charging more for the game so your friends can play for ‘free’.
3 Likes
Microsoft cancelled game sharing just before the Xbox one came out most probably due to those reasons. However game sharing is totally different to split screen coop and network coop. The latter is linked to having a renowned and tested marketing strategy to promote a game very much like an extended demo.
You see back in the day which you probably are aware of people went around their friends house and played coop on the couch. However your guest didn’t have access to the game at home as they didn’t own the copy.
I think Guest is the word we are looking for here.
In todays world it would work like - I can play coop from my house on my friends game but being a guest they could turn off XP or achievements, or even collecting armour or weapon skins.
Which would in turn encourage the player who doesn’t own the game to go and buy it.
Knowing 343 though they would only give you 3 or 4 levels or stop you from completing the last level to encourage you get your wallet out.
Game developers are good at doing this stuff so if they did make this a feature at Microsoft it would be a great way for players to try games.
Never say never - there’s always a way to make money from any situation.
1 Like
This is such a great idea but sadly I don’t think we will get it
1 Like
is it not me or are people not happy at all any more when the multiplayer is free to play all and only wane get more and more free things.
i told it few years ago all and last year also all on a other thread and i going to tell it again.
it was compleet wrong from 343 to make the multiplayer free to play at all since its only give more and more problems then doing good.
it was much better if it was pay to play again like it has to be
Besides not having a game, many guests also did not have the same system. With your logic of replicating couch co-op online, Microsoft would not only have to force game developers to cut their profits by 4/5. They would also have to give four free Xboxes for every one Xbox sold.
This is not true. If I can already play through the whole game on Co-op, without having to go over to a friends house, I will not bother buying a game that I can finish or already have finished at no cost to me. I’m willing to die on this hill and insist that most people would not buy a game if they already have free access to it through a guest pass.
Why would game developers make their jobs harder when 99% of people do not have problem buying a game to play with their friends? Was it Activision or someone else that said that split screen was removed from their games because like 2-6% of their millions of players even used split-screen at least once?
Game demos still exist if someone wants to try something out before playing it.
Ultimately free to play online games are already predatory and, more times than not, a terrible experience to the point that a game flops hard. I don’t see the how bringing that type of motivation into campaigns would be a better experience than the current standard.
Not if the players who were guests ended up buying the game. I for instance bought game pass for a dollar and completed Infinite within the month and now don’t subscribe. However I will go back to it and will probably buy the game the next time I play. So carry on and die on the hill (not really) after all I am a person the last time I looked.
But like you said we’ve moved on from split screen. Network coop is just the next iteration. Some games these days are built for coop. Destiny/the quarry/aliens to name a few. There would be a good market for this if implemented right. It’s not like Xbox did anything about account sharing when you could adjust the home Xbox and play each others games.
It obviously had its benefits.
Big if. Without anecdotal tales, can you put a actual number to how many people would end up buying a new copy of a game because they played it at a friends house?
Split screen for a long time was the only way to have multiplayer on a console games as they were there to replicate the arcade experience at home. It was not there to be a free demo or a game sharing feature. Just a way to play multiplayer for systems that otherwise would be stickily single player boxes. It was a result of the limitations of its time. Online based co-op/multiplayer is the evolution technologic. With consoles evolving to allow steady online play, developers do not need to compensate for the old limitations with free guest passes.
TL/DR: Split-screen co-op was a result of limited tech, not the want to game share.
This hill that i stuck my flag in seems to be well fortified.
This is an excellent example of how having free access to games that gives people no reason to buy the games that they can play for free. Honestly, if you have access to someone’s account you don’t even need to change setting to home, you can just log in to their account and play the game. But to say this is the intended use of the feature is a farce.
Also your account can be locked from switching systems if you do this enough times in a short period of time.
Since i don’t know the it. I’ll make some responds based on a guess.
Split screen: the benefit was the inclusion of multiplayer and co-op in an era where console online gaming was nonexistent or virgining. Giving people a reason to pick a console over PC.
Game Pass: the benefit being getting hundreds of games for $15 a month.
Changing home setting on Xbox: For households who own more than 1 console.
Don’t get me wrong. hypothetically speaking, I for would love to not have to pay to play games for the rest of my life. I just do not think these co-op pass ideas have been though out to any extend outside the price tag.
Every kid who grew up in the 80s or 90s would know this is true. Any data showing this would be buried in the dark corners of the globe. However, even with the presence of the internet it’s no different to the school playground. There’s just a lot more people populating it.
Before split screen you played alternativly - a life each. Now its network coop life moves on. but regarding why people buy games - its never changed. Word of mouth. Whether that’s between school friends or internet crazes people buy games mainly from opinions or the amount of hype a publisher puts forward with swards of cash.
Not if you you both switch your Xbox account on your xbox to the other persons home xbox. Although I would never encourage anybody to do such a thing outside your immediate family.
Microsoft also does a similar thing with Office you can have up to five downloads of Office which you can share with other people as a family service for the basic yearly price.
Considering Game Pass will soon be built into TVs and other devices and sold as a service rather than through your Xbox I can imagine such features as family sharing would be popular and encourage more members to that service as a perk.
Wouldn’t we all - Merry Christmas.
if i read this part good and you can correct me if its wrong.
you tell more that people like me that have buy the halo infinite campaign for the full price have make that option to buy the game from then is thanks to the help from 343 hype about the game there have make from it?