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?
Maybe in a way but not directly - it all depends what your first halo game was.
My first Halo game was CE. I bought that game due to my older brother who came to my house with the XBoX original console. You have to buy this game he said. I played split screen with him for about 6 months. Then I bought the game and console for myself and played it all the time with my friends and family. The my friends and family did the same and we all had halo and all had an Xbox.
In my case Xbox hype wasn’t the reason for me to buy halo as I was quite happy playing my PS2 at the time. But I was convinced by my older brother to buy it.
What was your first Halo game that you played and what convinced you to buy the game?
halo 3.
so far i can remember good is that some friends from my little brother have play it at ur home.
so we play more in splitscreen mode in custom game’s mode.
and after that more i get stuck to the halo serie’s more and buy always the next game.
its also the same reason more why i have buy a lot off COD game’s since my little brother has buy it one time and it was fun to play it.
this is more how the old school players now a days have get stuck on game’s like COD or halo since there was somebody that has show it to then and have become fans from it also.
but the day’s we have now is it compleet diffrend.
back in the old day’s there was no big youtube streamers or twitch streamers that promote the game’s.
back in the old day’s it was the LAN party’s that have done it that let players know about game’s there never have hear about.
but now a day’s most people are not happy at all if some things become free to play like the multiplayer in halo infinite is.
that there need more and more things free since there have become lazy to pay for something if there wane play it.
people like that can be happy that microsoft has add a game pass with a ton off game’s on it for a singel dollar you can play for a month long a lot off game’s when you most pay most off then the big jackpot price.
if there was no game pass at all then people like him need to pay the big jackpot price for it if there wane play something like the halo infinite campaign or any other game.
and by reading all his old threads he has make so far it has come clear he is super lazy more to pay for something like the campaign mode and only care about getting things for free.
so he is not caring at all about the game more at all only that he can play things for free without paying for it.
if you are going to talk about getting new players for your game then its the developers problem to not make a big mess from the game and most off all not make a big mess on launch day.
since if you get a big mess on launch day all the gaming news site’s like IGN are going to report that on there site.
same what the big youtubers that have a lot off followers are starting to talk crap about the game.
then the game has a lot off bad reputation that people see its not worth my try if things in that game is happing like that to give it a try.
1 Like
I totally agree, times have changed Since when CE was released to now with Infinites time. Life has got more accessible. I remember buying the monthly Xbox magazine / games master magazine as an only source of media about computer games.
Nowadays instead of getting the information of what is good or not from our friends, family and magazines. We have it all at our finger tips on our phones and tablets. What’s worse is that we can voice our opinion. Unfortunately not all opinions are shown as positive and would probably be best not said at all.
However, in todays methods games can make a lot more money as the world gets smaller and we all become more integrated. But essentially it’s the same methods but done better to satisfy a larger audience.
The Op maybe thinks the game should be free to play for their own selfish reason. But like in many forms of free to play games it does work and a business model could be worked out to let coop be free if their was an appetite for it in Microsoft - the publisher.
Will Coop ever be free - probably not. If the game was complete from the beginning then it might have been an avenue to explore but in such a late stage the only way it could be free now is if they give it out as an apology for doing the second worst release in Halos history like they did when they gave away ODST in MMC to all the people that bought MCC back in 2014.
1 Like
if we go back to the thread topic its the same more we have talk about the old day’s and what you see now a day’s more.
in the old day’s the gamer reveiw was not that inportent.
but now a day’s its the bigst inportent thing for a game since it can destroy a game or make it good.
if the OP wane see that the campaign sale’s most go up then is his idea is compleet worthless and pointless and most of all its not going to work at all.
to get more campaign sale’s the campaign most have a good gamer review.
halo infinite has the worst campaign gamer review what there is.
the campaign has a contant problem since after you compleet the 14 missions and most off the other mini missions the campaign become’s compleet boring with notting to do at all any more.
so its open world setting has going to waste more.
look at other open world game’s there have more side contant what has compleet notting to do with the main story at all for players to do after there compleet the main story.
and to make it more worse then it all was is the 3 or 4 year promice there compleet destroy.
so the last thing that maybe can save the campaign review to look what better is also gone.
and then you have the big youtube’s and gaming news site’s like IGN that share the things like that and give it more the worst gamer review there is about it.
and it looking bad also for the game’s reputation.
the same with the multiplayer from halo infinite.
lowst playlist selection in halos history.
the lowst launch maps in halos history.
the lowst contant flow in halos history.
then you have also the most hate unpopulier system it has that also brings more worse problems with it.
there also destroy the lobby system and veto system.
and the lot off system problems it also has.
if a game has that type problems then i can understand really good that big youtubers starting to talk crap about the game at some point if there is notting left to talk anything good about it.
and on this point i agree 100% with you.
“One Guest per Host” + “No Guest Achievements” is a good idea that makes sense, but I think people are missing the point of this thread. A sensible developing studio that cares about their fanbase might do this, but will 343 do this?
That is the question being asked here.
No matter how sensible the details of the guest campaign idea, 343 still wants as much money as they can get from this crippled franchise. That’s why they dropped splitscreen.
“Why allow players to play together in the same room on the same console on the same game copy when we can force them to purchase not only a copy of the game but a console as well? More money for Microsoft, more money for 343 Industries.”
They see that as a win-win, so why make a compromise for the playerbase?