Lack of Online Co-Op is a Huge Oversight

#1 Posted by CraigAA1028 (546 posts) -

I was really interested in this game but after hearing about it's lack of online co-op, I got far less excited. It's 2010. Online co-op is a standard feature these days in games like this. I'm not saying I don't like a good single player experience, but this is a beat em' up. Look at Castle Crashers or Castlevania HD. Those games both shine because of their online co-op. This game screams for this feature. Why wouldn't it be included?

#2 Posted by MushroomSamba (171 posts) -

I remember reading (I think it was over at Joystiq) that they would've liked to have added the feature, but there wasn't enough time to meet their deadline. It's unfortunate, but oh well.

#3 Edited by Supermarius (1196 posts) -
@CraigAA said:

" I was really interested in this game but after hearing about it's lack of online co-op, I got far less excited. It's 2010. Online co-op is a standard feature these days in games like this. I'm not saying I don't like a good single player experience, but this is a beat em' up. Look at Castle Crashers or Castlevania HD. Those games both shine because of their online co-op. This game screams for this feature. Why wouldn't it be included? "

yeah im sure it is not an oversight. For some reason they couldnt make it work. You could call it a mistake though, probably.
#4 Posted by Lemoncookie01 (1642 posts) -

Why can't they just patch it in on a later date?

#5 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

I don't really mind so much.  This isn't the type of game that I like playing online.  This is the type of game I like playing with three other people on the couch.

#6 Posted by Malakhii (1443 posts) -

For ten bucks it's not a bad deal, online multiplayer is not make or brake for me.

#7 Posted by MushroomSamba (171 posts) -
@Lemoncookie01 said:
" Why can't they just patch it in on a later date? "
Because it's more work they don't have to do.
#8 Posted by Diamond (8634 posts) -
@CraigAA said:
but this is a beat em' up. Look at Castle Crashers or Castlevania HD. Those games both shine because of their online co-op.
In the case of Castle Crashers it resulted in tons of people bitching because of poor online play and bugs caused by the online mode.  Lots of negative responses.
 
Developing and testing the net code would have cost a fair amount of money.  Making it right would have increased the cost of the game, surely.
#9 Posted by Redbullet685 (6090 posts) -
@MushroomSamba said:
" I remember reading (I think it was over at Joystiq) that they would've liked to have added the feature, but there wasn't enough time to meet their deadline. It's unfortunate, but oh well. "
Then maybe they will patch it in.
#10 Posted by Nemesis274 (30 posts) -

I would have to say, lack of online co-op might be a bit disappointing part with Scott Pilgrim. I know they were trying to go back to the old days where the fun was with couch co-op, but at least they should have given us that option. I mean, Final Fight Double Impact did that right when they brought it over to PSN and XBL. Then again, they were trying to go for the old arcade feel where someone can just drop a quarter anytime and play with ya.  
 
All that aside, I might be able to enjoy Scott Pilgrim to the fullest if I got the following: 
 
3 more controllers 
3 buds with as much spare time as I do on a weekend. 

#11 Posted by Vash108 (153 posts) -

I was thinking about it until I found there was no online. I played the hell out of River City Ransom though as a kid.

#12 Posted by lilbigsupermario (842 posts) -

I'm sure it's more of a deadline issue than an oversight.  They'll most probably plan an additional patch for the game as soon as it profits so that they can pay the developers who will make the online addition to the game and maybe, they will also release it on other consoles. 
 
It's still a fun game though.  But it will be a lot more fun with the online component :)

#13 Posted by Gamer_152 (14113 posts) -
@MushroomSamba said:
" @Lemoncookie01 said:
" Why can't they just patch it in on a later date? "
Because it's more work they don't have to do. "
Perhaps more precisely the issue is that they can only patch it in if the people at Ubisoft decide it's worth it to give the development team the time and resources to do so.
Moderator
#14 Posted by ISuperGamerI (1880 posts) -
@MushroomSamba said:
" @Lemoncookie01 said:
" Why can't they just patch it in on a later date? "
Because it's more work they don't have to do. "
And some people call that disloyalty to the fans as well as people who purchase the game. In other words it's a good idea to take care of your customers, which is something you would know if you took marketing.
#15 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -
@ISuperGamerI said:
" @MushroomSamba said:
" @Lemoncookie01 said:
" Why can't they just patch it in on a later date? "
Because it's more work they don't have to do. "
And some people call that disloyalty to the fans as well as people who purchase the game. In other words it's a good idea to take care of your customers, which is something you would know if you took marketing. "
The developers were under no obligation to provide an online mode.  Saying that it's somehow disloyal to customers to not provide one just smacks of teenage entitlement issues.
#16 Posted by Make_Me_Mad (3134 posts) -

At least they didn't go the Castlevania route and include Online multiplayer with no Local multiplayer.

#17 Posted by ISuperGamerI (1880 posts) -
@Hailinel said:
" @ISuperGamerI said:
" @MushroomSamba said:
" @Lemoncookie01 said:
" Why can't they just patch it in on a later date? "
Because it's more work they don't have to do. "
And some people call that disloyalty to the fans as well as people who purchase the game. In other words it's a good idea to take care of your customers, which is something you would know if you took marketing. "
The developers were under no obligation to provide an online mode.  Saying that it's somehow disloyal to customers to not provide one just smacks of teenage entitlement issues. "
They chose not to include it even when people requested for the feature and I'm not a teenager so don't worry lol.
#18 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -
@ISuperGamerI said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @ISuperGamerI said:
" @MushroomSamba said:
" @Lemoncookie01 said:
" Why can't they just patch it in on a later date? "
Because it's more work they don't have to do. "
And some people call that disloyalty to the fans as well as people who purchase the game. In other words it's a good idea to take care of your customers, which is something you would know if you took marketing. "
The developers were under no obligation to provide an online mode.  Saying that it's somehow disloyal to customers to not provide one just smacks of teenage entitlement issues. "
They chose not to include it even when people requested for the feature and I'm not a teenager so don't worry lol. "
They're under no obligation to listen to requests.  They also have deadlines.
#19 Posted by ISuperGamerI (1880 posts) -
@Hailinel said:
" @ISuperGamerI said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @ISuperGamerI said:
" @MushroomSamba said:
" @Lemoncookie01 said:
" Why can't they just patch it in on a later date? "
Because it's more work they don't have to do. "
And some people call that disloyalty to the fans as well as people who purchase the game. In other words it's a good idea to take care of your customers, which is something you would know if you took marketing. "
The developers were under no obligation to provide an online mode.  Saying that it's somehow disloyal to customers to not provide one just smacks of teenage entitlement issues. "
They chose not to include it even when people requested for the feature and I'm not a teenager so don't worry lol. "
They're under no obligation to listen to requests.  They also have deadlines. "
Rofl I really hope you're not thinking about going into the video game industry, cause you're the same as Bobby Kotick and Activision.
#20 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -
@ISuperGamerI said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @ISuperGamerI said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @ISuperGamerI said:
" @MushroomSamba said:
" @Lemoncookie01 said:
" Why can't they just patch it in on a later date? "
Because it's more work they don't have to do. "
And some people call that disloyalty to the fans as well as people who purchase the game. In other words it's a good idea to take care of your customers, which is something you would know if you took marketing. "
The developers were under no obligation to provide an online mode.  Saying that it's somehow disloyal to customers to not provide one just smacks of teenage entitlement issues. "
They chose not to include it even when people requested for the feature and I'm not a teenager so don't worry lol. "
They're under no obligation to listen to requests.  They also have deadlines. "
Rofl I really hope you're not thinking about going into the video game industry, cause you're the same as Bobby Kotick and Activision. "
Actually, I have worked in the industry as a tester, but that's beside the point.  Your hyperbole only shows how ignorant you are of the entire process.  Do you honestly think that whipping up a fully functional online mode with minimal lag overnight doesn't take that long?  The game was designed with the obvious intent to release the same week as the film.  When you have a deadline that set, you can't always fit everything you want in, and you have to be selective with where you spend your time and effort.
 
But you're apparently too busy seeing Bobby Kotick in anyone that disagrees with you, so hey.  Good luck in life, pal.  If you really aren't a teenager anymore, I hope a dose of reality helps you grow up soon.
#21 Posted by MushroomSamba (171 posts) -
@ISuperGamerI:  
 
I don't know where you work, but I don't think it'd go over well if I told my employers to fuck their deadline, I'll finish the project when and how I want. And no, I probably wouldn't work overtime for free just to include something in a product that was never marketed as having in the first place. Clearly, I must be a villain of the most detestable caliber.
#22 Posted by Andrela (622 posts) -

So play it in your house with your friends?

#23 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -
@MushroomSamba:   You sinister fiend.
#24 Posted by lilbigsupermario (842 posts) -

Having the online component for the game makes it perfect and satisfying for the fans.  But they failed to include nor market it in the first place because of simple reasons.  The game was planned and made based on a realistic scope of work that includes: 
 
- Time constraint (release date of the movie) 
- Budget constraint
- Limited resources
- Core goal of the project 
 
Of course they won't market the online feature of the game because right from the start, they already estimated that it will be a big component that will cause the delay of the game and will prevent the goal of releasing it on the same week the movie comes out.  And primarily, what was the game really for and why release it simultaneous with the movie?  It's obviously a marketing strategy to promote the film, which was most probably the core reason why the game company was funded to make the game.  And most probably, they already saw through the deadline problem and if they could take one thing out of the game considering it's a game that pays homage to old-school gaming, the online component was most likely to go.
 
And besides, it's still a good game without the online multiplayer.  The online component really is a big aspect and it will take a great deal of time and cost to develop.  If they see that it makes sense and profitable to spend more dollars on developing the online component in the future to satisfy the customers, I'm sure they'll add it to the game eventually.

#25 Edited by ISuperGamerI (1880 posts) -
@Hailinel said:

" @ISuperGamerI said:

" @Hailinel said:
" @ISuperGamerI said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @ISuperGamerI said:
" @MushroomSamba said:
" @Lemoncookie01 said:
" Why can't they just patch it in on a later date? "
Because it's more work they don't have to do. "
And some people call that disloyalty to the fans as well as people who purchase the game. In other words it's a good idea to take care of your customers, which is something you would know if you took marketing. "
The developers were under no obligation to provide an online mode.  Saying that it's somehow disloyal to customers to not provide one just smacks of teenage entitlement issues. "
They chose not to include it even when people requested for the feature and I'm not a teenager so don't worry lol. "
They're under no obligation to listen to requests.  They also have deadlines. "
Rofl I really hope you're not thinking about going into the video game industry, cause you're the same as Bobby Kotick and Activision. "
Actually, I have worked in the industry as a tester, but that's beside the point.  Your hyperbole only shows how ignorant you are of the entire process.  Do you honestly think that whipping up a fully functional online mode with minimal lag overnight doesn't take that long?  The game was designed with the obvious intent to release the same week as the film.  When you have a deadline that set, you can't always fit everything you want in, and you have to be selective with where you spend your time and effort.  But you're apparently too busy seeing Bobby Kotick in anyone that disagrees with you, so hey.  Good luck in life, pal.  If you really aren't a teenager anymore, I hope a dose of reality helps you grow up soon. "
I'm just laughing at how pathetic and aggressive you sound bud. Seriously, I said you're the same as Bobby Kotick and Activision (which is the first time that I have called someone that) because you clearly DO NOT care about people that may or may not buy your product. I don't care if they ran out of time, it's called time management and that is very important when you are trying to release a product such as this. Also, when people are asking for a feature, it would be cool for them to include it either in the final release of the game or as a free update/patch. 
 
I'm not a teenager and good luck to you trying to do everything your own way without taking a second to see what other people want. I hope a backlash helps you grow up soon.
#26 Posted by ISuperGamerI (1880 posts) -
@MushroomSamba said:
" @ISuperGamerI:  
 
I don't know where you work, but I don't think it'd go over well if I told my employers to fuck their deadline, I'll finish the project when and how I want. And no, I probably wouldn't work overtime for free just to include something in a product that was never marketed as having in the first place. Clearly, I must be a villain of the most detestable caliber. "
Clearly you're not the only person creating the game and some people might call you a villain, just saying.
#27 Posted by MushroomSamba (171 posts) -
@lilbigsupermario: Nah, that's too reasonable. I'd rather throw a hissy fit and call everybody Kotick. =\
#28 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -
@ISuperGamerI said:
" @Hailinel said:

" @ISuperGamerI said:

" @Hailinel said:
" @ISuperGamerI said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @ISuperGamerI said:
" @MushroomSamba said:
" @Lemoncookie01 said:
" Why can't they just patch it in on a later date? "
Because it's more work they don't have to do. "
And some people call that disloyalty to the fans as well as people who purchase the game. In other words it's a good idea to take care of your customers, which is something you would know if you took marketing. "
The developers were under no obligation to provide an online mode.  Saying that it's somehow disloyal to customers to not provide one just smacks of teenage entitlement issues. "
They chose not to include it even when people requested for the feature and I'm not a teenager so don't worry lol. "
They're under no obligation to listen to requests.  They also have deadlines. "
Rofl I really hope you're not thinking about going into the video game industry, cause you're the same as Bobby Kotick and Activision. "
Actually, I have worked in the industry as a tester, but that's beside the point.  Your hyperbole only shows how ignorant you are of the entire process.  Do you honestly think that whipping up a fully functional online mode with minimal lag overnight doesn't take that long?  The game was designed with the obvious intent to release the same week as the film.  When you have a deadline that set, you can't always fit everything you want in, and you have to be selective with where you spend your time and effort.  But you're apparently too busy seeing Bobby Kotick in anyone that disagrees with you, so hey.  Good luck in life, pal.  If you really aren't a teenager anymore, I hope a dose of reality helps you grow up soon. "
I'm just laughing at how pathetic and aggressive you sound bud. Seriously, I said you're the same as Bobby Kotick and Activision (which is the first time that I have called someone that) because you clearly DO NOT care about people that may or may not buy your product. I don't care if they ran out of time, it's called time management and that is very important when you are trying to release a product such as this. Also, when people are asking for a feature, it would be cool for them to include it either in the final release of the game or as a free update/patch.   I'm not a teenager and good luck to you trying to do everything your own way without taking a second to see what other people want. I hope a backlash helps you grow up soon. "
You may not be a teenager, but you certainly act like one.  Have fun living in your delusions.  If you honestly think that the lack of online was due to them not caring about the fans, I'd hate to see how that extends into your view of the world at large.  Either way, I'm done with this conversation because you obviously refuse to listen to what anyone else has to say if they don't agree with your views.
#29 Edited by lilbigsupermario (842 posts) -
@ISuperGamerI said:
Actually, I have worked in the industry as a tester, but that's beside the point.  Your hyperbole only shows how ignorant you are of the entire process.  Do you honestly think that whipping up a fully functional online mode with minimal lag overnight doesn't take that long?  The game was designed with the obvious intent to release the same week as the film.  When you have a deadline that set, you can't always fit everything you want in, and you have to be selective with where you spend your time and effort.  But you're apparently too busy seeing Bobby Kotick in anyone that disagrees with you, so hey.  Good luck in life, pal.  If you really aren't a teenager anymore, I hope a dose of reality helps you grow up soon. "
I'm just laughing at how pathetic and aggressive you sound bud. Seriously, I said you're the same as Bobby Kotick and Activision (which is the first time that I have called someone that) because you clearly DO NOT care about people that may or may not buy your product. I don't care if they ran out of time, it's called time management and that is very important when you are trying to release a product such as this. Also, when people are asking for a feature, it would be cool for them to include it either in the final release of the game or as a free update/patch.   I'm not a teenager and good luck to you trying to do everything your own way without taking a second to see what other people want. I hope a backlash helps you grow up soon. "
I hope you don't mind me butting in your argument, but in my opinion, both of you are actually right in different perspectives.  In a marketing perspective, yes, you should be able to release and a sell the best product you can offer for your customers.  The product should be complete such that it is highly marketable and you can actually target an audience who will definitely buy a product that will generate profit for your company and at the same time, satisfy your customer.  But this is a perspective of the seller, you really don't mind how the product is done as long as you get the right product that you're supposed to sell to the people.  Now if you take the perspective of the developer, the developer sees how much work is needed to create that product and with the constraints given in developing the product, sometimes you really have to sacrifice features to get to the deadline.  It's not being lazy or lack of time management, but all the stuff that needs to be done just simply cannot be done at the desired time of release, so you make a compromise for the product both on the developing side and the seller.  Although taking out an important aspect of a product is risky, it's just either scrap the project and suffer through the costs or take the risk of releasing a somewhat unfinished product and hope that the product will still sell.  Of course, releasing such a product is always evaluated if it is of quality that is worth selling.  As for the Scott Pilgrim game, without the online component, it is still a worthy product to sell with a $10 price tag (it may cost originally $15 for having an online component). 
 
This is just my opinion though, I may be wrong, but I'm just trying to make sense out of the argument.
#30 Posted by harinosho (604 posts) -

And NOW a word from our sponsors! 
 
"Everyday's great at your JUNES!"   

#31 Posted by seanbooker (205 posts) -

A lot of games seem to be coming out without online co op where it would be great it they did. Shank is only offline and Lara Croft is offline (currently) but will get it in about a month or so.

#32 Posted by UnsolvedParadox (1868 posts) -

I hate not having online multiplayer, at least patch it in Ubisoft! Throw me a bone here.

#33 Posted by flufflogic (289 posts) -

The amount of instability present in the game as-is just makes the idea of online co-op scary.

#34 Edited by Baconator (168 posts) -
@MushroomSamba said:

" @Lemoncookie01 said:

" Why can't they just patch it in on a later date? "
Because it's more work they don't have to do. "
You could say the same about the recent Lara Croft lack of online co-op. They don't HAVE to do it but it's a good thing they're still fixing it. Hm, now that I'm thinking about it, they probably have to fix it or the 360 version would be significantly inferior to the PS3 version which comes with online co-op. Hm, now that I'm thinking about it even more why didn't they just scrap it altogether and cancel the co-op feature for either versions?  They should patch it, make it online co-op! It's not too late!
 
Anyway, Scott Pilgrim is a no-buy simply because of the lack of online co-op. It's a shame because the games looks awesome but it's a co-op kind of game and I can't play with anyone locally. My friends couldn't care less about brawlers.
#35 Posted by MushroomSamba (171 posts) -
@Baconator: There's a major difference you're overlooking. Lara Croft was always marketed as having online co-op. In fact, it was marketed as being a big part of the game. The reason the 360 version didn't have it at launch was because they wanted to get it out in time for their Summer of Arcade promotion and to claim that "timed exclusive" bonus (although that's pretty misleading on their part, considering they didn't ship the full game).  
  
With Scott Pilgrim, they knew they couldn't add in online co-op and still make the deadline since the beginning, thus they never intended the game to have it nor did they market it as such. The only reason they'd patch it would be purely out of altruism, since they're under no obligation to do so, and they'd practically be doing it for free. While that'd be nice, I ain't exactly going to hold it against them if they decide not to do it.
#36 Posted by xyzygy (10079 posts) -

I don't think that online co-op should become the standard just because it's 2010. There should still be single player only games out there. When developers add in co-op or multiplayer "just because it's 2010", you get games like Assault on Dark Athena where the online was never ever really big and there never was anyone playing. Thus, the resources used to make the multiplayer could have been put to better use by focusing more on a single player only game.

#37 Posted by ConfuciusOne (46 posts) -
@Hailinel said:
" I don't really mind so much.  This isn't the type of game that I like playing online.  This is the type of game I like playing with three other people on the couch. "
I don't think anyone would be forcing you to play online?  Why do some people always bitch about having options?
#38 Posted by Teclo (139 posts) -

It's annoying for me because, as much as I prefer multiplayer when everyone's in the same room, most of my friends who live in the same city don't play games at all. I have basically one Xbox 360-owning friend who'll play this with me. I have several people I know in other cities who'd play too, but now we're restricted to when they come to visit. Not to mention, I only have one pad so unless everyone plans ahead and brings other pads around, it's not gonna happen anyway.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.