Local coop? Seriously?

[SBC saboya]

I had a lot of fun playing this at a friend's house in X360, and was looking foward to this release. I was pretty happy to see it at Steam, only to have my dreams crushed by the words "Local Co-op". Making a PC port should be more than just making the game run on another system, local Co-op does not work for 99% of the PC player base.

I hope you reconsider this. I won't be buying this game for this reason only, like many of my friends.

[pokrishka]

lol, Local Co-Op is the primary reason I was looking for this game.

[ARF]

Monaco won the Seumus McNally grand prize at the IGF which is $30,000. So yea they had a considerable bit of scratch to throw at their game.

Also while I disagree with people being labeled as entitled I can understand why people are throwing the word around. For all the people saying "they aren't getting my money till online co-op is added". The game was a big hit on Xbox its doing great on PC and it stands to reason it will do great when it goes on the PSN. So even if there is 1k people that refuse to buy it without online co-op, you guys really aren't that big a deal.

[Bal]

Black Hayate님이 먼저 게시:

+1 so disappointed too ...
hoping an update to fix this

It's literally going to take them months and a ton of money to add.

[Blue Shark~Vault Boy /CZE/]

This is a vicious circle. Developer needs money for online coop, but many people won't give them those money because they don't want to buy game without coop.

[Tovlyn]

Well, to some extent I can sympathize with it being only local, though I fail to grasp why the devs would even bother making it multiplayer if the result would not be used by more than 2% of all it's buyers.
But what I can not sympathize with is that the controls fort eh other partners are glitched and only work coherently when facing right. The LEAST thing they could have considered is de-bugging the control-errors which comes up with just two players' worth of buttons held in at once. Not to mention that playing multiplayer is more like a burden than actual fun thanks to the fact that threre is no option to play splitscreen.

Overall bad implementation, hoping desperately for patches to sort out this mess of a multiplayer.

[ARF]

You do know the game debuted on Xbox right? The thing about 2% of players using it is kinda grossly under exaggerated. Since most people with an Xbox have multiple controllers, and its not unheard of to have friends over to play on the same console.

Not sure what's up with the controls but the no split screen thing is on purpose. Co-op is kind of supposed to feel like more of a hindrance.

[MrStevns]

Yea right, a team of two developers to implement online gamemode because they port it to another system? Well i hope you expect to wait months since that normally takes quite a lot of time to implement depending how complex it needs to be. Narrow minded steam community <_<

[LunarRay]

The game is a 2D roguelike sidescroller, so the ability to host your own server for a party of 4 is fairly easy to implement. I think the issue is that mossmouth has just ported this game from xbox, which never had an online multiplayer update (a patch on the xbox can make a indie dev burn a hole in their wallet.) I would say that this version will get multiplayer (unless the developer is just plain lazy or broke.)

[Fattox]

I agree with the OP. I've played Spelunky on the 360 and had fun with it. I was going to purchase it on Steam, but just realised it doesn't have online co-op. No excuse for a game with great multiplayer potential to only have local co-op mode. Not these days, especially not on PC.

You sit around the TV with controllers for local co-op on a console. PC has always been more about the online than local co-op.

If it gets added at a later date, it'll be an instant buy from me and a lot of other people (judging from this thread). I think the guy who said "1k people" won't buy it for these reasons is sorely mistaken. I can think of many games that wouldn't do nearly as well if they only had local co-op. Monaco being an example that's been mentioned a lot in this thread.

[Inmate337]

I hope you people are aware that the fact that the game uses randomly generated levels, is a hindrance to getting online play. Anytime the host would load a level, it would have to be sent to the receiving players, slowing down any momentum in playing the game, not mention things like lag and slowdown. You people all keep comparing it to monaco, when monaco has a specific set of levels, that one plays everytime. It's almost impossible to compare the two games. Now, if you were to compare it to other games in the rogue-light community, they dont have any co-op. (Binding of Isaac, Rogue Legacy, Dungeon's of dredmor, etc.) The closest thing is going to be Binding of Isaac rebirth, which will also only have local co-op.

[Bruno]

Who would want to play local-coop on a PC monitor? Better stick with XBOX 360 and to play in the living room on big TV.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[ARF]

BoI rebirth is a great example. People have asked for online co-op for that game and Ed McMillan has said it would cost too much time and money. Now If Ed McMillan, who has sold a few million copies of both Super Meat Boy, and Isaac, says it would cost too much time and money, then I'm not going to expect it from a smaller company.

[Kartana]

The reason I didn't buy it: local coop only

[Bal]

Kartana님이 먼저 게시:

The reason I didn't buy it: local coop only

Your loss.

[QuaziPance]

zoidberg님이 먼저 게시:

Who would want to play local-coop on a PC monitor? Better stick with XBOX 360 and to play in the living room on big TV.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Who doesn't hook their PC up to a TV when gaming? I don't even own a computer monitor anymore, just 2 HD TVs, one in the office and one in my livingroom. HDMI out has been standard in almost all graphics cards for the last 5 or so years.