Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Why? Including it as an option wouldn't have any detrimental effect to you or how you play, but would potentially improve the game for others.
that's bull
+ they have to play it on another console, on another screen.
One which automatically and smoothly switches from a single screen, when players are close together, to a split screen, when players are further away than one whole screen.
There's nothing worse than a splitscreen, where both halves show the exact same thing, because the players are so close together.
That of course depends on how many players such a local single-screen co-op would support.
Support of multiple screens, with splitscreen on each, would work for more players.
No, problem not solved.
OP wants to play on the same screen with partner. Like a Mario Kart, a Goldeneye 007, Timesplitters, any fight game, etc ...
Do you think you bought 4 copies for the price of 1 when you play Mario Kart ? No.
Local coop exist since the dawn of video game. And it has not the same purpose and sensations as playing each one on separate system or room or place.
To the developpers to choose that ofc.