Why is split-screen removed from PC games?

[Dreakon13]

Is there a reason for this? Borderlands, Left 4 Dead and Resident Evil 5 are the biggies I can think of, where the consoles have split-screen but the developers actually go the extra mile to have that functionality removed from the PC ports. Just looked at Lord of the Rings: War In The North and saw split-screen gameplay footage... of course it's not available on the PC though. It can't be because of performance, right?

Even if it's just because "couch coop" is less popular on PC, wouldn't it be more work to take existing functionality out of a game than to just leave it?

I realize it's a better question for the developers themselves, but just for discussion purposes I wanted to ask here. Why is this accepted practice? Especially with the PC slowly working it's way into the living room...

[WhiteKnight77]

As I previously stated, most of it stems from the fact of control schemes. Only one mouse and keyboard per PC. Also the fact that typically, PC monitors are smaller, had something to do with it (see the screens I posted earlier) too. That can be negated by using a HDTV as a monitor instead, but still, most PC gamers do not want to share a screen.

Other reasons is that everything has to be rendered twice though some things are shared in memory. Even though things are rendered twice, it only draws the same number of pixels on the screen. Driver work is also doubled to draw both sceens. That there is a decrease in resolution from a single screen view and a split screen view from the sounds of things meaning things do not look as good in split screen compared to single screen. There will only be 3,000,000 pixels on a screen no matter what (not the actual number of pixels drawn, just an example).

There is also the fact that lots of gameplay stuff is controlled or managed client side which makes it difficult in managing what client is what when using just a single machine.

This is development side of things. The Unreal engine has it built in, but making work takes some doing.

[Dreakon13]

引用自 WhiteKnight77：

As I previously stated, most of it stems from the fact of control schemes. Only one mouse and keyboard per PC. Also the fact that typically, PC monitors are smaller, had something to do with it (see the screens I posted earlier) too. That can be negated by using a HDTV as a monitor instead, but still, most PC gamers do not want to share a screen.

Other reasons is that everything has to be rendered twice though some things are shared in memory. Even though things are rendered twice, it only draws the same number of pixels on the screen. Driver work is also doubled to draw both sceens. That there is a decrease in resolution from a single screen view and a split screen view from the sounds of things meaning things do not look as good in split screen compared to single screen. There will only be 3,000,000 pixels on a screen no matter what (not the actual number of pixels drawn, just an example).

There is also the fact that lots of gameplay stuff is controlled or managed client side which makes it difficult in managing what client is what when using just a single machine.

This is development side of things. The Unreal engine has it built in, but making work takes some doing.

I really do appreciate you reaching out to your friend, but my question wasn't "why is split-screen unappealing to develop into games"... it was "why is it developed, and then removed from PC ports"?

I truly understand that split-screen isn't a popular feature and is easily overlooked by the majority of the PC gaming community, and there are perfectly good reasons for it. It probably isn't worth working into the majority of coop PC titles. But to actually remove it from a game that already has it, where the heavy development work is already done, just seems like it's alienating an already niche portion of the community for no reason. At least no good reason based on this topic so far.

[RevBladeZ]

Even consoles rarely have it anymore. which sucks because its way better to play in splitscreen than to play in turns

[WhiteKnight77]

引用自 Dreakon：

引用自 WhiteKnight77：

As I previously stated, most of it stems from the fact of control schemes. Only one mouse and keyboard per PC. Also the fact that typically, PC monitors are smaller, had something to do with it (see the screens I posted earlier) too. That can be negated by using a HDTV as a monitor instead, but still, most PC gamers do not want to share a screen.

Other reasons is that everything has to be rendered twice though some things are shared in memory. Even though things are rendered twice, it only draws the same number of pixels on the screen. Driver work is also doubled to draw both sceens. That there is a decrease in resolution from a single screen view and a split screen view from the sounds of things meaning things do not look as good in split screen compared to single screen. There will only be 3,000,000 pixels on a screen no matter what (not the actual number of pixels drawn, just an example).

There is also the fact that lots of gameplay stuff is controlled or managed client side which makes it difficult in managing what client is what when using just a single machine.

This is development side of things. The Unreal engine has it built in, but making work takes some doing.

I really do appreciate you reaching out to your friend, but my question wasn't "why is split-screen unappealing to develop into games"... it was "why is it developed, and then removed from PC ports"?

I truly understand that split-screen isn't a popular feature and is easily overlooked by the majority of the PC gaming community, and there are perfectly good reasons for it. It probably isn't worth working into the majority of coop PC titles. But to actually remove it from a game that already has it, where the heavy development work is already done, just seems like it's alienating an already niche portion of the community for no reason. At least no good reason based on this topic so far.

Again, look at the monitor size, though as previously stated, PCs can be connected to a TV, as one reason why it is removed. When having to render two screens into one, since a TV or monitor can only produce 3 million pixels (not the real number of pixels), each of those separate screens only gets 1.5 million pixels. To do that, restrictions as to what is shown are placed on how many pixels are actually shown to the viewer(s). Each has a lower resolution and definition compared to a screen only creating one image and using all the pixels to render said image. A single rendered screen will look better than two reduced rendered screens.

Back when TVs where 640x480 in resolution, that didn't matter really, games would never be seen in HD. Old CRT monitors are capable of HD resolutions (even if not in a 16:9 format) with up to 2048x1536 resolutions.

PC gamers, have always enjoyed better graphics than console gamers and would not want to take a step backwards in graphics to play split screen, thus never wanting it. Removing it makes sense.

[Dataroach]

PC would be ♥♥♥♥ splitscreen with barely any ability to see

[Dreakon13]

引用自 WhiteKnight77：

Again, look at the monitor size, though as previously stated, PCs can be connected to a TV, as one reason why it is removed. When having to render two screens into one, since a TV or monitor can only produce 3 million pixels (not the real number of pixels), each of those separate screens only gets 1.5 million pixels. To do that, restrictions as to what is shown are placed on how many pixels are actually shown to the viewer(s). Each has a lower resolution and definition compared to a screen only creating one image and using all the pixels to render said image. A single rendered screen will look better than two reduced rendered screens.

Back when TVs where 640x480 in resolution, that didn't matter really, games would never be seen in HD. Old CRT monitors are capable of HD resolutions (even if not in a 16:9 format) with up to 2048x1536 resolutions.

PC gamers, have always enjoyed better graphics than console gamers and would not want to take a step backwards in graphics to play split screen, thus never wanting it. Removing it makes sense.

So... they actually take the time and effort to remove a working function in the game because they think PC gamers won't appreciate slightly worse graphics in a game mode the majority probably won't use?

Did they take into consideration that PC gamers also appreciate the versatility and open nature of the (rather expensive) gaming platform? To the ends that it's always better to have more options? Or that the people who actually use split-screen would be willing to make graphical concessions, rather than just axing the feature altogether?

I'm not entirely positive I believe that developers are this dense, or have such little respect for the PC community... though after reading through some of the responses to this topic, I guess I can't blame them.

[cloabs]

they cant do this because.....




REALLY? I HAVE SO MANY GOOD REASONS FOR THIS!

[A Player]

Splitscreen on PC? Ain't gonna happen.

[WhiteKnight77]

引用自 Dreakon：

引用自 WhiteKnight77：

Again, look at the monitor size, though as previously stated, PCs can be connected to a TV, as one reason why it is removed. When having to render two screens into one, since a TV or monitor can only produce 3 million pixels (not the real number of pixels), each of those separate screens only gets 1.5 million pixels. To do that, restrictions as to what is shown are placed on how many pixels are actually shown to the viewer(s). Each has a lower resolution and definition compared to a screen only creating one image and using all the pixels to render said image. A single rendered screen will look better than two reduced rendered screens.

Back when TVs where 640x480 in resolution, that didn't matter really, games would never be seen in HD. Old CRT monitors are capable of HD resolutions (even if not in a 16:9 format) with up to 2048x1536 resolutions.

PC gamers, have always enjoyed better graphics than console gamers and would not want to take a step backwards in graphics to play split screen, thus never wanting it. Removing it makes sense.

So... they actually take the time and effort to remove a working function in the game because they think PC gamers won't appreciate slightly worse graphics in a game mode the majority probably won't use?

Did they take into consideration that PC gamers also appreciate the versatility and open nature of the (rather expensive) gaming platform? To the ends that it's always better to have more options? Or that the people who actually use split-screen would be willing to make graphical concessions, rather than just axing the feature altogether?

I'm not entirely positive I believe that developers are this dense, or have such little respect for the PC community... though after reading through some of the responses to this topic, I guess I can't blame them.

I can't tell you why they are removing it. I can only tell you what is going on as far as development and the work it takes to get it right.

What people tend to forget is that all game development takes place on a PC and more or less start out as PC games. There should be no reason why a developer cannot have all the basic stuff finished as far as artwork and such, which is what we are actually seeing over the models and objects seen in game, before they start working on split screen as that is the extra work.

Once a batch of code is ready to play, it is compiled to run on a debug or developer's console (I was told that the XBox dev console cost $10,000 each) so they can ensure that the code isn't buggy and playable. They keep using the original code or fix the original code if buggy until all the code is done and ready to ship.

I have had a small glimpse into the behind the scenes of game development so I can only tell you what I have seen or asked about, not why a particular developer does what he does.

Ghost Recon was supposed to be a launch title for the XBox, but instead came out on the PC first. Looking at some of the files, one can see code for the XBox in the files that were in the PC game. That is due to the hardware on the XBox was basically a PIII computer with a a modified GeForce Ti 500 video card, pretty much what I had for a PC at the time and still, the PC version of GR (see the pics I posted earlier) did not have split screen.

[donnie narco]

YES to this thread. I always connect my PC to my HD television when I want to play games or watch movies, using an HDMI cable in my room. It's really no trouble at all, and it's a hundred times better to play on a bigger screen (most of the time, the games support my XBOX360 controller, but when they don't, I just use my wireless mouse and keyboard). My girlfriend LOVES playing co op games like Portal 2 and Lara Croft and the Guardians of Light, and games on Steam are WAY cheaper than the ones on the PS3 and Xbox game store.

With Big Picture right there, I thought it was obvious that there were more and more PC gamers playing on a couch and television setup. There really is NO REASON a developer should actually go to the trouble of removing a feature already built into the game like splitscreen. It's just dumb. People DO use it, stop saying they don't because YOU don't.

I gave up buying LOTR: War in the North when I found out I'm not going to be able to play it with my girlfriend just because of a random "no splitscreen on PC" rule. It's time to adapt, developers.

[Ineffable Anathema]

I haaaaaaate splitscreen games. :(

So frigging confusing. Hard on the eyes.

[mason]

引用自 George Pedrosa：

YES to this thread. I always connect my PC to my HD television when I want to play games or watch movies, using an HDMI cable in my room. It's really no trouble at all, and it's a hundred times better to play on a bigger screen (most of the time, the games support my XBOX360 controller, but when they don't, I just use my wireless mouse and keyboard). My girlfriend LOVES playing co op games like Portal 2 and Lara Croft and the Guardians of Light, and games on Steam are WAY cheaper than the ones on the PS3 and Xbox game store.

With Big Picture right there, I thought it was obvious that there were more and more PC gamers playing on a couch and television setup. There really is NO REASON a developer should actually go to the trouble of removing a feature already built into the game like splitscreen. It's just dumb. People DO use it, stop saying they don't because YOU don't.

I gave up buying LOTR: War in the North when I found out I'm not going to be able to play it with my girlfriend just because of a random "no splitscreen on PC" rule. It's time to adapt, developers.

"It's time to adapt, developers."

What if I said it's time to adapt, gamers? Its 2014, decent PC's dont cost that much anymore. Even on minimum wage it shouldnt take that long (A month and a half or less) to get enough money for a decent PC. Online play is now and the future, split screen and (Mostly) LAN is all but gone.

[BenjiGonzo]

Well, for one thing... split-screen is dissapearing on consoles aswell. One of the main reasons why I switched to PC before the new generation came out, Is that I can find more split-screen games in the indie department of steam then on the freaking consoles themselves

[Kargor]

Yeah, the lack of splitscreen on PC games (don't know about consoles) is disappointing. Especially when they removed it when porting a game from consoles, or didn't add it on PC when they added it to the console port.

Screensize isn't an excuse; you can hook up a console on a small TV as well. If the screen is too small, don't use the splitscreen. Simple as that. You can hook up a PC on a big TV as well -- I even have a PC hooked up to a projector as the only output device, which outmatches pretty much every TV on the market except those with a 5-digit pricetag.

If you ask me, it's money. Why have splitscreen if you can sell two copies so players can use LAN?

And heck, I don't even care about multiplayer since I can't really multiplayer with myself. I did it on Borderlands to transfer items between characters, but that's about the extent of my multiplayer-usage. I simply root for splitscreen because it makes no sense to NOT have local multiplayer in some form.

[Chewy]

Lol some of these responses make no sense it's sad. I've been gaming on a beast PC for many years using a 37 inch HD TV and I own 2 gamepads. The only people who seem to respond are people who do not want split screen for some odd reason. Let's say im going to buy an xbox 360 only for the singleplayer games, does that mean xbox 360 shouldn't have splitscreen cause im not going to use it? The only reason I can think why they remove split screen for PC is because it is a selling point needed for console gamers to buy consoles. PC is more powerful, more better looking, supports higher resolutions than console. My nephew doesn't own a gaming PC (so LAN is useless) so when he comes to my house he always asks to play co-op games with me on my PC. Sometimes I will boot up an emulator and co-op on that or I will boot up a native PC game with co-op. I remember a time back then playing splitscreen on a damn 12 inch TV because my friend broke one of my TVs. Im also not going to buy a console with crappy graphics just to play co-op on the same game released for PC. With a few mods I played Left 4 Dead 2 splitscreen and enjoyed it. One person used keyboard and mouse (me) and one person that used... wait for it.... wait for it... an Xbox controller that plugs into pc. Yea thats right a controller that plugs into your PC. People are still thinking computers are only used for email. Alot of people don't know PC can hook up to that big TV your console is hooked up to or able to plug controllers in. But developers know they can but still don't put the co-op in all of their games because some people wont use it? So many bad excuses. Consoles are only good for co-op but if PC takes that co-op then consoles have nothing except some exclusives. I even asked my friend awhile ago, why he games on a console and not on PC? His exact words, "because it has co-op."

P.S. It's time to adapt, developers.