Split Screen was Critical to Borderlands Sales Success

How about splitscreen online?

--- Replying to Zonf86 -----

If Borderlands had that, it would probly be the perfect game, it's already one of my favs and i have to have clocked over 200 hours on that game already, i've never played a any game that much i don't think. But it does suck that my room mate and I can't play with my online friends when I'm hanging out with her. Hopefully it will be fixed in borderlands 2, i think i heard a rumor of it and besides, the game is too popular to not have a sequal.

--- Replying to Zonf86 -----

Give em steak, they want filet mignon.

I know system link offline was critical to me buying 4 copies of the xbox version and 1 pc version. If it only had splitscreen I still would have bought 1 but only one. Like I did with army of two40th day, still sore about that one.

--- Replying to bapenguin -----

I want it medium rare too.

Alas, the PC version lacked split screen. Which was disappointing to me.

filet mignon??? Screw that I want Ribeye.

--- Replying to Zonf86 -----

Don't forget about the baked potato with sour cream and chives.

you all know my thought's so i'll spare you...

it would be interesting to see what kind of stats they've collected on the subject. like how many games are played online, offline split-screen, and solo.

and i'll take a side of chili, too.

If it had split-screen, I would buy it.

If it had split-screen ONLINE, I would buy it AND get my friends to buy it.

--- Replying to blakepro -----
+1 like

the forums/comments need a "like" button.

I agree completely. I knew that borderlands emphasized co-op, but initially I thought it was online only. I literally bought the game within an hour of finding out it has split-screen.

Strange that these guys seem so sagely when it comes to recognizing the importance of having split screen on a game like this, and then at the same time show how completely moronic they are in thinking split screen players wouldn't want to play online.

I don't think it's a matter of them not realizing it's important, it's a technical hurdle that they may have no had time to cross. It's not as easy as people think as flipping a switch and it magically starts working.

i dont buy this splitscreen talk at all. its obvious that it wasn't in there from the beginning. just look at the menus. you could easily fit the whole menu on a splitscreen but the way they did it makes me feel like im looking through a keyhole every time i want to compare my weapons on splitscreen. the online play might have been a problem due to bandwidth and such. perhaps they aren't as experienced as the guys at bungie or valve with left 4 dead, but the menu layout on splitscreen makes me suspect it was patched on near the end of development

I don't know any of those foods.

Online is hard to do I gather. I don't see why splitscreen online is important, but whatever.

--- Replying to Sabre -----
seriously? i play games w/ my wife all the time and when we have the opportunity to play with my brothers or friends too, its even better. that's why we play a lot of halo 3, L4D, gears of war, etc.

@aeiah: i'd rather have that goofy scrolling than text that's too small to read on a SDTV or menus only accessible by one person at a time. it was a design decision that didn't work out the greatest. i certainly don't think they tacked on or skimped on the split screen implementation. the frame rate is pretty solid and the visuals still look fantastic in split screen. could it be improved? of course, but its still a pretty solid split screen game.

I still wonder if they're gonna make an online split scrren DLC or if that would recuire a new game cuz that's such a complicated thing that they'd have to take the game back to formula to acomplish....
I love online split screen soo much, i never relaized how much i apreciated it and how spoiled i had become becuz of it until Borderlands came out

--- Replying to ChronoSagaAddict -----
it would be an update, not DLC. they said a while back that they would try if there was enough demand but they've been silent on the subject ever since. i'm guessing they looked into it and decided it was too difficult and expensive to add it after the fact. lets hope they plan on including it for the next game.

--- Replying to smurphster -----

For the next game, I'm wondering if it will be Borderlands 2, Borderlands: Army of four, or Borderworlds where you could make a spaceship and go to all diffrent kinds of worlds and have a massive amount of more stuff, I'd pray for a game over 1 disk, that way i know nothing was left out, cuz as much as I love DLCs cuz they're amazing suprises and very welcomed. I don't wnat a game to be limited by the amount that cna fit on one disk, some classic RPGs like Blue dragon and Chrono cross were more than one disk, and Borderlands has RPG elemenst, i say they just imbrase it and make a massive 3 disk game that takes like over 200 hours to beat

I've become completely confused in recent years at all the games that come out that are co-op centric but yet don't have co-op. Is it really that hard or expensive to put co-op in? Well, forget you game developers who make games without co-op, because I can gaurantee you, if the game even has a remote chance of being able to have co-op and it doesn't, I won't buy it. Dragon Age: Origins is a good example. So is Demon Soul, with their pathetic excuse for co-op.

Oh, and PC multiplayer games with no LAN option. They're not getting my money with that kinda crap.

Hang on a tick. Why would dragon age have coop?

--- Replying to Sabre -----
i'm wondering the same thing...

but anyway, yes, it is expensive to add co-op. we've touched this subject many times. its just another feature developers have to spend time and resources on, just like multiplayer or single player campaigns.

well, as the saying goes "you gotta spend money to make money" and the better a game is, the more peiople will buy it and play it and thus has a direct result on sales and profit. it's basic bussiness math

I think their fear is that the ROI wouldn't be enough to justify it.

--- Replying to blakepro -----
ROI=return on investment (for you non-business majors )

that's exactly right. most developers think adding co-op would be expensive and the potential customers they lose would not be worth it. it IS basic business but more expense <> more profit.

--- Replying to smurphster -----

You don't want to know what I thought it stood for!!

I've played lots of games with a friend using system link. Have only played Borderlands split screen at another friend's house. It's the stupidity of not including offline system link that means I'll be passing on Army of Two (I still think what they gave for Army of Two as an excuse is lame).

I even play split-screen with myself. Oh wait...

--- Replying to Takeshi -----

You shouldn't admit to that sort of thing!

Player 2 becomes extra storage and a fall back in case you die...

--- Replying to blakepro -----
or the potential/former wife player. sometimes my wife will decide she's done and walk away when i'm still going strong. or i KNOW she'll want to play but she's being stubborn/busy so i'll start up a split screen game while i wait. of course drop-in/drop-out would fix this dilemma.

--- Replying to smurphster -----

This is an EXCELLENT strategy! Why haven't I thought of this before!??
+1 for smurphster

--- Replying to blakepro -----

It's a basic principle of co-op, I'm suprised you never heard of it either. If you ain't got another, just use mad moxxi's bank to store stuff.

--- Replying to smurphster -----

+2 like
(since I'm counting my husband's vote, too?)

Yes, we know it would be filet mignon, but so worth it! Microsoft would get twice as much money from us for LIVE memberships, so maybe they can sweeten the pot for the developers?

Anyway, are there any other games that do have local & online multiplayer capabilites? (split-screen or same screen) We've played Halo 3 this way, but player 2 had to sign in as a guest. I'll take what I can get for now, I suppose.

Thanks!