Here's an easy trivia question for you: What do Contra, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2: The Arcade Game, and Golden Axe have in common? Correct, each is an Xbox Live Arcade rerelease with cooperative online multiplayer. I would have also accepted "each game has aged like a 25-year-old jar of mayonnaise."
Online co-op not only makes these beloved classics playable again, but completely enjoyable. Nostalgia plays a huge role, sure. But it's sharing this sensation with friends — in my case, many of which live too far from my couch for that kind of co-op — that makes the experience great again.
So tell me, modern-day developer: Why are you removing the option to share anything at all with these friends? As I see it, you're not only neglecting cooperative multiplayer, but you're aggressively ignoring it as well.
Are you ready for some shocking news? This sucks.
I downloaded Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light to play with a pal. Unfortunately, the Xbox Live Arcade adventure game — as good as it is — isn't playable via Xbox Live until September 28th. This means I'll have waited more than a month to play the game cooperatively. Considering Guardian of Light was designed around two players, this is unacceptable.
At least Lara Croft is getting online co-op. The wait hurts, but it's better than not including it at all. I recently interviewed Deathspank producer Hamish Millar, and his stance on online multiplayer had my head spinning. Regarding Deathspank: Thongs of Virtue's lack of online multiplayer, he said that Hothead Games is "focusing on couch co-op for this game. We realized the most fun people have is when they’re sitting side by side, having fun."
I'd rather play anything with a friend than something else alone, and when I want to play Altered Beast instead of Deathspank, something's wrong in the world.
The sole reason I didn't buy Scott Pilgrim vs. The World: The Game is that its co-op is offline only. It's a fantastic 2D beat-'em-up, but it's a challenging game built around playing with others. You know, as long as they can sit beside each other. Why would I bother with Scott Pilgrim when I could play the similarly structured Castle Crashers with my buds? Where's the incentive?
It doesn't make any sense to kick online co-op to the curb when so much of a game's design revolves around multiple players. With XBLA and PlayStation Network releases such as these, it's even more confusing.
As a business model, digital distribution relies on the fact that I have the Internet. So why is it that something like Shank — which is available exclusively for download — includes cooperative multiplayer that's only playable offline? What a waste.
We live in an age where 20 million Xbox Live users have the option to purchase new, downloadable games almost every week. When a substantial portion of this audience can't use the online service they're paying for to play with each other, why should they bother with your game?