Many people don't need choices and features like those things.
Nobody buys a console because they find the internal architecture interesting.
Contributing towards the infrastructure that allowed the company and the shareholders to get to their positions of wealth in the first place is doing them a dis-service...? If you don't like the amount of tax a corporation pays, due to their corporate structure, petition your government to close the loophole.
You seem oddly concerned with stopping people from criticising what Apple are doing here.
If I slept with your wife, would you listen to those who told you to stop moaning about it and begin petitioning for adultery to be made illegal?
No, it's what some people have taken it to mean.
And what public statements are you referring to? All I've seen is computer game journos writing articles about something they heard on Twitter.
The 'point' of a console is that it allows you to shove a small, simple device under your TV and play games.
And a controller is fine for FPS games. I can play Halo as easily as I can play BF3 on the PC with a mouse and keyboard.
There's too much hysteria about this. I've not seen anything that suggests 'always on' is 'your console won't work if it isn't connected all the time'.
The Dualshock is an awful controller, and the sticks are in an unnatural place.
I don't really understand what you mean about flipping the sticks around - I've never had a problem changing the controls over.
Um, it's a bit of an exaggeration to say that the crash was caught on camera.
So on the issue of whether splitscreen gaming is fun or not, you're willing to speak on behalf of developers, publishers, and Cronocloud, but not yourself.
Who would buy a system without games? If there aren't enough developers making worthwhile split-screen games, then gamers won't feel willing to buy the hardware needed for split-screen games, such as multiple gamepads or a separate gaming PC for the TV room.
So despite millions of people spending millions of hours playing games split screen, they should all base their opinion on what the developers/publishers think about it...?
If you couldn't find any real-life friends to play a particular FPS with you, then what would you do next?
What does that have to do with it? I said that splitscreen works fine for FPS games, not that it is the perfect panacea for all possible scenarios.
If my Internet went down, I wouldn't be able to play online. That doesn't mean online gaming is crap.
In this world, a video game with production values competitive with commercial console or PC games isn't practical to make on a hobby budget. So considering why commercial developers or publishers reject an idea is valid.
Why would base your own opinion of something like splitscreen gaming, on what the developers/publishers think?
Then let me reword it a bit: Shared screen sucks just enough that publishers don't consider it a selling point when competing games have online. It's not very useful for genres that rely on hiding information from your opponents, such as FPS, RTS, and many card and tile games. Nor is it useful when a game isn't already popular enough to have several players within a 2 mile radius
Split screen works fine for FPS games, I've spent God knows how many hours playing them that way.
None of us on here are developers or publishers, though.
That's not the reason why the OP said "Because shared screen sucks".
How old were you? Below 21? That's part of my point..even kids don't need same screen as much because they can play Halo (which is the Goldeneye of the masses today) with an almost infinite number of people and not have just a tiny square on the screen....same goes for Kart rading.
Online mutliplayer is better because I'm not 13 years old...I can play on MY schedule and not have to work around others schedules.
I was below 21 for Goldeneye, but over 21 for Halo. However, even when I was playing Goldeneye splitscreen, I was also playing Doom deathmatch on my college network.
To be honest, I'm not really sure what your point is here. Your original post said "Because shared screen sucks," and I responded with examples of where I've had great fun with both.
Online multiplayer is better in some circumstances, but not others. If a friend comes round, we can play splitscreen rather him/her going home.
I don't quite understand this zero sum attitude towards it, where only one type can exist at once.
Since when it choice a bad thing? Unless you're Apple, I guess.
I quite agree, which is why I like having the choice of playing on my PC, and playing on a console.
With regards to updates... I've had far more problems with Battlefield 3 on the PC alone, than I've had with my entire Xbox 360 library.
Shared screen is fine.
Years ago, me and three friends would often play four-player Goldeneye on a 14-inch portable TV. It was great fun.
Likewise with Mario Kart 64, Halo co-op, etc.
Of course, playing online and having a screen to yourself is also great fun. I co-own a 32-player BF3 server, and have lots of fun on Team Speak.
Each method has its pros and cons.