Once again, I am the muse for Mitchell's bitmob articles.

There's no excuse for online co-op not to be included in XBLA games if couch co-op is present. Yes, playing games with your buddy next to you is awesome; so is playing a game with your buddy over Live. Hell, I've played single player games while talking to people on Live and it's still been awesome (Dead Rising 2: Case Zero for instance). And now that the restriction on the memory size of Arcade games has been lifted (it was a pretty dumb idea in the first place) there's no good reason to leave things like online co-op out.

While I understand the general frustration surrounding the lack of online support for cooperative games, simply saying "There's no reason for a game not to have online, it's stupid when it doesn't, and that's that" is narrow-minded. 

I can't speak for every developer (and I'm not one myself), but you have to imagine that if it were up to them, they'd cram every single pie in the sky feature they could into their titles to create the perfect and ultimate game. There'd be no limits on budgets or development time constraints, and they'd have as many folks as possible working around the clock, hands-on-deck to bring it to life. But the reality is, that's not the case. 

Adding online cooperative play to a game isn't as simple as flipping a switch. Jane Q Developer doesn't just open up Notepad on Windows to edit some game code, write "Mitch can now play online cooperative with his pals," hit save, and then submit the game for certification. Like everything else that goes into a title, it requires resources, including time, money, staff, and extensive testing. I won't speak for Hamish Millar or the rest of the DeathSpank team, but it's incredibly likely that either cooperative gameplay was a late design addition (given how it's implemented, it seems likely) or (this is probably more likely) they weren't willing to sacrifice something else to get online co-op in there. His response seems more like a stock PR answer than any actual real development or design reason for not including it. 

I think as we see the popularity of digital download games continue to rise, so will the budgets, care, and time put into them. With that, I'd expect to see some of them getting longer, more polished, and yes, supporting online co-op.

Oh wow.  No on-line Co-Op for Scott Pilgrim?

I hate to say it, but that pretty much removes 80 percent of the reason I was planning on buying it.  So much for that...

I agree 110%. I will not, and never will, buy a game that COULD have had online coop, and doesn't. Deathspank will never see the light of day on my 360 for this very reason. The same goes for Scott Pilgrim. I also heard that Torchlight will be making it's way to consoles...without online coop. A game so obviously inspired by one of the greatest online coop games of all time, Diablo 2, is not going to have online coop. What's worse is that this is being released over a year after the intial PC release, and they couldn't be bothered to add it.

I have heard the sequel will have Online coop, so atleast someone was listening.... I just think it boils down to being lazy. Couch coop is just not viable anymore. I am paying $50 a year for Xbox Live and Microsoft should make it a rule that any game that includes couch coop must include online coop as well. I simply will not fund laziness. How hard could it have been to include online coop in Deathspank??? Look at Fable 2. That was Microsoft's own game and even they couldn't do it right! It just amazes me. I can forgive Sony exclusives not having online coop since I don't pay anything to use the service. Microsoft has no excuse.

I concur with Nick. Refusing to buy an amazing game like Scott Pilgrim because it doesn't have online co-op is simply ridiculous to me.

Nick: Well put. I realize the manpower and bandwidth (manwidth?) doesn't allow for devs to do whatever they want, and that it's more complicated than the push of a button. I'm sure cooking up and perfecting net code takes up a lot of time. It's also complex beyond my brain capacity I'm sure. 

Deathspank fits into the time constraints, particularly the second one, and I know that Scott Pilgrim had a rocky road to getting where it is. But it seems like a blown opportunity *every* time, and the fact of the matter is that not everyone realizes the sacrifices teams make. Even those who do -- I have a decent idea, I think -- can still look at it and feel disappointed.

I wonder if Deathspank 2 could have waited a few months to add online co-op. Maybe that's not in their business model, or maybe it's something they have absolutely no interest in. Hell, they may not have the talent... Not to disparage Hothead, maybe they simply don't have the hire to take care of it. Their focus is obviously on single-player experiences. But, like you said, there's a pretty clear indication of "Oh, shit, we should have some kind of co-op, right?" with the Sparkles character.

Shank devoted an entire separate campaign to cooperative play, and I don't know when or if I'll ever get to play it. Klei's resources aside, this sucks. Yes, it's at a personal level, but it's still a downer.

Ben: It's not really "refusing" as much as it is not having much of an interest any longer. I've played the game alone (and with a couple friends locally) for review. But I'd much rather play it online. Without that, I have no desire to play it. It's not an aggressive thing.

Why is not buying Scott Pilgrim because of no on-line Co-Op ridiculous?  Are you me?  I had a group of 3-6 people I play online with in an on-and-off basis, and this was a game I wanted to share with them.  The operative word here is "online".  My local friends pretty much want nothing to do with a 2D side-scrolling fighter, and if I wanted to play alone in this fashion, I bought TMNT Arcade some number of years ago.  In fact, if I wanted to play with my friends, I bought TMNT Arcade some number of years ago.

The biggest appeal of this game, to me, was being able to log into Xbox Live, fire it up, join friends across the country and beat the crap out of some anonymous NPCs.  I have just been informed that I will be playing with myself.  I'm sorry we differ on this, but I don't see how going from buy to no buy can be considered "ridiculous"...

I don't think it's "ridiculous" as much as it's "unfortunate," honestly. Let me assume for a second that the reason you can't find a second player for couch co-op is because you're an adult with a job, a wife, kids, and other responsibilities. As you get older, the time you get to yourself to play games is generally just that... by yourself. It's not like as a 30-year-old you're calling up your buddies on a Tuesday night for a Shank playdate, right? The increasing speeds of broadband and slicker net code have made it possible to play games with friends (sometimes those who have moved across the country... the world!) you generally can't see face-to-face. 

Unfortunately, that means these folks also can't experience things like couch co-op. That sucks, and I totally get that. Sometimes it's hard for me to sympathize, because I'm in a fortunate situation where my wife actually loves to game -- when I was reviewing Guardian of Light, she was the Lara to my Totec. It was a blast. So that sucks that some folks may have missed out on that.

I don't have the numbers, but also keep in mind that the number of folks who play these games online might be so few in numbers that it just doesn't make monetary sense to devote resources to it. I don't have anything to back this up here, I'm just rambling in comments, but just because a gazillion folks hop on Halo 3 and Modern Warfare 2 every day, that's not particularly indicative of how many of them will be utilizing online functionality in a $15 downloadable game. Just a thought there.  

Actually, it's kind of strange... in THIS particular case, with a game like Scott Pilgrim which is aimed at people who can appreciate retro graphics and chiptune (guitar-assisted) music, I'd be willing to bet you'd get a much BETTER output of multiplayer online, where like-minded gamers can connect.  When you think about it honestly, in a typical household/group of friends, will this game have as much appeal for local multiplayer as, say, Mario Kart?  Or will it be much diminished?

Just to back up Nick - Yeah, it's unfortunate that online co-op isn't always included in multiplayer games. But remember we're talking about downloadable titles here. Generally with smaller dev cycles, dev teams, and budgets. Just because current consoles support online multiplayer doesn't mean it's some sort of switch developers can switch and it just automatically works. A hell of a lot of work goes into multiplayer game play, from the design and implementation phase right up to the extra QA resources it requires.

Bryan: This article is about my personal interests and experiences. I am in no way trying to dictate what is and isn't for anyone else.

Nick: Different situation, similarly busy. You nailed it. I'm in college and my roommates find games interesting rather than entertaining, and all my pals live hours or provinces or countries away. Online is where we prefer to meet up because it's a realistic option.

You and Greg are right, perhaps "Unfortunate" is a better word. That it's so common in downloadable titles -- downloadable! I need the Internet to access them *at all*! -- just blows me away. And again, I realize it's not as simple as one guy punching the "ACTIVATE ONLINE MULTIPLAYER" button and calling it a day.

I'm trying to keep in mind people like my friends -- they don't follow game development at all, and they don't understand this. I'm guessing a lot of people don't. So, yes, there is a lot of background work that happens to create an online infrastructure. For people who don't know this -- and I'm repeating myself in saying "those who DO know as well" -- might still feel like they're missing out on something.

With Shank and Scott Pilgrim, I feel like there's something missing. With Guardian of Light, I *know* something's missing. Single-player's awesome, and so is couch co-op, but for those of us without that option -- or who find arranging something like that incredibly difficult -- look for some sort of online-enabled component to compensate.

Online co-op is a pain in the ass to develop.

However, developers and publishers should be aware of this by now and plan accordingly.

All that being said, maybe the number of online co-op users is just not enough to justify the investment?

Glad through the conversation with Nick Mitch is dialed back to an opinion a little more reasonable. I'd love for every game to be loaded with every feature. Then again in that fantasy world we'd be griping about the cost of games as we already are games faced with limitations. I've always been of the philosophy I prefer a game developed aware of it's limitations and not including something that wasn't going to be executed well. I hope that's the reason Scott Pilgrim is without online co-op - even if I had no intention to play it regardless.

I'm always wary of substantial leaps of about what developers "hate," "ignore" or "neglect" because someone didn't one thing in a game they really wanted it in. Not to say a few may or not, and these probably aren't the people you want developing your particular pet features. But I think between reading, talking with and being in production meetings for various forms of media that a lot of people really underestimate the amount of thought in what gets cut from things in the cloud of their own interests.

Mitch, I'm pretty sure that you need a gold subscription on Xbox Live to play online co-op, right? Gold members are a small minority of that 20 million (I've read before that it's something close to 1 million, but I can't find the source at the moment. Someone correct me if I'm wrong), so spending extra resources for online co-op isn't actually in developers' interests.

In other words, 20 million players can utilize offline co-op, while only a small portion have an opportunity to play online.

I agree that online co-op would be nice, but I don't think it's a reason to deliberately deprive yourself of an excellent game, which is what Scott Pilgrim is.

I actually prefer local co-op as an experience to online co-op. I know it's not always as practical to get people together in the same room. But there's something far more rewarding about sitting down with a buddy in the same room and playing something together. With a retro-styled title like Scott Pilgrim, it creates a more authentic experience. Sure, online co-op would be great. But I'm not shedding any tears over its lack of inclusion—online play is challenging to get right and Scott Pilgrim already had a ton of cool stuff cut out of it due to lack of development time. I'd much rather have the game we got with no online play than a gimped version with other features cut because they needed to focus on optimising network code.

I know in an ideal world they'd have had a bigger team and more time to work on it. But we don't live in an ideal world.

@Mitch and Bryan: Perhaps "ridiculous" is a strong word, especially in light of your follow-up comments, which are fair. I suppose I'm more of the mindset that online multiplayer is more of a perk than a necessity. And when a game as excellent as Scott Pilgrim is snubbed for not having a perk, it throws me for a loop. I also just read this piece:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18571_5-reasons-its-still-not-cool-to-admit-youre-gamer.html

The "Entitlement" point was still ringing in my ears.

From my brief experience in QA, including an online component to a game opens up a very large can of worms. I can understand why games with small teams and small budgets would eschew it.

If Microsoft or Sony really wants to stand out from the pack, they should have an army of engineers dedicated to helping devs get online play up and running -- and help make the feature standard on all multiplayer games going forward.

I find online multiplayer more of a perk than a necessity in general, myself.  Whenever I drink alone, I prefer to be by myself.

This game lends itself to online multiplayer so readily that I guess I am a bit stupid for assuming it WOULD be a feature included; all the promotional videos I saw featured a party of players taking on the enemy co-operatively, and I was thinking, this would be a blast to play online!

It's funny to read this just weeks after Castlevania Harmony of Despair came out. Go to any review or message board of that game and see how many people are complaining that the game has no offline coop - only online.

In other words, you cant please everyone.

I'm not trying to say that I'm entitled to anything, because I know all too well that I'm not. I'm simply saying that it sucks when games don't have online co-op. I'm also just bummed and confused that games I can only play if I have the internet regularly neglect online multiplayer.

I like offline multiplayer as much as the next guy, but "it has offline multiplayer" is not an effective argument for defending the lack of online co-op. But Daniel's right -- you can't please everyone.

@Ben - Scott Pilgram is not an amazing game - Actually I would go as far as calling it "not good" on it's own. It's only fun with multiple people, which is why it is USELESS without online co-op.

I'm sorry, but if Ninja Turtles Arcade can handle online co-op, I'm sure this game can too. I'm not buying a half-assed attempt by a dev that doesn't deserve sales if they can't make their game what it should be. Plain and simple.

I think you're being a bit harsh on the lack of a feature. Sometimes developers can't justify adding a feature because of a combination of costs or time. Costs do not only mean financial ability, but does it make sense to perform x amount of work for y amount of probable money? Is it possible to develop this feature completely in time for the games release without sacrificing the overall quality of the game or other portions of it? Online co-op is more than just adding network code. Extensive testing needs to be done to ensure that the game isn't broken due to network play. Some portions of the single player experience may need to be re-optimized to ensure that the online game is as stable and complete as the offline version. The games also need to be slightly reprogrammed so that all values (variables like ones for explosions or enemy generation) are the same on all connected consoles. The addition of online co-op may not be nearly as important as adding co-op to the game or another beneficial mode of play.

I do understand the frustration of this being missing. believe me, I'm a local split-screen/LAN guy. I despise the death of those gameplay modes. They only return periodically and aren't in nearly as many games as I'd prefer them to be in. Change happens and compromises are made. I'm not saying that you should give up hope, but I'd like you to know that I'd be disgusted if I was developing a game and saw this type of response to the lack of online co-op in games. Honestly, you're going to completely discredit a game because it doesn't offer online convenience? It's fine if you pass, but you don't have to trash them like that (this just applies to the offending posters, not the author of the article or the other posters that posted more appropriate responses).