We’ve already been over the next Call of Duty’s multiplayer features, but official word this morning is that the game will support split-screen single console online multiplayer, but there’s a caveat on PS3: anyone wanting to play online split-screen multiplayer with a mate will only be able to sign in the second player as a temporary guest, not under their own PSN profile.
“You can connect a second controller and bring a guest online,” says the US Blog, which details lots of other additions to the multiplayer. This means, for example, if you’re signed into the PSN as “nofi” then the second player must be “nofi(1)” rather than their own PSN profile.
This obviously also means that the progress of the guest will be lost when you sign out, although you can “rank up” and “earn unlocks”.
Confusingly, a lot of the earlier comments in the Blog article are celebrating the ability to sign in as two different PSN accounts, so I’m assuming the text of the article changed after a couple of hours (probably around about comment 114) as the tone of the comments certainly changed to reflect the news above as the facts started to trickle in and required an edit to the new.
Of course, you can have two players playing split-screen online on an Xbox 360, but only if they’re both paying Gold customers. I guess you get what you pay for, as this is a PSN limitation, not something Activision or Treyarch are responsible for.
BiosNova
People don’t know what they are talking about at all. This is not a limitation of PSN, Resistance 2 allowed you to go online with 2 PSN accounts from one console perfectly fine, Sacred 2 also supports this and a few other games allow you to do this in co-op. This is just a developer being lazy or just not having the skills to do it.
Raen
The fact it’s not automatically built into the system as it is on the 360 most certainly is a limitation. If they want developers to do it should be automatic or mandatory, that’s how you get these things to happen.
solidsteven
Translation: we are to lazy to work on it
cc_star
Translation: This is just an example as to why Sony’s piecemeal approach hurts their customer base rather than helps it.
Nothing is made mandatory, multiplatform devs rarely if ever receive the support, the end result of which is nothing gets done.
kivi95
That’s it i will never get Black Ops.The should have just maked it a 360 exklusive.They will get all the Dlc before us and now we wont have 2 psn split-screen online.
Daywalker
So your not buying a game because it doesn’t have one minor feature? I’m surprised you’ve bought any games.
Also, its Exclusive* and made*. Simple spelling and tenses.
Grey_Ghost13
This is going to be abused for boosting! But at least you’ll be able to instantly tell who is doing it. It will be wierd seeing two ID’s on line in one match. But it could be good for some Zombie action!
Geffdof23
Am I the only person who thinks the PS3 is getting the better deal? A free guest profile is better than a paid for full profile. Hopefully you can save the guest stats and levels which would make the whole thing great in my eyes, but even if it resets each time it is still a good feature that I have wanted for a while.
Juelz345
Yes, yes you are. On the 360 you can still take a guest profile online. But you also have the option to take two profiles online. Great for when a friend comes over, or for people in Uni living together and sharing a console/TV.
xdarkmagician
I’m with you. I’m sick and tired of people that buy a PS3 then complain that it doesn’t operate like a 360. If you want the features of a 360, buy a 360. Being able to bring a guest online is a benefit, not a requirement. In the case of EA’s online pass, you could say that any extra online account, whether guest or a player account is a very nice addition since it’s a FREE extra online account. Would it be nice to be able to use 2 accounts, yes, but it’s not worth bitching about because you can’t.
Juelz345
But its worth bitching about people “bitching” about it?
Your logic is so fundamentally flawed it’s not funny. Do you understand what competition is? You have two very similar products competing against each other so obviously comparison will be made.
How on earth is it a “better deal” to have less options (as is the case in this particular situation)?
Again, if you don’t want or care about the feature then that’s fine. But there are people who do. What do you think Sony and other companies use to see what features and services? Feedback from their consumers. At least our “bitching” is productive.
xdarkmagician
Yes it is, because the online service we get today is loads better then the service we started with. Sony knows what people want, and how many people want it, but they need to compromise with what they can afford, or are legally allowed. Everybody should know by now, if you want a “social system” buy a 360 because MS has invested alot into XBL because it’s one of the major points of the system, and the fact it’s made them over a billion dollars from fees. Sony can’t compete on the same level because they don’t profit from fees for online play. And here’s a lesson in competition, You don’t come in first by following the leader. If Sony wants to stay competitive in the online games race they need to develop a PSN that identifies with the PS brand, not one that copies the competition. It always amazes me how many PS fanboys mock MS for coping Sony, but expect Sony to basically copy the XBLformat for the PSN, but offer the service for free.
Juelz345
And how do you think that service got better? By people stating what they want. You’re right that Sony needs to do things to do things to differentiate from LIVE, to an extent, that is. Things like automatic downloads for patches and so forth are nice, but those patches are only a problem on PS3. I’ve had a few games on both systems and i kid you not, I put in the PS3 game and it take anywhere from 1 to 15 mins to download and install the patch. I put that same game on, on the 360 and it literally takes 10 seconds or less.
Sony have the potential to make the subscription fees, they just need to make PS+ worth purchasing. They ant compete by playing the follow the leader, but they can’t compete by staying way the eff behind either. You don’t want the social features on your PS3, then you’re set. But don’t dictate to people that they shouldn’t. Sony them selves have said a thousand times that they are working on x-game chat, but by your definition that’s playing follow the leader. It’s not, it’s remaining relevant and competitive. The biggest draw to the PS3 over the 360 is the blu-ray player, which just isn’t a big enough selling point for a non-bias person who wants a gaming console.
All these companies “copy” the other at some point. That’s how any business works. Someone does something innovative, then someone else comes and does it better and the cycle continues. Don’t agree with that? Just look at Move.
Bottom line is, there are a lot of people who feel that PSN as a service falls short in some very basic areas. And it’s their right to voice those feelings and ask for change. if you’re content saying “it’s free so it doesn’t matter”, then fine. i on other other hand pay for PS+ and will continue to voice my concerns with the hopes that Sony are listening.
JokerSavage
Can everyone say Playstation plus, What’s the betting that this is patched to work but only works for playstation plus members. (copyright pending) lol :)
Juelz345
I’d settle for that.
stonyk
Personally this is terrible for the PS3 to not have the feature but 360 does. whether it’s free or not doesn’t matter. the option is not there and if it was I would definitely buy this day 1.
Never mind. Will just continue with MW2 instead.
Alex_Assassin_08
PSN limitation…
Resistance 2?
monkeyspoon
I can’t understand why PS3 owners feel like they are getting shafted with this. 360 owners will need 2 accounts which each cost £40. PS3 owners have one account which is free and a guest that doesn’t even need to own a PS3. I’d say PS3 is still getting the better deal.
Juelz345
it’s not like 360 owners will be creating and maintaining two paid account for black ops. I have a gold account, and my friend has a gold account. My fiend comes over and we can both play online and have out progress and stats saved. How can you not see the benefit there? You make it sound like each person will have to have two accounts, which is obviously not the case.
And 360 owners will also be able to have a guest account go online, just like the PS3. So the 360 owners get what the PS3 owners get plus an additional feature. SO how is it a better deal for PS3 users. And don’t go back to GOLD being a paid service. I’ve been paying for that GOLD member ship long before black ops. And you’d need gold to play online regardless so it’s not like having the dual logins is a separate fee.
And there is the fact that Resistance two does this already. So why doesn’t the biggest shooter of the year?
stonyk
My point exactly.
Juelz345
I actually never tried the dual profile with Resistance 2 until this morning (just to see if it actually work as advertised) and was pleasantly surprised. It was seamless and worked perfectly. But now it gives me another gripe with Sony and developers. Why doesn’t Sony make this mandatory or at the very least easier to incorporate? It doesn’t affect me so much because i usually get mulitplayer games on 360, but the reason i do that is because of preference to using LIVE over PSN for anything online. If this feature as well a party chat were the standard on PS3, even if only for PS+ subscribers, then i’d probably get most of my games for PS3 and just exclusives for 360.
And as far as the developers, while I’m the first to admit that i know nothing about programing and game design, why would TreyArch take the time to implement this in Black Ops? we all know the game is going to make exactly 1.63 trillion dollars the day before launch and then another billion or so on DLC, so i’m sure then can justify what ever cost might be involved with the additional programing time etc etc. Especially since it’s a feature that will be on the 360 version. Time for a good old conspiracy theory: MS paid TreyArch/Activision not to implement it on PS3. To which i say, smart move MS and shame on you TreyArch/Activision.