Scott Pilgrim: The Game Adds Online Multiplayer Gameplay

Scott Pilgrim: The Game Adds Online Multiplayer Gameplay

image

Two and a half years after it debuted on the Xbox Live Arcade and PlayStation Network, Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World: The Game will finally see online multiplayer thanks to a new DLC addition.

Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World: The Game made its debut on August 10, 2010. Ostensibly it was created as a promotional tie in for the then-current Scott Pilgrim movie adaptation. However, while most people have forgotten the film, the game continues to see sporadic downloadable content additions. The most recent one, which just went live on the PlayStation Network (and will presumably hit the Xbox Live Marketplace tomorrow), is perhaps the game's most important content update so far, as it allows players to enjoy the game's four-player beat 'em up action with friends over the Internet.

Of course, simply adding that feature to the game would be too simple and consumer-friendly. Instead, the online functionality is included as part of a new $5 DLC pack which also adds Scott's pal Wallace Wells to the game as a playable character. PlayStation Plus subscribers can buy the DLC for only $4 for the next two weeks, but regardless, there is an entry fee for this thing.

Is $5 too much to ask for a feature that arguably should have been in the game from the start and a minor supporting character being added to the title's playable roster? That's pretty subjective. If you're a huge fan of novel ways to punch dudes in the face, then yeah, that $5 is probably worth it. Likewise if you really, really want to play the game alongside someone far away, then $5 is a small price to pay for online functionality.

That said, Castle Crashers includes more characters, weapons, and online options than Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World: The Game, along with a more modern art style and very similar gameplay concepts. Not to dissuade you from playing the latter, as it's an excellent beat 'em up, but just know that if you'd rather not drop another $5 on what is essentially a dated movie tie-in, you do have other options.

Source: IGN

Permalink

Earnest Cavalli:
Ostensibly it was created as a promotional tie in for the then-current Scott Pilgrim movie adaptation. However, while most people have forgotten the film,

Well most people ain't me!
And I'm willing to bet more people play Castle Crashers than Scott Pilgrim vs The World: The Game

I don't even...

I mean, sure, I still have the game on my PS3 and play it occasionally when friends come over, but really, Ubisoft? Three years later and NOW you decide to throw in a new character and online multiplayer?

*sigh*

Well, at least it's cool to see that they haven't given up on the game entirely.

Wow. I was happy to hear that it was getting online support and then rather sad to hear they want to charge me for it. I liked the game a lot but $5 for multiplayer for a game I already paid for is asking too much. No thanks.

People have forgotten the movie? I hear about more people discovering it all the time. Besides that fans of the comic have a lot of love for the franchise and are still willing to get more stuff related to it. Although 5 dollars is a lot, Wallace Wells is awesome.

+ Include a much requested feature...

- Two and a half years later

- And chage $5 for it

This is really scumbag level tactics here. I really enjoyed this game because of the pixel art by Paul Robertson but not $5 for a shitty extra feature. Jesus

Remains one of my favourite films, I love the books and while I loved the game I sucked heavily at it. Don't think I'll bother paying out for the pleasure of getting my ass kicked :p

I have no problems with the DLC being added itself. Hell, even the pricing doesn't bother me as others have already mentioned, as it's not that expensive for what you're actually paying for.

However, the delay seems quite unnecessary and a bit of a strange move seeing how a majority of the game's players that would have loved this feature will likely be done with the game and may not bother going back to it just to try the DLC out.

So wait, 5 dollars for a new gameplay feature and a new character (one of the more beloved characters in the franchise) and you're saying that's a lot? Other games charge 15$ for three new maps that you're not even going to play.

I'm definitely gonna buy this. I wanted Wallace to be in there from the beginning, and now that I can get him, and play with friends, 5$ seems like a small price to pay.

My points have already been made by others, but yeah, biased much, Earnest? Also, just so you know, the game wasn't really created as a movie tie-in - it was an extra thing to the franchise at the same time but based more on the books (we see characters in the game such as Hollie, for example, and the actual robots and proper fight with the Katayanagi Twins as opposed to a battle of the bands, and so on). Although the music is freking awesome for both the film and the game xD.

But yeah, I see no problem with this. It's cool that they're still updating the game at this point, and it's DLC that wasn't developed at the same time as the original game, meaning the cost is perfectly justifiable (as a 'journalist', Earnest, if you'd actually bothered to do any research or utilise simple common sense then you would know that making content like this isn't free, it does cost money in time and manpower and such to actually code this stuff and distribute it...). I'm personally more than happy to pay about 3 for this extra stuff. Also, Wallace Wells is awesome. Though my heart will always belong to Kim. Sorry, Wallace...

Also, everyone who says $5 or 3 or whatever is a lot is a complete idiot. I'm sorry, and I mean no offence to you all, but seriously. It's half an hour's work at minimum wage, if that. I'm pretty certain everyone here either works at least part time or else has pocket money or an allowance from their parents - if $5/3 is too much for you to spend then gaming is clearly not the right hobby for you, given what you have to drop to pay for a full game. That small price is NOTHING. So yeah, think about what you're saying or else stop complaining about the obscenely tiny cost for something nobody is forcing you to buy.

Earnest Cavalli:

Two and a half years after it debuted on the Xbox Live Arcade and PlayStation Network, Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World: The Game will finally see online multiplayer thanks to a new DLC addition.

Instead, the online functionality is included as part of a new $5 DLC pack which also adds Scott's pal Wallace Wells to the game as a playable character.

These are the two lines are summarise my thought processes. $5 (probably 5 knowing Microsoft exchange rates) for one additional character and a mode that should of be shipped with the game, for a game that's two and a half years old. Not even EA games do this.

Is it actually here? Is it finally available? PS Plus discount softens the blow.

Finally after 2 years I can play this favourite game with friends and also play my 2nd favourite character.

This just tickles my fancy all too much.

image

I haven't been able to find this on the Canadian PSnetwork(if it is different) is it there?

Shadow-Phoenix:
Finally after 2 years I can play this favourite game with friends and also play my 2nd favourite character.

This just tickles my fancy all too much.

image

Wait if you play as Wallace is he still in that part of the game? Just chilling while his less lazy, yet more manly clone just wails on guys with his roommate?

Steven Bogos:
+ Include a much requested feature...

- Two and a half years later

- And chage $5 for it

This is really scumbag level tactics here.

Huh?

That doesn't even make sense. Why should it matter how long it's been? How about when Serious Sam HD: The Second Encounter got DLC? A remake of a game that came out eight years earlier? Or how about them lots and lots of Valve games? Team Fortress 2 came out over five years ago, and it's still getting DLC. What's the age got to do with it? Would you rather they just shovel out a sequel (AKA "A $60 map pack")?

drisky:
People have forgotten the movie? I hear about more people discovering it all the time.

I think you'll find you're in the minority here.

Lugbzurg:
Would you rather they just shovel out a sequel (AKA "A $60 map pack")?

That sounds an awful lot like a false dichotomy. Neither are exactly what most people would call good.
Also, TF2 has had near constant support, a lot of it being absolutely free. While I don't like Valve, you might want to pick your examples a little better.

Zachary Amaranth:
I think you'll find you're in the minority here.

SP basically ticks every box of 'Cult classic'.

Riobux:

These are the two lines are summarise my thought processes. $5 (probably 5 knowing Microsoft exchange rates) for one additional character and a mode that should of be shipped with the game, for a game that's two and a half years old. Not even EA games do this.

GASP... developers need to get paid for the work they do! Those scroundrels!.
The developers weren't given enough time or money to do this at launch, the fact they are able keep supporting a game so long after the release is applaudable. Compare this to SkullGirls, which needed IndieGoGo to fund their DLC... $150,000 per character.

Earnest Cavalli:
That said, Castle Crashers includes more characters, weapons, and online options than Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World: The Game, along with a more modern art style and very similar gameplay concepts. Not to dissuade you from playing the latter, as it's an excellent beat 'em up, but just know that if you'd rather not drop another $5 on what is essentially a dated movie tie-in, you do have other options.

If you liked the movie and beat em' up games, you'll have fun times. If you love everything Scott Pilgrim, you probably already have the game, and you'll already believe it's as good as, if not better than Castle Crashers.

Lugbzurg:

Steven Bogos:
+ Include a much requested feature...

- Two and a half years later

- And chage $5 for it

This is really scumbag level tactics here.

Huh?

That doesn't even make sense. Why should it matter how long it's been? How about when Serious Sam HD: The Second Encounter got DLC? A remake of a game that came out eight years earlier? Or how about them lots and lots of Valve games? Team Fortress 2 came out over five years ago, and it's still getting DLC. What's the age got to do with it? Would you rather they just shovel out a sequel (AKA "A $60 map pack")?

Not comparable. Serious Sam DLC is more frequent for one, and secondly, never tried to sell you a feature that should have been in the game. That, and What Valve games other than TF2 and Left 4 Dead has DLC? Hell, its not even DLC in TF2, its micro-transactions, which are, again, much more frequent and didn't come out 2 and a half years after TF2's release.

They should have just patched the online multiplayer in. Hell, the Fusion DLC for Serious Sam is free, and it combines the first and second encounter into one game.

Mictarmite:

GASP... developers need to get paid for the work they do! Those scroundrels!.
The developers weren't given enough time or money to do this at launch, the fact they are able keep supporting a game so long after the release is applaudable. Compare this to SkullGirls, which needed IndieGoGo to fund their DLC... $150,000 per character.

"Keep supporting"? This is the first DLC of Scott Pilgrim Vs The World and it's two and a half years after it was made. To say this game has been irrelevant for over a year is putting it both lightly and optimistically. This isn't a stab at "how dare developers get paid for their work", this is "how does this take over two years to do, and they have the gal to charge $5 what should of been on release".

Also, comparing this to SkullGirls doesn't make this less ridiculous.

Riobux:

Mictarmite:

GASP... developers need to get paid for the work they do! Those scroundrels!.
The developers weren't given enough time or money to do this at launch, the fact they are able keep supporting a game so long after the release is applaudable. Compare this to SkullGirls, which needed IndieGoGo to fund their DLC... $150,000 per character.

"Keep supporting"? This is the first DLC of Scott Pilgrim Vs The World and it's two and a half years after it was made. To say this game has been irrelevant for over a year is putting it both lightly and optimistically. This isn't a stab at "how dare developers get paid for their work", this is "how does this take over two years to do, and they have the gal to charge $5 what should of been on release".

Also, comparing this to SkullGirls doesn't make this less ridiculous.

Uhh... actually, the Online Multiplayer/Wallace Wells DLC is actually the second DLC pack.

The first one introduced Knives Chau along with Drop-in/Drop-out co-op.

Also, I did some looking around and it looks like Wallace is basically just a palette swap for Steven Stills.

That's kinda bullshit.

Of course the same could be said for Kim and Knives, but this still seems lazy.

Oh, it's actually out this time? That's nice. Too bad multiple unexplained delays over the last frickin' YEAR killed all my interest in this, despite it being one of my favorite games.

Maybe when I get enough Bing Rewards points to get it free, I'll pick it up.

 

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 16992)