darkSpyro

http://youtu.be/tUzMbdA0sYw asian guy gamer confirmed it awww wanted online this game

I think that saying "No multiplayer" as the topic title is misleading, since there almost definitely will be two-player local co-op and battle modes.

Amazing, you would think by the fourth game they'd be able to add that.

Lol, Asian Guy Gamer swearing at everyone in the UK (and elsewhere?) with those V signs. Brilliant. Thanks for the video CoinOpTVs coverage is great.

Quote: wideawakewesley

Lol, Asian Guy Gamer swearing at everyone in the UK (and elsewhere?) with those V signs. Brilliant. Thanks for the video CoinOpTVs coverage is great.

what? when

Quote: GIANTSRULE

Quote: wideawakewesley

Lol, Asian Guy Gamer swearing at everyone in the UK (and elsewhere?) with those V signs. Brilliant. Thanks for the video CoinOpTVs coverage is great.

what? when

About one second in, actually.

It's not a matter of being able to, it's a matter of wanting to.

As a grown-up, I don't really like the prospect of the too large player groups intermingling: children 6-12 and single males 17-34.

Recipe for disaster.

Quote: Earth-Dragon

It's not a matter of being able to, it's a matter of wanting to.

As a grown-up, I don't really like the prospect of the too large player groups intermingling: children 6-12 and single males 17-34.

Recipe for disaster.

Not at all. If all you can do is join and fight, this concern is alleviated. You think they would build CoD type functionality? Puhlease. It's just a cop out excuse. One more tick on the do not buy list.

Yeah just like DI and Minecraft's online play has been a disaster for kids.

Personally, being a completionist, I take no issue with there being no online multi-player. It'd be nice, but from my experience of playing video games with kids, it'd be a bigger pain for most of us here then anything else.

I'm also not fond of the idea of my children interacting online with random strangers, there are obvious voice chat concerns, as well and private messaging concerns. There are even things such as griefing I'd really rather not have my kids exposed to. There are people online who's whole purpose in joining games is to make things painful for other players.

I'm not normally one to suggest limiting features for things to cater to children because some parents don't even try to figure out the parental controls, but this IS a children's game. I'd rather they spent the funds they would use to make a robust online feature set into making more features that my kids would enjoy. Skylanders is all about physical interaction with the game, it isn't a stretch for the game to expect multiplayer to be in person.

So what I'm hearing from everyone is that by fact of making a game online, none of the "bad" features that's worrying anyone can be limited? That's news to me. There's no doubt there are bad elements to online--but I'm tired of hearing "why we can't" when we should be saying "why can't we" (with appropriate measurements to limit features)

I'll be the first one to defer this feature to an Xbox or PS developer than can tell me that a game with online features automatically opens up these unfavorable feature to the game OS.

I think having online play / tournament mode would be a blast. Keep in mind we had Universe, and I've heard no negative lingering side effects from that experiment.

Just want us to come at this from a standpoint of knowledge, not fear.

I've been worried about online predators ever since I became a father.

With that said, that's nonsense and rubbish.

1) they should never strip away a feature due to possible human interaction.
2) Limit it to people o n your friends list and never 'randumbs'.


It irritates me to NO end for their to not be online multiplayer. This is the day and age where a game will get cancelled if it doesn't have online multiplayer.

If you are concerned about your childs online interaction (rightfully so, don't misunderstand me), then block it. Actually USE parental controls.

This is just another thing pushing me away from the series. I'm trying hard to justify getting Trap team...but everything of importance to me is falling to the way side.

Honestly, the ONLY thing beuno about it so far is 'Skystones', and I personally did not like it, but my wife loved it.

They need to hit us with some major content...
- Unreall

Quote: Zylek

Yeah just like DI and Minecraft's online play has been a disaster for kids.

It's interesting that people often ignore this fact. People will argue why online multiplayer shouldn't exist in Skylanders, then someone will bring up the fact that online multiplayer exists on other popular childrens' game, and nobody even acknowledges what has been said.

What is it about Skylanders that would make it so dangerous to have online multiplayer, yet Disney Infinity and Minecraft can have it without issue?

I don´t understand this too.
Why didn´t the make one like DI, possibility to invite players from your friendslist to your game and we get what we want.

It just isn't a core part of the game.

Their target audience are not big on Multiplayer. I see no huge need for them to add it, they sold enough without it.

After 4 games it's fairly clear (was after 3) the process behind this. We can pretty much layout Skylanders 5 from now

I don't expect to see ANY major gameplay changes in the near future (next game or two).

Quote: GhostRoaster

So what I'm hearing from everyone is that by fact of making a game online, none of the "bad" features that's worrying anyone can be limited? That's news to me. There's no doubt there are bad elements to online--but I'm tired of hearing "why we can't" when we should be saying "why can't we" (with appropriate measurements to limit features)

I'll be the first one to defer this feature to an Xbox or PS developer than can tell me that a game with online features automatically opens up these unfavorable feature to the game OS.

I think having online play / tournament mode would be a blast. Keep in mind we had Universe, and I've heard no negative lingering side effects from that experiment.

Just want us to come at this from a standpoint of knowledge, not fear.

I don't believe that fear is the real issue. At least not from Activision's point-of-view. More than likely, it's the amount of resources required to add online multiplayer. I'm a web developer, but I began in the Game Industry. Adding online multiplayer isn't easy. It's not like adding content to a game, it requires a complete rewrite of the engine. Given the 1-year development cycles, I can understand not wanting to do so. But now that they've expanded to 2-year cycles, hopefully they can finally add it. But it will depend on whether or not the executives feels there's enough value in doing so.

"whether or not the executives feels there's enough value in doing so."

They don't, or they would have done it by now
Stand in Toys R Us and see how many kids looking at Skylanders are moaning about the lack of online multiplayer.

We are the minority here. If we have great ideas that would apply to the target market too, great. Just don't expect things that are part of games targeted at older people to appear in Skylanders.

Quote: Pyrofer

"whether or not the executives feels there's enough value in doing so."

They don't, or they would have done it by now
Stand in Toys R Us and see how many kids looking at Skylanders are moaning about the lack of online multiplayer.

We are the minority here. If we have great ideas that would apply to the target market too, great. Just don't expect things that are part of games targeted at older people to appear in Skylanders.

I don't think that online multiplayer is only of interest to adults. Disney Infinity and Minecraft both have online multiplayer. I do feel that Activision|Blizzard sees value in online multiplayer -- CoD and WoW live off of online multiplayer. But it's an expensive investment, and I think they're waiting until they have to add it. I have a strong feeling that if DI picks up some steam, and Skylanders interest declines, we will see online multiplayer.

Quote: GhostRoaster

So what I'm hearing from everyone is that by fact of making a game online, none of the "bad" features that's worrying anyone can be limited? That's news to me. There's no doubt there are bad elements to online--but I'm tired of hearing "why we can't" when we should be saying "why can't we" (with appropriate measurements to limit features)

I'll be the first one to defer this feature to an Xbox or PS developer than can tell me that a game with online features automatically opens up these unfavorable feature to the game OS.

I think having online play / tournament mode would be a blast. Keep in mind we had Universe, and I've heard no negative lingering side effects from that experiment.

Just want us to come at this from a standpoint of knowledge, not fear.

I think it is less "Why can't we?" and more "Why should we?". Good online takes time and money to develop. It is obviously a business decision to not do it. It's a kids game, nintendo has also fallen into this by insisting most of their games should be enjoyed together on the couch (although Smash Bros. and Mario Kart 8 look to have robust online).

In Universe there was a very limited amount of player interaction, and as a result a very limited number of ways to grief other players. If they went online, they would have to keep it up to date fixing bugs (which isn't bad, but you know how they are about patches). Not to mention limit direct player communication (both voice and messaging). And police people that hack/grief. I know it would annoy me if I were to see some joker using some bug to harass my kid playing the game - it happens all the time in other games. It's just a guess, but I'd say they decided they simply don't want to deal with the potential issues and costs.

Hey, I think it would be fun. Probably not as much fun as if a certain Roaster of Ghosts would get off his keester and get online for some Diablo 3 action ... but, I digress.

Quote: defpally

Quote: GhostRoaster

So what I'm hearing from everyone is that by fact of making a game online, none of the "bad" features that's worrying anyone can be limited? That's news to me. There's no doubt there are bad elements to online--but I'm tired of hearing "why we can't" when we should be saying "why can't we" (with appropriate measurements to limit features)

I'll be the first one to defer this feature to an Xbox or PS developer than can tell me that a game with online features automatically opens up these unfavorable feature to the game OS.

I think having online play / tournament mode would be a blast. Keep in mind we had Universe, and I've heard no negative lingering side effects from that experiment.

Just want us to come at this from a standpoint of knowledge, not fear.

In Universe there was a very limited amount of player interaction, and as a result a very limited number of ways to grief other players. If they went online, they would have to keep it up to date fixing bugs (which isn't bad, but you know how they are about patches). Not to mention limit direct player communication (both voice and messaging). And police people that hack/grief. I know it would annoy me if I were to see some joker using some bug to harass my kid playing the game - it happens all the time in other games. It's just a guess, but I'd say they decided they simply don't want to deal with the potential issues and costs.

I'm not sure what kind of griefing would exist in a game like Skylanders. But an easy way to avoid this is to have invite-only games, and not open lobbies.

Yes it's more likely they have decided they are selling over a billion dollars of these toys as is so why spend money they don't need to. Them saying they would rather have "kids play in the same house" excuse is just a copout.

Quote: Donatron

I'm not sure what kind of griefing would exist in a game like Skylanders. But an easy way to avoid this is to have invite-only games, and not open lobbies.

People find a way, but griefs/hacks are a typical problem. It might be something as simply as someone that backs you into a corner and refuses to move, or keeps jumping off a level or dying on purpose or just not moving. Or finds a way to kill people really fast that isn't intended or makes themselves invincible. There are people out there that do these things for the sole purpose of ruining the experience for others. It's bad enough when they do it to adults, but I would imagine there are people that would buy the game just to mess with little kids. This isn't reason alone for not making online in a kid's game, but it is one of the reason's I don't let my kids play online with matchmaking. And it is another of the list of potential issues with doing it - they would have to hire a group of admins to enforce good behavior, in game hacking/griefing normally has to be policed by the publisher.

Again, we are spitballing here - it might be as simple as Activision not wanting to pay to maintain/develop online for this game as they don't see if bringing in enough new sales to justify it.

The kids don't moan because they are ignorant to it and it hasn't been 'flexed' as a feature.

Activision handles CoD, I'm pretty sure they can handle multiplayer for something like this. Heck they can even get the code for cheap talking with the guys over @ shoryuken.com - use GGPO for the best lag-free multiplayer you could get. It doens't have to be expensive. Heck for the type of game it is, they cna just have a server for tracking and run run all actual content through a peer to peer connection like CoD usually is (except on XBOne w/ dedicated servers).

The problem is they have blinders on. "This works, so we are sticking to it", they've even said "we aren't changing" and they expect to loose demographic overtime and just replace them with new kids. That's flawed logic. They need to open up. They can maintain their goal, but unless they open up a bit with things like multi-player - which is NOT a big deal - then they are going to have a hard time holding on to people, and for something so cheap and easy to handle, the return on it is HUGE.
- Unreall

I think Activision are totally missing a market by not having any kind of online component beyond the basic stuff we got in Swap Force. It's entirely possible to have online features without any threat from adults with ill intentions. Considering how popular the games are to date, I think Activision are happy that they know their market, but I think they could grow that if they added in online, even if it was just for battles.

Ok, I'll put it this way, we will probably see a Super Mario Bros. game with online multiplayer before we see Skylanders go that way. Same logic applies. Lots of reasons, some related to children, some cost and other just because.

Multiplayer is pretty well thought out in games by now, but it still takes effort to do, especially if you want to do more than just make the second player online. People demand more than that for their online play these days. I can hear it now "Why aren't there any tourney ladders", "We need more maps", "We need more options in Arena", "We need more modes", etc. Batman Arkham Origins and several other games (one of the Bioshocks) added meager online options and it added next to nothing to the games. People just complained about it because it was so superficial. If you can't do it right, then you might as well not do it at all - because it will reflect negatively on the fans and the reviewers. The next Batman has NO multiplayer, and they are up front about it. It didn't really pan out and people tried it and did nothing but complain.

Sure they are missing opportunities for more long term interest, and maybe some additional content sales options (Battle Pieces might not be so useless if they were tied to online maps/arenas). But somewhere up top they most likely weighed Development Time/Cost A + Potential Parent Complaints B + Game Maintenance C + Game Master Support D and it was not exceeded by Additional Profit From Doing It E. If A + B + C + D > E we get no multiplayer, if A + B + C + D < E, we get it, assuming the margin is great enough.

If the worry is grief simply make the onlline drop in drop out like the game. so if some one is harassing you in essence "kick" them from your game. And both players could be left at the spot.

If internet is really that much of a concern. Turn off your wifi.

"Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection service for Nintendo DS and Wii to end in May"

http://www.nintendo.com/whatsn...IY7bvzOrgBURhzw

Skylanders Multiplayer 1.0 Done Right is simply connecting two players together. A bonus would be to have a competition mode where you play brackets. It's a kid's game, keep it simple (rolls eyes in disbelief).

Oh well, guess I'll just get DI 2.0. Hulk Smash TT Starter Pack!

As a parent of three 4,6 and 9. I think multiplayer is a great idea. All the parents need to put on big boy pants and learn how to use parental controls and settings. Not only for this game,but all games. I mean think about it you're in your own house. You have more control than when there at school. This would be an awesome feature to ad.

I would like the option of 4 player local or 4 player online with 2 systems being used. If you want to protect kids then they only can play with friends on their friends list etc.

Quote: SlayerX11

I would like the option of 4 player local or 4 player online with 2 systems being used. If you want to protect kids then they only can play with friends on their friends list etc.

Yeah, I am in no way saying I agree with their decisions, I just "get it". I WANT online, too. The problem is most parent have no idea how to use Parental Controls, and kids know their way around the system better than the parents. Yes, the parents should know about it, just like they should know GTA or Call of Duty is not appropriate for an 8 year old. But, typically they don't. So, I understand the point of view of a company that is making a game. The last thing they want is to show up on the news with some kid being harassed online in the game or some perv seeking them out. It happened just this week, a guy (with a history of doing this) was stalking young boys on Minecraft and League of Legends and the Feds busted him. Is that Minecraft's fault? NO. Should parents take steps to prevent this by finding out how to manage their kid's online presence? YES. But, in the end, the low information, no tech/gaming savvy parent that just read the headlines sees Minecraft associated with a child molester. Not exactly good for the brand.

I just don't think Activision sees the cost, and risk, worth the benefit. They could some limited multiplayer by keeping all the same features and allowing one of the 2 players to be online. That to me isn't a big selling point. If they make it mass mutilplayer, that would be awesome. However, it is a completely different game really and costs would reflect that. You'd also the risk of online predators, and the lack of character balance would be exposed. That's the point I haven't seen mentioned.

Personally, I'd be up for multiplayer, but I think it's best as a spin-off game. Use the same characters, portal, and toys, but make it an open world mutliplayer where the attacks are slightly modified to make it balanced. It would probably be best to balance the speed and health as well. My kids and I have really liked Plants vs Zombies, so copying that formula as much as possible would be great. Assuming you had team play, you have to adapt some sort of color variations to keep the teams apart. Even if you didn't port over all the skylanders, I think a good dozen or so of the popular ones would get it done.

If it proves successful, you could possibly see about adding some features to the main game where it makes sense.

Cost...reallly? They are going around parading with burning rolls of $100 to light their cigars with all of the skylanders they've sold and you're saying that?

Risk...really? Well if they are morons and don't know how to make it kid friendly, sure. But they did Universe, and I didn't hear about any major harm to anyone. Their freeze frame attitude about not changing anything major in the game and taking risks will be their undoing. They are chicken.

Spin off game? They can't get their main event right we don't need MORE games, we need BETTER games.

Multi player was a major request I wanted in this game, and now that I know it's not there, I'm 90% sure I won't buy the game. If I don't vote with my dollars, then they won't get the message. I'm done thinking about me being in their shoes, this is about me, unfortunately. Me, Me Me...

Quote: GhostRoaster

Cost...reallly? They are going around parading with burning rolls of $100 to light their cigars with all of the skylanders they've sold and you're saying that?

I said I think perhaps the cost isn't worth the benefit. I didn't say they couldn't afford to put in features, but if they don't think adding multi-player is going to sell extra units, then why do it? Brand loyalty? I don't know.

Quote: GhostRoaster

Risk...really? Well if they are morons and don't know how to make it kid friendly, sure. But they did Universe, and I didn't hear about any major harm to anyone. Their freeze frame attitude about not changing anything major in the game and taking risks will be their undoing. They are chicken.

I agree that the risk of weird adults is probably not that high, but parents don't really play logical odds with their kids sometimes. And again, they excuse how poorly balanced the characters are. It's talked about on the bored a lot, but I doubt it's really common knowledge amoung the typical buyer.

Although I do agree that I'd like to see them take more risks, can't blame them for sticking with what works.

Quote: GhostRoaster

Spin off game? They can't get their main event right we don't need MORE games, we need BETTER games.

I don't need my dungeon crawler to be multiplayer, but I would love to see a separate mutiplayer game. Yes.

Quote: GhostRoaster

Multi player was a major request I wanted in this game, and now that I know it's not there, I'm 90% sure I won't buy the game. If I don't vote with my dollars, then they won't get the message. I'm done thinking about me being in their shoes, this is about me, unfortunately. Me, Me Me...

And that's your right. I plan on scaling back some this time too. I don't know if I'll stick with the plan, but that's the plan.

I have a young daughter. I let her play PvZ GW. One reason. I actually parent her. Our consoles are in the living room only. She is not aloud to use the headset and the kinect is disconnected for PvZ. When she is playing, I am 5 feet from her. If someone has a foul mouth, we mute him/her. It's simple. I would love to play both arenas and Skystones online. Not to mention pvp. To me it is stupid to leave it out. Unless the whole 6Gb is used to make a huge game like the size of GTA or the Batman games.

Well, we'll see how the sales graph looks after Trap Team. I have a feeling "more of the same" might not work out well for them.

I'm finding it interesting that folks are actually PREFERRING more of the same. I guess mediocrity rocks these days. Personally, if I wanted more of the same, I'd slip the previous games into the drive bay.

I'm going to start calling you guys apologists, because in your precious little mind if they serve up a pile of poop somehow you'll justify it.

Keep in mind I'm not even suggesting earth shattering changes...but they've had now TWO releases to move some of these areas forward. You may be able to justify in your mind why something would or wouldn't be included, but the thing is I'm not seeing ANYTHING included. I hope we know something more meaningful by E3, but I'm guessing we won't.

Quote: GhostRoaster

Well, we'll see how the sales graph looks after Trap Team. I have a feeling "more of the same" might not work out well for them.


I'm finding it interesting that folks are actually PREFERRING more of the same. I guess mediocrity rocks these days. Personally, if I wanted more of the same, I'd slip the previous games into the drive bay.

Well, yes, I tend to order the same thing repeatedly at my favorite restaurants. If I have fun on a vacation, I usually won't to go back there next year. That's just me. That said, I do hope for more in TT. More levels and a lot of minor changes here and there. I do think the villain angle adds a lot, although I don't like the additional costs.

Quote: GhostRoaster
I'm going to start calling you guys apologists, because in your precious little mind if they serve up a pile of poop somehow you'll justify it.[/quote

There's a difference between justification and trying to find a logical reason. I don't want to assume that Activision and the other decision makers involved are stupid, they have reasons for everything they do, and I enjoy trying to figure it out.

[quote=GhostRoaster
Keep in mind I'm not even suggesting earth shattering changes...but they've had now TWO releases to move some of these areas forward. You may be able to justify in your mind why something would or wouldn't be included, but the thing is I'm not seeing ANYTHING included. I hope we know something more meaningful by E3, but I'm guessing we won't.

You are probably right, and they will surely lose some customers because of it. They will gain some new customers as kids come of age and parents get hooked in, I would guess less than the ones who leave.

Uggh. That's kind of disappointing.
Online Co-op would be awesome, but ultimately, I think it could be difficult, especially if they have the chain of death between 2 players. It'd be nice if they got rid of that, and perhaps limited it to friends list people only. (although, since Skylanders lacks any voice chat functions, not having it because of worrying about what people are going to do is pretty silly. there's no way for them to interact with each other)

The much more easier option would be to to have online battle arenas. There's absolutely no reason why they couldn't do it, even if it was just one console brand to another (ie, only Wii U players would battle against other Wii U players, etc). I think perhaps that's the reason they'd cite if someone asks; they want online battles to be between all console versions.

To not have an online component after two game releases is baffling, especially because it's something people have been clamoring for since the first game.

Quote: GhostRoaster

I'm finding it interesting that folks are actually PREFERRING more of the same. I guess mediocrity rocks these days. Personally, if I wanted more of the same, I'd slip the previous games into the drive bay.

Sometimes I want more of the same. If I really enjoy a game, I sometimes really want a second helping. There are only so many times a developer can go back to the same well, though. It's not universal though, it just depends on how much I enjoyed the previous game as to my tolerance for more of the same.

I'm not burnt out on Skylanders, yet - but I sense I may be there with game four. These trap things just scream cash grab - and if they do blind bags, it's done. Given they are all shaped the same and the difference is a label and color I sense it is going to be blind. I'm going to get the game, sure - I've got a whole bunch of figures that will work in it right now, but new figure collection is fast dropping.

^Unless something's changed, they aren't going to do blind bags.

I've had three helpings, and I have an upset stomach. Time to change the dietary intake. I was hoping Activision could help with that, but I guess I need to make the change.

Quote: GhostRoaster

^Unless something's changed, they aren't going to do blind bags.

I've had three helpings, and I have an upset stomach. Time to change the dietary intake. I was hoping Activision could help with that, but I guess I need to make the change.

More of the same? It's not even fair to say that to Skylanders, each one retains the same great gameplay in areas with innovating in others. Stomach issues spawn from Mario, not Skylanders.

I actually couldn't care less about online. Mainly because I have a wii, but even if I did have a console that could do online, I probably wouldn't care.

Also, would you change the topic title? It's bugging me.

Quote: Rickorio

I actually could care less about online. Mainly because I have a wii, but even if I did have a console that could do online, I probably wouldn't care.

Also, would you change the topic title? It's bugging me.

You said you COULD care less, meaning that you care. If you COULDN'T care less, your care level would be at zero (assuming it can't go into the negatives), but if you COULD care less, your care level > 0, so you do care.

Quote: Mesuxelf

Quote: Rickorio

I actually could care less about online. Mainly because I have a wii, but even if I did have a console that could do online, I probably wouldn't care.

Also, would you change the topic title? It's bugging me.

You said you COULD care less, meaning that you care. If you COULDN'T care less, your care level would be at zero (assuming it can't go into the negatives), but if you COULD care less, your care level > 0, so you do care.

Whoops, meant couldn't care. Thanks for pointing that out.

Quote: Rickorio

Quote: Mesuxelf

Quote: Rickorio

I actually could care less about online. Mainly because I have a wii, but even if I did have a console that could do online, I probably wouldn't care.

Also, would you change the topic title? It's bugging me.

You said you COULD care less, meaning that you care. If you COULDN'T care less, your care level would be at zero (assuming it can't go into the negatives), but if you COULD care less, your care level > 0, so you do care.

Whoops, meant couldn't care. Thanks for pointing that out.

You sir, earn my respect. I corrected you (which most people get really aggravated about), and quite harshly, too, and you respond with a polite and kind message. Of course, this is all assuming you weren't being sarcastic...

Quote: Mesuxelf

Quote: Rickorio

Quote: Mesuxelf

You said you COULD care less, meaning that you care. If you COULDN'T care less, your care level would be at zero (assuming it can't go into the negatives), but if you COULD care less, your care level > 0, so you do care.

Whoops, meant couldn't care. Thanks for pointing that out.

You sir, earn my respect. I corrected you (which most people get really aggravated about), and quite harshly, too, and you respond with a polite and kind message. Of course, this is all assuming you weren't being sarcastic...

No, I wasn't. And thanks, I usually try to stay polite. (In this section of course.)
Also, most mistakes I type are because I'm still not used to the iPad keyboard.

Quote: Rickorio

No, I wasn't. And thanks, I usually try to stay polite. (In this section of course.)
Also, most mistakes I type are because I'm still not used to the iPad keyboard.

Ah, Apple keyboards. The most inefficient way to type since typewriters.

Quote: Mesuxelf

Quote: Rickorio

No, I wasn't. And thanks, I usually try to stay polite. (In this section of course.)
Also, most mistakes I type are because I'm still not used to the iPad keyboard.

Ah, Apple keyboards. The most inefficient way to type since typewriters.

Pretty much.

Though, back on topic. As much as online would be cool, I just don't think it'd be good for this certain franchise. They'd have to change a lot of stuff IMO.

I think that online would be great. Only for arenas and PvP though.