I cannot lie the idea of multiplayer co-op hits me hard and draws me in exploration and survival is always more fun with a friend for me.
But I would indeed hate to see the overall game suffer because of it, I would rather it be left out than have a half game.
As for adversarial this is definably not a game that lends itself to that at all, so that needs to be left out
I cannot lie the idea of multiplayer co-op hits me hard and draws me in exploration and survival is always more fun with a friend for me.
But I would indeed hate to see the overall game suffer because of it, I would rather it be left out than have a half game.
As for adversarial this is definably not a game that lends itself to that at all, so that needs to be left out
Devs will get more people invested, if they go multiplayer co op, imo.
(It will bring in more funds to the games developement, but the longer they build up the single player experience, the better it will be for multiple players overall, so multiplayer is something that should be added, but perhaps when most of the content is done?
We could even see it happen here first before star citizen do with their ships. ?
Multi crewed vessels with exploration, is a cash cow waiting to be milked because there inst much out there for competition tbh. (certainly not at this level of detail)
Survival sandbox co-ops are few and far between (at least anything noteworthy). It's fine either way, but multiplayer is a huge bonus to public appeal.
Ugh, why do we need to always put in multiplayer? Personally I would just as soon not see it since I would rather the time and effort went into the world we will be playing in. The game world just doesn't feel big enough or potentially big enough to support more then one player. The survival aspect would be made to easy with it, and frankly the game overall would be sped up to much by having two or more players hoovering up resources to build things. In short, the game just won't be as good with multiplayer and trying to put it in is just setting the game up as a target on the range.
Games with good multiplayer were started out with multiplayer in mind. This game doesn't even remotely feel like it had it as an intention, and I don't think it will end well if it's put in.
Ugh, why do we need to always put in multiplayer? Personally I would just as soon not see it since I would rather the time and effort went into the world we will be playing in. The game world just doesn't feel big enough or potentially big enough to support more then one player. The survival aspect would be made to easy with it, and frankly the game overall would be sped up to much by having two or more players hoovering up resources to build things. In short, the game just won't be as good with multiplayer and trying to put it in is just setting the game up as a target on the range.
Games with good multiplayer were started out with multiplayer in mind. This game doesn't even remotely feel like it had it as an intention, and I don't think it will end well if it's put in.
See, the beauty of multiplayer coop as an option is... You don't need to play it! If it offends you so much, stay to your single player games, no-one is going to force you at gunpoint to play the multiplayer.
Me on the other hand and my small band of merry coop enthusiasts? We can't freaking wait for this to go multiplayer! Sometimes its not about the survival, or the hoovering up the resources, its about exploring and experiencing things with other people, it takes what's amazing and multiplies it thousandfold.
Ugh, why do we need to always put in multiplayer? Personally I would just as soon not see it since I would rather the time and effort went into the world we will be playing in. The game world just doesn't feel big enough or potentially big enough to support more then one player. The survival aspect would be made to easy with it, and frankly the game overall would be sped up to much by having two or more players hoovering up resources to build things. In short, the game just won't be as good with multiplayer and trying to put it in is just setting the game up as a target on the range.
Games with good multiplayer were started out with multiplayer in mind. This game doesn't even remotely feel like it had it as an intention, and I don't think it will end well if it's put in.
See, the beauty of multiplayer coop as an option is... You don't need to play it! If it offends you so much, stay to your single player games, no-one is going to force you at gunpoint to play the multiplayer.
Me on the other hand and my small band of merry coop enthusiasts? We can't freaking wait for this to go multiplayer! Sometimes its not about the survival, or the hoovering up the resources, its about exploring and experiencing things with other people, it takes what's amazing and multiplies it thousandfold.
It isn't the fact it offends me. Some games are great for co-op...usually the ones built for it like Payday and L4D. But this just feels pandering and it's going to take time and resources away from the game only to really end up making everything worse. Glad as I am you have 'coop enthusiasts' who wish to join you in the game, every time co-op or multiplayer gets tacked onto a game the game suffers. Dead space 3, traded the horror and challenge of the game to dumb it down so co-op could be used. Mass Effect, where the only way for a long time to get the 'better' endings was to spend a lot of time in multiplayer. Resident Evil 5...well it was a poor story but it certainly wasn't helped by having to either have a human co-op player or suffer idiotic 'helper' AI.
The list goes on, and while I can list many more for both sides, the key difference was and is the fact that multiplayer was always a consideration rather then 'tacked on'. You can always tell when it's an after thought, and the game almost always suffers for it.
As for not playing survival...then what really is the point then? At that point there is almost no challenge at all to the game, and the game is rather easygoing as it is for 'survival'. Exploring and experiencing is all well and good, until you blow through all the content and then come back complaining 'this game is to short and easy'. While it doesn't need to be 'hardcore' all the time the game is just not going to be satisfying as it is now for co-op. If they then balance around co-op then they risk making the single player game unbalanced and not fun. If they balance for both then really you are building the game twice. This causes both to suffer in the long run since this small team then might have to start cutting content they might otherwise be able to include.
I have guildmates/friends I play games with too, but not every game needs multiplayer or co-op. Sometimes single player really should just be left to the single player.
Ugh, why do we need to always put in multiplayer? Personally I would just as soon not see it since I would rather the time and effort went into the world we will be playing in. The game world just doesn't feel big enough or potentially big enough to support more then one player. The survival aspect would be made to easy with it, and frankly the game overall would be sped up to much by having two or more players hoovering up resources to build things. In short, the game just won't be as good with multiplayer and trying to put it in is just setting the game up as a target on the range.
Games with good multiplayer were started out with multiplayer in mind. This game doesn't even remotely feel like it had it as an intention, and I don't think it will end well if it's put in.
See, the beauty of multiplayer coop as an option is... You don't need to play it! If it offends you so much, stay to your single player games, no-one is going to force you at gunpoint to play the multiplayer.
Me on the other hand and my small band of merry coop enthusiasts? We can't freaking wait for this to go multiplayer! Sometimes its not about the survival, or the hoovering up the resources, its about exploring and experiencing things with other people, it takes what's amazing and multiplies it thousandfold.
It isn't the fact it offends me. Some games are great for co-op...usually the ones built for it like Payday and L4D. But this just feels pandering and it's going to take time and resources away from the game only to really end up making everything worse. Glad as I am you have 'coop enthusiasts' who wish to join you in the game, every time co-op or multiplayer gets tacked onto a game the game suffers. Dead space 3, traded the horror and challenge of the game to dumb it down so co-op could be used. Mass Effect, where the only way for a long time to get the 'better' endings was to spend a lot of time in multiplayer. Resident Evil 5...well it was a poor story but it certainly wasn't helped by having to either have a human co-op player or suffer idiotic 'helper' AI.
The list goes on, and while I can list many more for both sides, the key difference was and is the fact that multiplayer was always a consideration rather then 'tacked on'. You can always tell when it's an after thought, and the game almost always suffers for it.
As for not playing survival...then what really is the point then? At that point there is almost no challenge at all to the game, and the game is rather easygoing as it is for 'survival'. Exploring and experiencing is all well and good, until you blow through all the content and then come back complaining 'this game is to short and easy'. While it doesn't need to be 'hardcore' all the time the game is just not going to be satisfying as it is now for co-op. If they then balance around co-op then they risk making the single player game unbalanced and not fun. If they balance for both then really you are building the game twice. This causes both to suffer in the long run since this small team then might have to start cutting content they might otherwise be able to include.
I have guildmates/friends I play games with too, but not every game needs multiplayer or co-op. Sometimes single player really should just be left to the single player.
Interesting Idea, i can write some Games too, that got very big just from being Multiplayer and many other that got from Singelplayer Survival to Multiplayer Survival because the demand to play with friends is bigger then just playing alone.
At this time many Survival games even start out to be Multiplayer because they see the potential, i am sure that Subnautica can only benefit from being multiplayer, even it is for 2-4 Player. (The request in Steam and forum in General shows that more ppl will buy it = more money flow to make a better game).
Thats just my opinion (Sry for my bad English)
Interesting Idea, i can write some Games too, that got very big just from being Multiplayer and many other that got from Singelplayer Survival to Multiplayer Survival because the demand to play with friends is bigger then just playing alone.
At this time many Survival games even start out to be Multiplayer because they see the potential, i am sure that Subnautica can only benefit from being multiplayer, even it is for 2-4 Player. (The request in Steam and forum in General shows that more ppl will buy it = more money flow to make a better game).
Thats just my opinion (Sry for my bad English)
Saying they will buy it and actually buying it are two different things. Yes some games have been made popular by having multiplayer...this isn't Call of Duty or some other FPS game though. Some survival games do have multiplayer and the whole 'never log off' server bits too. Which is actually a reason I have NOT bought those games, since I don't want my progress in survival to be hampered or outright regressed to start by some jerk killing me while I am away from the game. It's wonderful when those kinds of servers work, but even with guildmates I have found that is rarely the case. Even if it isn't an 'always logged on' game, rarely are those games compelling single player which brings us back to the point that single player will then suffer just to put in multiplayer.
Would games like Metroid, Zelda, Mass Effect, and other big single player games that focus on exploration really benefit by having co-op? Heck, even Metal Gear couldn't pull it off. Some games are made better with friends, some are not. The key difference is whether the game is designed and capable of handling it.
You can not honestly look at the map we have and tell me this game was designed with multiplayer in mind. Could a functional multiplayer be shoehorned in? Maybe, but it will definitely show and I feel the game overall will suffer for it. It isn't that I don't think Unknown Worlds can do multiplayer, their other games ARE multiplayer. But this game was obviously NOT built for multiplayer and it is going to show in a pretty bad way if they try to put one in just because people think it's a good idea. Meanwhile, the whole game suffers as they waste time and effort trying to make it work well when it won't without some major rework or just going the haphazard way.
I think it would be very cool to have Co-Op. I won't be mad if multiplayer never gets into the game though; most of my enjoyment has been from sitting down alone, going into the game and enjoying the immersiveness as I explore for myself and make decisions purely mine.
But I have 0 friends that own Subnautica, and about 3 that would buy it if it had multiplayer... So I guess that's just the kind of feature people demand. Who knows, maybe the increased sales would actually allow the other features to catch up!
I think it would be very cool to have Co-Op. I won't be mad if multiplayer never gets into the game though; most of my enjoyment has been from sitting down alone, going into the game and enjoying the immersiveness as I explore for myself and make decisions purely mine.
But I have 0 friends that own Subnautica, and about 3 that would buy it if it had multiplayer... So I guess that's just the kind of feature people demand. Who knows, maybe the increased sales would actually allow the other features to catch up!
See that right there is what I think is bugging me the most on the whole 'we need multiplayer' schtick I keep seeing. If someone comes here and says 'hey multiplayer would make me buy this game'...how would they know that this is something that would A ) be something that would make the game better, and B ) is something they really want? I mean, it would be one thing if the majority of people I see asking for multiplayer talk like they actually have played the game, but the majority of posts asking/demanding for it usually have 'this would make me buy the game'.
Why would multiplayer benefit Subnautica? Saying 'it would be cool' is not an answer since 'cool' is relative and doesn't actually mean anything. I think mechs are cool, my boyfriend thinks they are stupid, and neither of us are 'right' we just have different opinions. But if multiplayer is going to be added, I want to know why Subnautica would benefit from it beyond money and the 'cool' factor. Because the money argument is more of a gamble, you are hoping that multiplayer would bring in more money overall but nobody actually knows for certainty. What would mechanically and gameplay wise be enhanced in a way that co-op would be an actual benefit to the game over just keeping it single player and keeping the resources focused on that?
I imagine game development works similar to writing or engineering. When I am crafting a story I have to edit out things because as 'cool' as they are they just don't benefit the overall structure. My boyfriend works with the same principle when it comes to keeping things simple. Unnecessary complication just leads to more points of failure, and in Subnautica's case this would lead to things not being fun at best and frustrating at worst. Or the worst possible offense a game can commit...and that would to be boring.
So instead of saying 'this would be cool' or 'I have friends who would play' I want to hear how it would actually benefit players to have co-op and to divert time and resources of a project I've supported by purchasing four copies of. As much as I like co-op, I've played the game and I just do not see how co-op would either benefit the game or would even be possible without cheapening the experience.
I think it would be very cool to have Co-Op. I won't be mad if multiplayer never gets into the game though; most of my enjoyment has been from sitting down alone, going into the game and enjoying the immersiveness as I explore for myself and make decisions purely mine.
But I have 0 friends that own Subnautica, and about 3 that would buy it if it had multiplayer... So I guess that's just the kind of feature people demand. Who knows, maybe the increased sales would actually allow the other features to catch up!
See that right there is what I think is bugging me the most on the whole 'we need multiplayer' schtick I keep seeing. If someone comes here and says 'hey multiplayer would make me buy this game'...how would they know that this is something that would A ) be something that would make the game better, and B ) is something they really want? I mean, it would be one thing if the majority of people I see asking for multiplayer talk like they actually have played the game, but the majority of posts asking/demanding for it usually have 'this would make me buy the game'.
Why would multiplayer benefit Subnautica? Saying 'it would be cool' is not an answer since 'cool' is relative and doesn't actually mean anything. I think mechs are cool, my boyfriend thinks they are stupid, and neither of us are 'right' we just have different opinions. But if multiplayer is going to be added, I want to know why Subnautica would benefit from it beyond money and the 'cool' factor. Because the money argument is more of a gamble, you are hoping that multiplayer would bring in more money overall but nobody actually knows for certainty. What would mechanically and gameplay wise be enhanced in a way that co-op would be an actual benefit to the game over just keeping it single player and keeping the resources focused on that?
I imagine game development works similar to writing or engineering. When I am crafting a story I have to edit out things because as 'cool' as they are they just don't benefit the overall structure. My boyfriend works with the same principle when it comes to keeping things simple. Unnecessary complication just leads to more points of failure, and in Subnautica's case this would lead to things not being fun at best and frustrating at worst. Or the worst possible offense a game can commit...and that would to be boring.
So instead of saying 'this would be cool' or 'I have friends who would play' I want to hear how it would actually benefit players to have co-op and to divert time and resources of a project I've supported by purchasing four copies of. As much as I like co-op, I've played the game and I just do not see how co-op would either benefit the game or would even be possible without cheapening the experience.
I think that with 'hey multiplayer would make me buy this game' the most ppl mean that they want too share the good times they had/have or may have in Subnautica with there friends, thats all to it and with its 'cool' they mean they same.
Sharing awesome moments with friends is i belive more enjoyable then just playing alone, i understand that the game can offer as singelplayer a more immersive singelplayer experience if there isnt multiplayer but what if some ppl (maybe the most - as you say ' ) wish to be multiplayer or just Co-op? I belive the developers have to step in and clarify what they belive is right or even possible for the Game and not have to go over our Walls of Text?
There many Positive and Negativ sides to all thinks, but sometimes you have to see what the consumers want, what your Idea is and where this game have to go and this can only the Devs clarify
I hope i did not offend you in any way and sry again for bad my Englisch.
I think that with 'hey multiplayer would make me buy this game' the most ppl mean that they want too share the good times they had/have or may have in Subnautica with there friends, thats all to it and with its 'cool' they mean they same.
Sharing awesome moments with friends is i belive more enjoyable then just playing alone, i understand that the game can offer as singelplayer a more immersive singelplayer experience if there isnt multiplayer but what if some ppl (maybe the most - as you say ' ) wish to be multiplayer or just Co-op? I belive the developers have to step in and clarify what they belive is right or even possible for the Game and not have to go over our Walls of Text?
There many Positive and Negativ sides to all thinks, but sometimes you have to see what the consumers want, what your Idea is and where this game have to go and this can only the Devs clarify
I hope i did not offend you in any way and sry again for bad my Englisch.
Well it's obvious you didn't read a word I wrote at least. It isn't about sides it's about whether the game really can support a quality multiplayer experience. If you sat down and really looked at the world I doubt anyone can honestly say 'yes it can support more then one player'. I'm not talking about physically (though that would be cramped too) but in the sense of exploration and the resources to use. Not to mention most of the people I see asking for it haven't even tried the game, so how would they know it would benefit the game at all let alone be something they want to enjoy? Because of the people wanting multiplayer I've seen two or three that haven't bought the game, but not only do they want multiplayer but more weapons and such. So again I ask, why are devs listening to people like that?
I have no doubt that multiplayer can be put in, but just because you can do something doesn't mean its going to be a good thing to do. Not once has any of you stopped to think about the new hurdles that will come from multiplayer. From handshaking to animations needing to sync up. Anti-griefing measures that might need to be developed. Remember how they said cameras for singleplayer would be a problem, now both computers have to be constantly drawing two or more areas of the seafloor, especially if players are separated.
Can all these things be overcome? Probably, but by then how much are we going to be losing to add a feature that wasn't purportedly a part of the original plan?
Well it's obvious you didn't read a word I wrote at least. It isn't about sides it's about whether the game really can support a quality multiplayer experience. If you sat down and really looked at the world I doubt anyone can honestly say 'yes it can support more then one player'. I'm not talking about physically (though that would be cramped too) but in the sense of exploration and the resources to use.
The resources, apart from food and gear, would be shared. Whether you get more fun exploring solo or with a partner is subjective.
Not to mention most of the people I see asking for it haven't even tried the game, so how would they know it would benefit the game at all let alone be something they want to enjoy? Because of the people wanting multiplayer I've seen two or three that haven't bought the game, but not only do they want multiplayer but more weapons and such. So again I ask, why are devs listening to people like that?
Listening does not equal agreement and I have not seen anything that makes me think that the devs are abandoning the vision in the slightest. It doesn't help that you are trying to justify your stance about multiplayer by comparing it to asking for more weapons and such. I am more likely to buy games that my friends own. I'm doubly likely to buy a game I can play with said friend. I'm exponentially more likely to buy it if it's a co-op game, because that's what I enjoy.
I have no doubt that multiplayer can be put in, but just because you can do something doesn't mean its going to be a good thing to do. Not once has any of you stopped to think about the new hurdles that will come from multiplayer.
Lemme try.
From handshaking to animations needing to sync up.
No need for animations to sync, why would there be?
Anti-griefing measures that might need to be developed.
No need for that either, all indications are that it will be between friends and not random internet douchbags.
Remember how they said cameras for singleplayer would be a problem, now both computers have to be constantly drawing two or more areas of the seafloor, especially if players are separated.
You do understand that the separate computers render things separately and this is a non-issue, right?
Can all these things be overcome? Probably, but by then how much are we going to be losing to add a feature that wasn't purportedly a part of the original plan?
An equally valid question is how much do we stand to gain by adding a feature that wasn't purportedly a part of the original plan?
Hey guys, just wanted to let you guys know what we're planning with multiplayer before anyone posts something misleading
We are currently experimenting with co-op multiplayer, meaning we are trying to see how much work it will be. IMPORTANT: If it is too much work and we feel it will slow the production down too much, WE MIGHT NOT DO IT. If it is reasonable, we will.
IF we do it, keyword IF, what can you expect? 2-4 player co-op. NOT competitive. IF we do it
Yes, I am heavily qualifying all my statements here, because this is NOT a sure thing yet.
We should know in two weeks if we will do it or not.
Thanks for reading.
I've been rooting around online for a follow up to this. I see a lot of people complaining about fans pining for multiplayer ad nauseam, and wondered what the final verdict was? Is it still in play as a viable/possible thing down the road? Thanks in advance for any info.
I think that Multiplayer would be a great idea, but if you make multiplayer servers completely public, then there is always gonna be the troll that steals a cyclops and pushes the lifepod into the Aurora, so perhaps we could have it so it is invite-only servers so people can't screw the host over, also perhaps make it so that you are unable to deconstruct structures that other people have made (or make this a toggleable option when creating a server). Just IMO.
It would be so awesome to play subnautica with my friend and/or girlfriend, build our own seabase and cruise together in the cyclops. Work together to build our underwater lair and scrounge for materials and explore together. I understand if it's not in the game right away, but I hope so much that it is added soon after. It gets lonely being the only human stranded on the planet.. Which is an interesting experience by itself but still, what if there were other life pods Or another survivor who happened to be walking by the escape pod whilst you were cleaning it who managed to stumble in just in time? What if they could enter my world, and crash land somewhere in the ocean? Perhaps the survivor of a scout ship sent to investigate the dissapearance of our own ship? Lost and confused and as terrified and bewieldered as when you first crashed on the planet. Perhaps you can rendezvous and save them.
Why would multiplayer benefit Subnautica? Saying 'it would be cool' is not an answer since 'cool' is relative and doesn't actually mean anything. I think mechs are cool, my boyfriend thinks they are stupid, and neither of us are 'right' we just have different opinions. But if multiplayer is going to be added, I want to know why Subnautica would benefit from it beyond money and the 'cool' factor. Because the money argument is more of a gamble, you are hoping that multiplayer would bring in more money overall but nobody actually knows for certainty. What would mechanically and gameplay wise be enhanced in a way that co-op would be an actual benefit to the game over just keeping it single player and keeping the resources focused on that?
I imagine game development works similar to writing or engineering. When I am crafting a story I have to edit out things because as 'cool' as they are they just don't benefit the overall structure. My boyfriend works with the same principle when it comes to keeping things simple. Unnecessary complication just leads to more points of failure, and in Subnautica's case this would lead to things not being fun at best and frustrating at worst. Or the worst possible offense a game can commit...and that would to be boring.
So instead of saying 'this would be cool' or 'I have friends who would play' I want to hear how it would actually benefit players to have co-op and to divert time and resources of a project I've supported by purchasing four copies of. As much as I like co-op, I've played the game and I just do not see how co-op would either benefit the game or would even be possible without cheapening the experience.
TerraBlade, I completely agree with you. Now, maybe I´m stupid, but isn´t the Subnautica story that you crash and have to struggle to stay alive as sole survivor on an alien planet? Seems to me that kind of excludes multi-player...
And though you can let go of that background story and just see Subnautica as a universe to co-exist and co-operate in with other players, it would lessen the meaning of the game. I get that sharing the experience is cool, social gaming is a very good thing and working together and learning and having fun together are all great. However, I believe the Subnautica internal logic will be compromised. Multiplayer requires totally different development of everything in the game´s sphere of existence.
I though this game wants to take the experience in the direction of exploration, finding and using resources, adapting to the environment and obstacles thrown in your path and ultimately that you set up your own little culture in order to create a way to travel home. That opens boundless possibilities for creative gaming. 1000 paths to take and a 1 000 000 adventures to be had.
Now you can go this direction in multiplayer co-op, but you would have to radically change the fabric of the game. Single player and multiplayer can´t co-exist, especially since game development resources are not limitless. I would appeal to the game´s creators to focus on creating a brilliant game first, then try to widen its appeal by developing a multiplayer version later. Create a full game first, then a second variety later. Don´t make 2 half-games at once.
Hey, I really hope a person who has a influence on the game reads this. I've been a big fan of Subnautica for 2 months now and it's my second favorite game, which is saying something because I love some pretty awesome games, but Co-Op is something me and many people need for a game to be continuously playable as it will add a new side of Humor, Fear, Challenge and all sorts of new aspects to the game, this being said I would not like it to affect the single player experience to greatly as some people will just like the single player aspect.
I have no idea how the game stands on funding or sales at the moment, but I've been researching for a few hours and a lot of games get more sales with multiplayer so having multiplayer might help funding and maybe progressing with the games' future as well as I'm sure you've seen the countless amounts of people saying them and their friends are not going to get it if it does not go multiplayer.
As I've read in a previous post by the developer "Squeal Like a Pig" on Steam he said that Multiplayer is possible but probably wouldn't be in the game for version 1.0 but he also said, as did the original post creator, that the Dev team behind Subnautica wanted to create a solid single player experience first, but with multiplayer it can add many more hours of game play to the game and more unique things can happen and different experiences can occur, although I do think that the game should be more fleshed out before multiplayer is added.
I'm not saying that I won't love the game if it doesn't have multiplayer as I LOVE the game now but I will spend a lot less time playing and also I won't be as enthusiastic. Also as I mentioned before it's my second favorite game behind GTA which is quite hard to beat but I would easily say that this game would demolish my opinion of GTA in the future, and I have spent many, many, MANY hours on GTA so, that's quite a task.
This is just my opinion among a crowd of people with their own separate opinion and I think the direction you've took with the game so far has been incredible and I think that you developers are incredible and I don't want you to feel pushed to take action by mine or any other persons opinion on this and I think you should take it the way you want it to go, I hope you enjoyed this long post because it took me a while to write and I'm on holiday so... Yeah I should be outside but Yeah... Anyway I just joined this site to make this post because I really felt like I needed to get my opinion in and I really hope some sort of Co-Op or multiplayer is added in the future, I don't mind waiting a long time for it, but just not long enough to let my hype for the game to die down, *Which won't for about 3 months* But then again every new update brings in about an extra 2 months so it should be around forever anyway went a little bit off topic but the jest of this post is, MULTIPLAYER OR CO-OP IS A +1 FROM ME
Comments
I didn't think that was necessary at first but I feel it like something that could attract even more the players.
But I would indeed hate to see the overall game suffer because of it, I would rather it be left out than have a half game.
As for adversarial this is definably not a game that lends itself to that at all, so that needs to be left out
yours in service
The Hawk
But I would indeed hate to see the overall game suffer because of it, I would rather it be left out than have a half game.
As for adversarial this is definably not a game that lends itself to that at all, so that needs to be left out
yours in service
The Hawk
Devs will get more people invested, if they go multiplayer co op, imo.
(It will bring in more funds to the games developement, but the longer they build up the single player experience, the better it will be for multiple players overall, so multiplayer is something that should be added, but perhaps when most of the content is done?
We could even see it happen here first before star citizen do with their ships. ?
Multi crewed vessels with exploration, is a cash cow waiting to be milked because there inst much out there for competition tbh. (certainly not at this level of detail)
Players could cover eachother's backs and that alone would be a great improvement
For example exploring places were monsters can attack you from behind.
Games with good multiplayer were started out with multiplayer in mind. This game doesn't even remotely feel like it had it as an intention, and I don't think it will end well if it's put in.
See, the beauty of multiplayer coop as an option is... You don't need to play it! If it offends you so much, stay to your single player games, no-one is going to force you at gunpoint to play the multiplayer.
Me on the other hand and my small band of merry coop enthusiasts? We can't freaking wait for this to go multiplayer! Sometimes its not about the survival, or the hoovering up the resources, its about exploring and experiencing things with other people, it takes what's amazing and multiplies it thousandfold.
It isn't the fact it offends me. Some games are great for co-op...usually the ones built for it like Payday and L4D. But this just feels pandering and it's going to take time and resources away from the game only to really end up making everything worse. Glad as I am you have 'coop enthusiasts' who wish to join you in the game, every time co-op or multiplayer gets tacked onto a game the game suffers. Dead space 3, traded the horror and challenge of the game to dumb it down so co-op could be used. Mass Effect, where the only way for a long time to get the 'better' endings was to spend a lot of time in multiplayer. Resident Evil 5...well it was a poor story but it certainly wasn't helped by having to either have a human co-op player or suffer idiotic 'helper' AI.
The list goes on, and while I can list many more for both sides, the key difference was and is the fact that multiplayer was always a consideration rather then 'tacked on'. You can always tell when it's an after thought, and the game almost always suffers for it.
As for not playing survival...then what really is the point then? At that point there is almost no challenge at all to the game, and the game is rather easygoing as it is for 'survival'. Exploring and experiencing is all well and good, until you blow through all the content and then come back complaining 'this game is to short and easy'. While it doesn't need to be 'hardcore' all the time the game is just not going to be satisfying as it is now for co-op. If they then balance around co-op then they risk making the single player game unbalanced and not fun. If they balance for both then really you are building the game twice. This causes both to suffer in the long run since this small team then might have to start cutting content they might otherwise be able to include.
I have guildmates/friends I play games with too, but not every game needs multiplayer or co-op. Sometimes single player really should just be left to the single player.
Interesting Idea, i can write some Games too, that got very big just from being Multiplayer and many other that got from Singelplayer Survival to Multiplayer Survival because the demand to play with friends is bigger then just playing alone.
At this time many Survival games even start out to be Multiplayer because they see the potential, i am sure that Subnautica can only benefit from being multiplayer, even it is for 2-4 Player. (The request in Steam and forum in General shows that more ppl will buy it = more money flow to make a better game).
Thats just my opinion (Sry for my bad English)
Saying they will buy it and actually buying it are two different things. Yes some games have been made popular by having multiplayer...this isn't Call of Duty or some other FPS game though. Some survival games do have multiplayer and the whole 'never log off' server bits too. Which is actually a reason I have NOT bought those games, since I don't want my progress in survival to be hampered or outright regressed to start by some jerk killing me while I am away from the game. It's wonderful when those kinds of servers work, but even with guildmates I have found that is rarely the case. Even if it isn't an 'always logged on' game, rarely are those games compelling single player which brings us back to the point that single player will then suffer just to put in multiplayer.
Would games like Metroid, Zelda, Mass Effect, and other big single player games that focus on exploration really benefit by having co-op? Heck, even Metal Gear couldn't pull it off. Some games are made better with friends, some are not. The key difference is whether the game is designed and capable of handling it.
You can not honestly look at the map we have and tell me this game was designed with multiplayer in mind. Could a functional multiplayer be shoehorned in? Maybe, but it will definitely show and I feel the game overall will suffer for it. It isn't that I don't think Unknown Worlds can do multiplayer, their other games ARE multiplayer. But this game was obviously NOT built for multiplayer and it is going to show in a pretty bad way if they try to put one in just because people think it's a good idea. Meanwhile, the whole game suffers as they waste time and effort trying to make it work well when it won't without some major rework or just going the haphazard way.
But I have 0 friends that own Subnautica, and about 3 that would buy it if it had multiplayer... So I guess that's just the kind of feature people demand. Who knows, maybe the increased sales would actually allow the other features to catch up!
See that right there is what I think is bugging me the most on the whole 'we need multiplayer' schtick I keep seeing. If someone comes here and says 'hey multiplayer would make me buy this game'...how would they know that this is something that would A ) be something that would make the game better, and B ) is something they really want? I mean, it would be one thing if the majority of people I see asking for multiplayer talk like they actually have played the game, but the majority of posts asking/demanding for it usually have 'this would make me buy the game'.
Why would multiplayer benefit Subnautica? Saying 'it would be cool' is not an answer since 'cool' is relative and doesn't actually mean anything. I think mechs are cool, my boyfriend thinks they are stupid, and neither of us are 'right' we just have different opinions. But if multiplayer is going to be added, I want to know why Subnautica would benefit from it beyond money and the 'cool' factor. Because the money argument is more of a gamble, you are hoping that multiplayer would bring in more money overall but nobody actually knows for certainty. What would mechanically and gameplay wise be enhanced in a way that co-op would be an actual benefit to the game over just keeping it single player and keeping the resources focused on that?
I imagine game development works similar to writing or engineering. When I am crafting a story I have to edit out things because as 'cool' as they are they just don't benefit the overall structure. My boyfriend works with the same principle when it comes to keeping things simple. Unnecessary complication just leads to more points of failure, and in Subnautica's case this would lead to things not being fun at best and frustrating at worst. Or the worst possible offense a game can commit...and that would to be boring.
So instead of saying 'this would be cool' or 'I have friends who would play' I want to hear how it would actually benefit players to have co-op and to divert time and resources of a project I've supported by purchasing four copies of. As much as I like co-op, I've played the game and I just do not see how co-op would either benefit the game or would even be possible without cheapening the experience.
I think that with 'hey multiplayer would make me buy this game' the most ppl mean that they want too share the good times they had/have or may have in Subnautica with there friends, thats all to it and with its 'cool' they mean they same.
Sharing awesome moments with friends is i belive more enjoyable then just playing alone, i understand that the game can offer as singelplayer a more immersive singelplayer experience if there isnt multiplayer but what if some ppl (maybe the most - as you say ' ) wish to be multiplayer or just Co-op? I belive the developers have to step in and clarify what they belive is right or even possible for the Game and not have to go over our Walls of Text?
There many Positive and Negativ sides to all thinks, but sometimes you have to see what the consumers want, what your Idea is and where this game have to go and this can only the Devs clarify
I hope i did not offend you in any way and sry again for bad my Englisch.
Well it's obvious you didn't read a word I wrote at least. It isn't about sides it's about whether the game really can support a quality multiplayer experience. If you sat down and really looked at the world I doubt anyone can honestly say 'yes it can support more then one player'. I'm not talking about physically (though that would be cramped too) but in the sense of exploration and the resources to use. Not to mention most of the people I see asking for it haven't even tried the game, so how would they know it would benefit the game at all let alone be something they want to enjoy? Because of the people wanting multiplayer I've seen two or three that haven't bought the game, but not only do they want multiplayer but more weapons and such. So again I ask, why are devs listening to people like that?
I have no doubt that multiplayer can be put in, but just because you can do something doesn't mean its going to be a good thing to do. Not once has any of you stopped to think about the new hurdles that will come from multiplayer. From handshaking to animations needing to sync up. Anti-griefing measures that might need to be developed. Remember how they said cameras for singleplayer would be a problem, now both computers have to be constantly drawing two or more areas of the seafloor, especially if players are separated.
Can all these things be overcome? Probably, but by then how much are we going to be losing to add a feature that wasn't purportedly a part of the original plan?
Listening does not equal agreement and I have not seen anything that makes me think that the devs are abandoning the vision in the slightest. It doesn't help that you are trying to justify your stance about multiplayer by comparing it to asking for more weapons and such. I am more likely to buy games that my friends own. I'm doubly likely to buy a game I can play with said friend. I'm exponentially more likely to buy it if it's a co-op game, because that's what I enjoy.
Lemme try.
No need for animations to sync, why would there be?
No need for that either, all indications are that it will be between friends and not random internet douchbags.
You do understand that the separate computers render things separately and this is a non-issue, right?
An equally valid question is how much do we stand to gain by adding a feature that wasn't purportedly a part of the original plan?
I've been rooting around online for a follow up to this. I see a lot of people complaining about fans pining for multiplayer ad nauseam, and wondered what the final verdict was? Is it still in play as a viable/possible thing down the road? Thanks in advance for any info.
TerraBlade, I completely agree with you. Now, maybe I´m stupid, but isn´t the Subnautica story that you crash and have to struggle to stay alive as sole survivor on an alien planet? Seems to me that kind of excludes multi-player...
And though you can let go of that background story and just see Subnautica as a universe to co-exist and co-operate in with other players, it would lessen the meaning of the game. I get that sharing the experience is cool, social gaming is a very good thing and working together and learning and having fun together are all great. However, I believe the Subnautica internal logic will be compromised. Multiplayer requires totally different development of everything in the game´s sphere of existence.
I though this game wants to take the experience in the direction of exploration, finding and using resources, adapting to the environment and obstacles thrown in your path and ultimately that you set up your own little culture in order to create a way to travel home. That opens boundless possibilities for creative gaming. 1000 paths to take and a 1 000 000 adventures to be had.
Now you can go this direction in multiplayer co-op, but you would have to radically change the fabric of the game. Single player and multiplayer can´t co-exist, especially since game development resources are not limitless. I would appeal to the game´s creators to focus on creating a brilliant game first, then try to widen its appeal by developing a multiplayer version later. Create a full game first, then a second variety later. Don´t make 2 half-games at once.
I have no idea how the game stands on funding or sales at the moment, but I've been researching for a few hours and a lot of games get more sales with multiplayer so having multiplayer might help funding and maybe progressing with the games' future as well as I'm sure you've seen the countless amounts of people saying them and their friends are not going to get it if it does not go multiplayer.
As I've read in a previous post by the developer "Squeal Like a Pig" on Steam he said that Multiplayer is possible but probably wouldn't be in the game for version 1.0 but he also said, as did the original post creator, that the Dev team behind Subnautica wanted to create a solid single player experience first, but with multiplayer it can add many more hours of game play to the game and more unique things can happen and different experiences can occur, although I do think that the game should be more fleshed out before multiplayer is added.
I'm not saying that I won't love the game if it doesn't have multiplayer as I LOVE the game now but I will spend a lot less time playing and also I won't be as enthusiastic. Also as I mentioned before it's my second favorite game behind GTA which is quite hard to beat
This is just my opinion among a crowd of people with their own separate opinion and I think the direction you've took with the game so far has been incredible and I think that you developers are incredible and I don't want you to feel pushed to take action by mine or any other persons opinion on this and I think you should take it the way you want it to go, I hope you enjoyed this long post because it took me a while to write and I'm on holiday so... Yeah I should be outside but Yeah... Anyway I just joined this site to make this post because I really felt like I needed to get my opinion in and I really hope some sort of Co-Op or multiplayer is added in the future, I don't mind waiting a long time for it, but just not long enough to let my hype for the game to die down, *Which won't for about 3 months* But then again every new update brings in about an extra 2 months so it should be around forever