Too bad. my friends and I would love very much to play this game, but we haven't done single player in a long, long, long time. Wish you would have stuck with your initial plan to be able to release to a larger player base. I can only imagine that was a costly decision.
I can tell you for sure, that no co-op has cost you six sales. That may not me much, but I'm sure we're not the only six. If it ever goes co-op, you've got some new customers.
Too bad. my friends and I would love very much to play this game, but we haven't done single player in a long, long, long time. Wish you would have stuck with your initial plan to be able to release to a larger player base. I can only imagine that was a costly decision.
I can tell you for sure, that no co-op has cost you six sales. That may not me much, but I'm sure we're not the only six. If it ever goes co-op, you've got some new customers.
I take it you haven't read any of this thread, let alone the posts by one of the developers on the last page that said they will work on it later.
Again, people expecting too much from a game that is not even finished.
If your saying you don't have enough people to work on Co-Op and features at the same time then maybe the team that is working on Future Perfect should be working on Subnautica Co-op instead? Future perfect seems like an odd sort of little pet project to be throwing resources at when you have a major game that's missing a huge feature that MANY MANY players are begging for.
The Future Perfect team have been working on Subnautica since May. FP had a four-strong team; two of us now work on Subnautica, and the other two moved from UWE. Unfortunately the two of us simply don't represent sufficient resources to be able to add something as difficult as multiplayer.
I get the real world issues surrounding this, but take a look at Factorio; they were in your exact position about a year ago, they had an amazing game but it was doomed to obscurity because there was no multiplayer and so it never would have developed a real community.
They bit the bullet and paused development on the main game and got multiplayer working, now they're over that hill and they can focus on the 'fun stuff' of putting more content into the game. As much as I do understand your desire to keep doing the 'fun stuff' now, most people will just switch off completely when they hear an exploration/sandbox game like this is single player only, no matter how much 'fun stuff' you've added in the mean time.
If your saying you don't have enough people to work on Co-Op and features at the same time then maybe the team that is working on Future Perfect should be working on Subnautica Co-op instead? Future perfect seems like an odd sort of little pet project to be throwing resources at when you have a major game that's missing a huge feature that MANY MANY players are begging for.
The Future Perfect team have been working on Subnautica since May. FP had a four-strong team; two of us now work on Subnautica, and the other two moved from UWE. Unfortunately the two of us simply don't represent sufficient resources to be able to add something as difficult as multiplayer.
Oh I guess i saw some outdated info then. Thanks for the response, that's understandable. And I hope i didn't sound too antagonistic before. I just REALLY am looking forward to making some sweet underwater bases with my friends in the future and am having a hard time waiting for it. Subnautica is already a great game and I look forward to seeing what else gets added. However i'll never feel 100% satisfied with anything i build until my friends can see what i've built and build along with me. Keep up the good work though and thanks for what we have so far.
I normally only play games that have multiplayer options... with subnautica I decided to just go with my gut and get it. I have never looked back.
If you guys ever manage to make multiplayer then great.. until then, I am more than content with a single player only game. This game is simply amazing and ive had so much fun. Keep up the good work!
I get the real world issues surrounding this, but take a look at Factorio; they were in your exact position about a year ago, they had an amazing game but it was doomed to obscurity because there was no multiplayer and so it never would have developed a real community.
They bit the bullet and paused development on the main game and got multiplayer working, now they're over that hill and they can focus on the 'fun stuff' of putting more content into the game. As much as I do understand your desire to keep doing the 'fun stuff' now, most people will just switch off completely when they hear an exploration/sandbox game like this is single player only, no matter how much 'fun stuff' you've added in the mean time.
Building a game for single player, and then adding multiplayer after is extremely difficult. The coding is so different. It's not just a case of altering some it. If you take a game like space engineers, the multiplayer code was hashed together rather quickly, and it's terrible. They will admit this and have explained that they are going to completely re-write the multiplayer coding at some point. The difference is here, that survival is on a much smaller and personal scale. You couldn't walk about on your cyclops while your friend piloted it, with just hash networking code because you would simply slide out the ship and then be left in the water.
I understand that you may feel most people are put off by a single player survival only game, however I completely disagree. Don't starve was ridiculously successful even after they stated "There will never be a multi-player". They made so much money that in the end they made one anyway. I say we let them finish the game, and then see where it goes. I'd rather have an amazing single player survival experience anyday, over a buggy mess that's made surviving to easy because of friends.
I wish people would listen to what the devs are saying (that they don't have the resources or inclination to commit to multiplayer (MP)), and stop moaning about the lack of MP. It's quite clear that there is no intention to introduce MP at this juncture and people either need to accept that and stop bitching about it, or Foxtrot Oscar and play some other MP game instead; there's plenty out there.
First off I understand and agree adding multi-player is a pain in the undercarriage after the fact. Small dev team, yep. Limited budget. Multi-player is damn hard. Yep, all understood (as a sysadmin and part time network coder, totally get it!).
... but that isnt a reason to not say things. (And there is a pathetic suggestion at the bottom here... it's not all bad news)
My partner is selective about games she plays (lotro, turn based strategy, minecraft) and she likes subnautica for the "OMG so eye-orgasm-ingly pretty!" and the joy of building (as do I) but not being able to play together stops it being on our regular gameplay list.
Multi-player cant be added by an outside dev team (although I know subnautica isnt as open to outside help as NS2 because of engine choice and lack of lua) where as tech tree and story might be able to be added by outside slaves, err, i mean fans.
Hopefully in any post-mortem review 'multi-player' will be moved to one of the first key questions on any new project.
Aaages ago I went bloody crazy on one of the forum threads about possible game directions (http://forums.unknownworlds.com/discussion/comment/2221526/#Comment_2221526) (ignore the later crazy ones on evolving the creatures with genetic algorithms, thats just crazy talk) and laid out an idea for a progression through the game.
The (story change) assumption was that the ship had crashed and a small number of explorers had been revived to collect needed materials (from their own private area of the ocean) for the colony to be viable. If you took that idea on then you might be able to use the crashed ship as a central 'market' (or sink) for collected resources and then people might be able to do some kind of meta-multi-player where players could trade goods.
Before you all say it, I realise that taking that structure (which i realise is a bloody big change to the story mode) probably isnt worth it for the weak multi-player experience that you get out of it.
What an idiotic response. You didn't plan ahead to support multiplayer, and now it's biting you in the butt and you're trying to spin it in a positive light.
I suppose when this game doesn't do well, it'll be the customer's fault and not yours, right?
My answer to the dev team in relation to their question is: YES, stop whatever it is your doing, and develop multiplayer, take the time and do it now, see how games like ARK and H1Z1 are doing with ability to have a MP survival experience, it will be better in the long run if you do this... Being the new year, now would be the time to turn a new chapter in the game and work on this. DO IT!!!!!!!
Multiplayer is a much needed feature imo for survival games, otherwise they have 0 lasting appeal. Ark is probably best survival game to date b/c it gives you three option to play, sp, 4player client hosted )with world state able to be saved), 70server hosted. I for one was surprised by this answer considering we can make these huge habitats and then we can make this giant ass submarine but its only made for one, WTH was my response when I realized this.
A core reason why imo mp is needed is b/c like most survival games once you get a foothold in the game world it becomes a piece of cake, with multiplayer you are never safe. I wouldn't even be against say the moonbay being invincible to player dmg so one would always have something to build off of and never having to completely start from scratch. In the end though mp is really a necessity for survival games and sp as an option for those who prefer to be alone. Honestly had I known about this ahead of time I wouldn't have bought the game b/c while fun gets boring quick as I can survive w/ 0 issues after about 3hrs of gameplay...
So I hope in the spirit of the New Year you decide its time to rethink things and start anew on the project, release maybe one more update then take the time to release mp w/ some new assets w/ mp in mind such as torpedo turrets, moonbay doors that close upon receiving ship, adding torps to the seamoth that actually are lethal. Bulkhead that lock so planning a base and where one puts windows and such matter.
I'm fairly certain UWE aren't considering versus multiplayer at all. It has nothing to do with the original concept... anyways , there's plenty of those games to play if you prefer them.
The other option that you may have considered already is letting the community help you. Im sure there are loads of programmers out there that could help you achieve more. Look at Kerbal Space Programme, Euro Truck Simulator 2 and Assetto Corsa to name some. Thanks.
The other option that you may have considered already is letting the community help you. Im sure there are loads of programmers out there that could help you achieve more. Look at Kerbal Space Programme, Euro Truck Simulator 2 and Assetto Corsa to name some. Thanks.
This^^^
We watched Don't Starve turn into a hell of a game when they brought in the experimental co-op version. It was a rocky start but well worth the work.
This is a huge mistake by UWE. This game absolutely needs Co-Op if they want it to take off. Singleplayer is great and all, and just fine by me, but the games sales will skyrocket if they get a functioning Co-Op.
It is absolutely foolish to release this game as singleplayer only. You only ever get one big chance to impress, once that chance is gone your next iterations will never be able to pull the numbers you could have on your first chance.
Co-Op means big YouTube channels will check out your game, which means a much greater number of people seeing your game. Not to mention every time someone buys your game and likes it, they are gonna get a friend to buy it too so that they can play together.
Look at any big survival game, they always have Co-Op, Minecraft, Terraria, Space Engineers, Ark. Could you imagine any of those games being wildly popular without multiplayer, I certainly couldn't. Hell if Minecraft was singleplayer only the whole survival genre probably wouldn't have been revived like it has been.
I don't care if they work on it last and have to delay release by several months, they should absolutely NOT release without Co-Op. /endrant
Honestly the whole subnautica experience would be different and better when you can play co-op. You want to present this game in a certain way for the audience to pick it up like that and for people to get interested in this game. The multiplayer would be a big deal in this cause the feel you get from the game is different. I do not know much about programming, but even if it is hard and timewrecking to do, it will be worth it and people will enjoy the game more.
At least for me, there is only a certain interest in playing any type of sandbox, creation, survival game on my own. I would probably not have gotten minecraft and other such games if they were only single player. I understand the reasons as to why multiplayer isn't being worked on right now, but you should definitely make it a priority before full release. It will be a big chunk of lost profit otherwise.
This is a huge mistake by UWE. This game absolutely needs Co-Op if they want it to take off. Singleplayer is great and all, and just fine by me, but the games sales will skyrocket if they get a functioning Co-Op.
It is absolutely foolish to release this game as singleplayer only. You only ever get one big chance to impress, once that chance is gone your next iterations will never be able to pull the numbers you could have on your first chance.
Co-Op means big YouTube channels will check out your game, which means a much greater number of people seeing your game. Not to mention every time someone buys your game and likes it, they are gonna get a friend to buy it too so that they can play together.
Look at any big survival game, they always have Co-Op, Minecraft, Terraria, Space Engineers, Ark. Could you imagine any of those games being wildly popular without multiplayer, I certainly couldn't. Hell if Minecraft was singleplayer only the whole survival genre probably wouldn't have been revived like it has been.
I don't care if they work on it last and have to delay release by several months, they should absolutely NOT release without Co-Op. /endrant
khyeronIn front of my computers.Join Date: 2016-01-31Member: 212378Members
I agree with this concept. First thought was... multiplayer? So far, ARK has gone to hell, Terraria is still fun, and Minecraft is still boring. Subnautica is about the only other game I like (I don't like medieval only survival/building/exploration games.) I do like multiplayer, and having my own company and servers, some server software for this game would absolutely "r0x0r some b0x0rs" so to speak. I'm tired of zombie survival to no end, but futuristic survival in semi alien environments is a great idea.
If need be, I'm willing to dedicate some cycles and bandwidth to server software if it is planned. This would be an awesome game to leave running as players come in, build stuff, log out, let stuff keep living.
I've been watching my boyfriend play this game and we were talking about how cool it would be to play this together, He said it was definitely going to have multiplayer, I wanted to know when, so I came here to look it up and learned that multiplayer isn't going to be implemented any time soon if at all! Sad! I was really looking forward to playing this together, but without multiplayer I won't buy it, No matter how cool a game is, I see no point in playing it if you can't share the experience.
Right now you guys really need to add something more substantial than just a spot light. I am sorry, I got this game after watching Jacksepticeye play it. But I learned fairly fast that there is just not much to the game. I absolutely love the game and hope to see it as successful as Minecraft but right now there is just no way. You need a reason to keep playing the game. It needs to have a beefy reason if that makes any sense.
I concur with everyone else. Co-op is much needed. It would be 100 times more fun if you could play with other people. At least one or three other people. But once again the map is small for exploration but still big enough for other people and multiple basses. Seamoth jousting anyone?
I applaud the decision to focus on the game itself rather than trying to jam in multiplayer, and as a result, have something like half a year with no actual updates. Too many 'Early Access' 'Survival games' have tried from the beginning to implement multiplayer, and have suffered greatly for it.
To weigh in with specifics, I think that unless you have a completely separate team working on netcode, to leave the multiplayer to be the very last thing you put in. I'd much rather have a solid and consistently progressing single player game than a buggy, barely playable game full of assholes (looking at you, Rust).
I definitly agree with devs decision and the last comment.
Multiplayer should be the last feature to implement in the game, and only once the singleplayer experience will be complete, rather than add it now only to have more issues to solve.
In my personal opinion I think the game could benefit of a solid story concept more than a multiplayer option. Why the starship crashed on this planet? What's the unknown force that cause it and finally how the protagonist could find a way to leave the planet?
Cheers!
p.s. sorry for my bad english, guys. I do my best.
This game needs to be multiplayer co-op and controller supported, I love playing on my computer in my room, but anything underwater looks incredible in 4k 3D on the Nvidia Shield. My entire family and friends circle are a bunch of gamers, and were all waiting on this game to go co-op and share the exploration, survival and terraforming new empires.
Comments
I can tell you for sure, that no co-op has cost you six sales. That may not me much, but I'm sure we're not the only six. If it ever goes co-op, you've got some new customers.
I take it you haven't read any of this thread, let alone the posts by one of the developers on the last page that said they will work on it later.
Again, people expecting too much from a game that is not even finished.
The Future Perfect team have been working on Subnautica since May. FP had a four-strong team; two of us now work on Subnautica, and the other two moved from UWE. Unfortunately the two of us simply don't represent sufficient resources to be able to add something as difficult as multiplayer.
They bit the bullet and paused development on the main game and got multiplayer working, now they're over that hill and they can focus on the 'fun stuff' of putting more content into the game. As much as I do understand your desire to keep doing the 'fun stuff' now, most people will just switch off completely when they hear an exploration/sandbox game like this is single player only, no matter how much 'fun stuff' you've added in the mean time.
Oh I guess i saw some outdated info then. Thanks for the response, that's understandable. And I hope i didn't sound too antagonistic before. I just REALLY am looking forward to making some sweet underwater bases with my friends in the future and am having a hard time waiting for it. Subnautica is already a great game and I look forward to seeing what else gets added. However i'll never feel 100% satisfied with anything i build until my friends can see what i've built and build along with me. Keep up the good work though and thanks for what we have so far.
If you guys ever manage to make multiplayer then great.. until then, I am more than content with a single player only game. This game is simply amazing and ive had so much fun. Keep up the good work!
Building a game for single player, and then adding multiplayer after is extremely difficult. The coding is so different. It's not just a case of altering some it. If you take a game like space engineers, the multiplayer code was hashed together rather quickly, and it's terrible. They will admit this and have explained that they are going to completely re-write the multiplayer coding at some point. The difference is here, that survival is on a much smaller and personal scale. You couldn't walk about on your cyclops while your friend piloted it, with just hash networking code because you would simply slide out the ship and then be left in the water.
I understand that you may feel most people are put off by a single player survival only game, however I completely disagree. Don't starve was ridiculously successful even after they stated "There will never be a multi-player". They made so much money that in the end they made one anyway. I say we let them finish the game, and then see where it goes. I'd rather have an amazing single player survival experience anyday, over a buggy mess that's made surviving to easy because of friends.
... but that isnt a reason to not say things. (And there is a pathetic suggestion at the bottom here... it's not all bad news)
My partner is selective about games she plays (lotro, turn based strategy, minecraft) and she likes subnautica for the "OMG so eye-orgasm-ingly pretty!" and the joy of building (as do I) but not being able to play together stops it being on our regular gameplay list.
Multi-player cant be added by an outside dev team (although I know subnautica isnt as open to outside help as NS2 because of engine choice and lack of lua) where as tech tree and story might be able to be added by outside slaves, err, i mean fans.
Hopefully in any post-mortem review 'multi-player' will be moved to one of the first key questions on any new project.
Aaages ago I went bloody crazy on one of the forum threads about possible game directions (http://forums.unknownworlds.com/discussion/comment/2221526/#Comment_2221526) (ignore the later crazy ones on evolving the creatures with genetic algorithms, thats just crazy talk) and laid out an idea for a progression through the game.
The (story change) assumption was that the ship had crashed and a small number of explorers had been revived to collect needed materials (from their own private area of the ocean) for the colony to be viable. If you took that idea on then you might be able to use the crashed ship as a central 'market' (or sink) for collected resources and then people might be able to do some kind of meta-multi-player where players could trade goods.
Before you all say it, I realise that taking that structure (which i realise is a bloody big change to the story mode) probably isnt worth it for the weak multi-player experience that you get out of it.
OMG! Sorry! Quick save vs 'wall of text' at -3.
I suppose when this game doesn't do well, it'll be the customer's fault and not yours, right?
A core reason why imo mp is needed is b/c like most survival games once you get a foothold in the game world it becomes a piece of cake, with multiplayer you are never safe. I wouldn't even be against say the moonbay being invincible to player dmg so one would always have something to build off of and never having to completely start from scratch. In the end though mp is really a necessity for survival games and sp as an option for those who prefer to be alone. Honestly had I known about this ahead of time I wouldn't have bought the game b/c while fun gets boring quick as I can survive w/ 0 issues after about 3hrs of gameplay...
So I hope in the spirit of the New Year you decide its time to rethink things and start anew on the project, release maybe one more update then take the time to release mp w/ some new assets w/ mp in mind such as torpedo turrets, moonbay doors that close upon receiving ship, adding torps to the seamoth that actually are lethal. Bulkhead that lock so planning a base and where one puts windows and such matter.
This^^^
We watched Don't Starve turn into a hell of a game when they brought in the experimental co-op version. It was a rocky start but well worth the work.
It is absolutely foolish to release this game as singleplayer only. You only ever get one big chance to impress, once that chance is gone your next iterations will never be able to pull the numbers you could have on your first chance.
Co-Op means big YouTube channels will check out your game, which means a much greater number of people seeing your game. Not to mention every time someone buys your game and likes it, they are gonna get a friend to buy it too so that they can play together.
Look at any big survival game, they always have Co-Op, Minecraft, Terraria, Space Engineers, Ark. Could you imagine any of those games being wildly popular without multiplayer, I certainly couldn't. Hell if Minecraft was singleplayer only the whole survival genre probably wouldn't have been revived like it has been.
I don't care if they work on it last and have to delay release by several months, they should absolutely NOT release without Co-Op. /endrant
This.
If need be, I'm willing to dedicate some cycles and bandwidth to server software if it is planned. This would be an awesome game to leave running as players come in, build stuff, log out, let stuff keep living.
To weigh in with specifics, I think that unless you have a completely separate team working on netcode, to leave the multiplayer to be the very last thing you put in. I'd much rather have a solid and consistently progressing single player game than a buggy, barely playable game full of assholes (looking at you, Rust).
Multiplayer should be the last feature to implement in the game, and only once the singleplayer experience will be complete, rather than add it now only to have more issues to solve.
In my personal opinion I think the game could benefit of a solid story concept more than a multiplayer option. Why the starship crashed on this planet? What's the unknown force that cause it and finally how the protagonist could find a way to leave the planet?
Cheers!
p.s. sorry for my bad english, guys. I do my best.