Rogue Legacy > General Discussion > Topic Details
wiidad Jun 27, 2013 @ 11:17am
Looks great but, why o why no multiplayer?
So many titles this one included would be an easy instant purchase if they would only include multiplayer... I just dont understand the thought process behind pushing out so many indie titles that are limited to single player, especially in today's gaming climate which has such an overwhelming demand for multiplayer capabilities. I'm not saying I dont own & play single player games, my favorites being Dont Starve and Revenge of the Titans, currently, but honestly the only time for single player gameplay is when I cannot find multiplayer action or am too busy doing something to participate in multiplayer gameplay. Anyway, Please! Please! make the sequel to this title multiplayer.
Showing 1-15 of 44 comments
< >
Emong Jun 27, 2013 @ 11:18am 
The devs said they wanted it to be multiplayer, but they didn't have the money or time to do it.
Wakey Jun 27, 2013 @ 11:21am 
Well... There's an equal demand for singleplayer games. But surprise surprise, the people who wants multiplayer and in general is a part of the online community is more likely to storm the online forums to complain.
Anyway... Rogues have always been about singleplayer. The whole idea is that you start over when you die... How boring would that be in mp if one guy dies? I'm a mp guy but I sure as hell wouldn't play any rogue games in mp.
Steinin Jun 27, 2013 @ 11:23am 
Tacked-on multiplayer have ruined a lot of games over the years. There is a ton of abandoned multiplayer games out there as well.
Lv35 Tree Jun 27, 2013 @ 11:24am 
Originally posted by Emong:
The devs said they wanted it to be multiplayer, but they didn't have the money or time to do it.

You would think that that problem could be solved with Steamworks since, after all, it is a Steam game

Originally posted by Veng:
Well... There's an equal demand for singleplayer games. But surprise surprise, the people who wants multiplayer and in general is a part of the online community is more likely to storm the online forums to complain.
Anyway... Rogues have always been about singleplayer. The whole idea is that you start over when you die... How boring would that be in mp if one guy dies?

I was always thinking that this could heavily benefit from a system similar to Dark Souls - where others could temporarily "invade" your world to help you out or kill you.
Rustea Jun 27, 2013 @ 11:30am 
Originally posted by Unreliable gold is the best:
Originally posted by Emong:
The devs said they wanted it to be multiplayer, but they didn't have the money or time to do it.

You would think that that problem could be solved with Steamworks since, after all, it is a Steam game

No, sorry it's not as simple as flicking a switch

Decent online code requires a lot of work and is very tricky if the developer does it by scratch.

"Steamworks" is merely a peer to peer matching service and does not come with networking code. Then there is actualy designing the multiplayer aspect of the game and making sure it all works out OK because slapping more than say two people in the current single player campaign would not work out all that well without some serious thought put in to making it work properly.
Damaniel Jun 27, 2013 @ 11:32am 
Multiplayer is also tricky to do from a development standpoint, especially for small dev teams, and network support takes a lot of time to test and debug (on top of the tricky implementation tasks).

Personally, I'd rather have a solid single player game with no multiplayer than a half-baked multiplayer feature that required the devs to take resources away from the core single player game. There's already a ton of multiplayer games out there.
wiidad Jun 27, 2013 @ 11:32am 
Originally posted by Emong:
The devs said they wanted it to be multiplayer, but they didn't have the money or time to do it.

wow instant reply, well I hope that they sell enough of the current single player version to make the next version mutiplayer so I can buy the 4 pack and play with my kids and their friends like so many others such as terraria, castle crashers, awesomenaughts, shoot many robots, tower wars, ace of spades, airmech, dungeon defenders, and so on... not all of these had the 4 pack, but most did.

The Indie climate is changing after all and the only titles that seem to sell for more than a few cents in a bundle are those that can sell well enough as a 4 pack at between $2.50 - $5 a copy or $9.99 for x4 copies. Which is still far superior to the pittence they get from an indie bundle.

I support indie as much as I can and they can help us all to support them better if they stop with the endless titles limited to single player.

I remember how disapointed I was during beta when I discovered that Don't Starve was not going to implement the Multiplayer functionality, that I was so counting on being added in later.
Lv35 Tree Jun 27, 2013 @ 11:36am 
Originally posted by Rustea:
Originally posted by Unreliable gold is the best:

You would think that that problem could be solved with Steamworks since, after all, it is a Steam game

No, sorry it's not as simple as flicking a switch

Decent online code requires a lot of work and is very tricky if the developer does it by scratch.

"Steamworks" is merely a peer to peer matching service and does not come with networking code. Then there is actualy designing the multiplayer aspect of the game and making sure it all works out OK because slapping more than say two people in the current single player campaign would not work out all that well without some serious thought put in to making it work properly.

I know all of this. I was just saying that it would cut out the need for server costs, which was what I thought Emong meant by "not enough money".
ARF Jun 27, 2013 @ 11:38am 
You should take a page from Binding of Isaac and Spelunky, both are in the same type or style of game and both are incredibly sucessful and popular.

Also neither one has online multiplayer. Both developers of those games stated how much more time and money it takes to add such features that its not worth it. Especially in games like this where the slightest instability in connection can easily result in death. Then you get a forum full of these threads,
F*CKING LAG RUINED ANOTHER RUN GAME IS TERRIBLE

While I agree that I'd love online multiplayer I'd rather not wait for another 6 months.
Oscar Jun 27, 2013 @ 11:55am 
Originally posted by ARF:
You should take a page from Binding of Isaac and Spelunky, both are in the same type or style of game and both are incredibly sucessful and popular.

Spelunky does have multiplayer, and i think the same type of lan co op would actually work fine here.
My_Monkey_Balls Jun 27, 2013 @ 12:04pm 
still haven`t played this game, but i`m looking forward to it, looks really cool.
A good idea for multiplayer as the game seems to be would be something similar to Dark Souls, where you can summon other players to help you or they can invade you game and try to kill you, that would be lots of fun
ARF Jun 27, 2013 @ 12:23pm 
Yes spelunky has local coop but not online which is what I (and I'm sure the op) was talking about. LAN coop is much easier to do. Perhaps if you are interested in that you can contact them about it.
wiidad Jun 27, 2013 @ 12:25pm 
Originally posted by shaunbr:
Multiplayer is also tricky to do from a development standpoint, especially for small dev teams. Network development is hard to do well, and takes a lot of time to test and debug.

Personally, I'd rather have a solid single player game with no multiplayer than a half-baked multiplayer feature that required the devs to take resources away from the core single player game. There's already a ton of multiplayer games out there.

I find that there are 50 to 1, single player over multiplayer games out there and that ratio is far worse when counting indie titles. The time and cost of creating a multiplayer game has always been more than a single player game so this is no surprise and if indie devs truly want to be seen in the market they need to switch gears and offer us more of what we want.

I see your point with the half baked mp addons, thats of course not what im asking for here, but when we buy single player pc versions of games we played mutiplayer with our friends a decade or two ago there is something wrong.

There are of course some really specific and amazing single player games that just cant be seen as an mp title such as "Monster Loves You" which is absolutely great for what it is in single player, my kids go nuts for it. Its the games Heart thats the selling point, where other single player titles like "Little inferno" are winners for their originality in both concept and gameplay. IMO unless a game has a true reason not to be mp then it should be mp ^^

The fact that the new Shadowrun Returns title is limited to single player has stopped so many fans of the pen and paper from purchasing it. While I still have high hopes for it when it does finally activate in my games list, it will never have what it could have had if it were mp like the pen and paper version of my youth.

This game is a 2d side scroller, which have been mp since Mario and Luigi were young men. With all the middleware and 3rd part plugins available to start from today, single player simply because mp takes more effort will just not cut it. Especially not when so many other indie titles have achieved greatness attributed directly to their multiplayer gameplay.

This is of course in no way only directed against this games Devs. I like alot about what they have done here and want nothing but success for them. This is just on the topic of sp vs. mp in the indie game world in general.

The age of AAA and giant corporations making better games than indie devs is allready coming to an end. They may still own the market share for now, due to their namesakes and advertising budgets, but that will dwindle with each new indie title that does what the AAA producers arent, which is providing us with something original and or loaded with tons of heart. Which is the opposite direction of the AAA producers whom are focussing on releasing the same game again and again simply with hardware and technology updates, building franchises for profit.

if its possible for 5 original games to trump the next installment of a familiar franchise, just think of what 10 original games could do. I just hope they have multiplayer.

Fée Jun 27, 2013 @ 12:28pm 
Originally posted by Oscar:
Originally posted by ARF:
You should take a page from Binding of Isaac and Spelunky, both are in the same type or style of game and both are incredibly sucessful and popular.

Spelunky does have multiplayer, and i think the same type of lan co op would actually work fine here.

Spelunky for XBLA has multiplayer, and it's very poorly done. It ruins the expierence as a whole.
GlobZOsiris Jun 27, 2013 @ 12:45pm 
If the devs are rewarded for this initial ROGUE LEGACY version, is it possible to dream about a multiplayer (versus and or coop) update ? ^^
Showing 1-15 of 44 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50