Multiplayer

[Krowe]

Honestly multiplayer would make the game alot better, probably make more money and have a larger number of players playing the game. If you could play the base game with a 2 player co-op option that would be sick, or a different mode with 2-4 player co-op would be a great addition

[Bombardiro Crocodilo]

Game's great but singleplayer is the only reason I barely bother to touch it. It's also the same reason I probably won't buy STALKER 2 when it comes out, because singleplayer is dull.

[Saedriss]

Originally posted by Ligmalz™:

Game's great but singleplayer is the only reason I barely bother to touch it. It's also the same reason I probably won't buy STALKER 2 when it comes out, because singleplayer is dull.

Well it is simply the case that these games are not for you, which is fine. As some people are turned off by games that are exclusively multiplayer and would prefer to enjoy them at their own time and pace, without relying or having to deal with others.


As for the thread as a whole, people greatly underestimate the amount of effort required to make a singleplayer game multiplayer when it was not the design from the start, and the strain it will add on the dev team to maintain it. It basically mutliply the points of failure tenfold.

While everybody will agree that if multiplayer got magically added to the game, at no cost, no delay, it would be a very good thing, things do not work that way. Everything has tradoffs, and the studio behind the game have estimated (with greater knowledge than us about their resources) that it was not a worthy endeavor.

However they may do that for a possible sequel game, which could be designed with that in mind from the start. Considering they posted job offering for people with such experience a few month back.

[Bombardiro Crocodilo]

Originally posted by Saedriss:

Originally posted by Ligmalz™:

Game's great but singleplayer is the only reason I barely bother to touch it. It's also the same reason I probably won't buy STALKER 2 when it comes out, because singleplayer is dull.

Well it is simply the case that these games are not for you, which is fine. As some people are turned off by games that are exclusively multiplayer and would prefer to enjoy them at their own time and pace, without relying or having to deal with others.

I never understood this as an argument against co-op because it is none.

Co-op means that the single player experience can also be played with friends. There is no change in gameplay, no requirement for multiplayer and no permanent online functionality. You're not losing anything by co-op being added, but we're winning something by co-op being added; the ability to play with friends.

Or would you say that playing Valheim, Minecraft or Saints Row with a friend is vastly different to playing it alone? No, but it is objectively more fun.

[Saedriss]

Originally posted by Ligmalz™:

I never understood this as an argument against co-op because it is none.

Co-op means that the single player experience can also be played with friends. There is no change in gameplay, no requirement for multiplayer and no permanent online functionality. You're not losing anything by co-op being added, but we're winning something by co-op being added; the ability to play with friends.

Or would you say that playing Valheim, Minecraft or Saints Row with a friend is vastly different to playing it alone? No, but it is objectively more fun.

There is none because it is not an argument against coop, you misread me.

I am simply pointing out the fact that :
Some game are exclusively multiplayer, which may displease the singleplayer crowd. For various reasons.
And some game are exclusively singleplayer, which displeases the multiplayer crowd.

Let's take Hunt : Showdown.
It is an exclusively multiplayer game, you will have to face other players while playing it.
Some people would rather the game have a singleplayer offline mode, where they can partake in the PvE part of the game at their own leisure, without having to deal with players out to kill them.
But, the fact is, the game is simply not for them. It has been designed as a multiplayer experience from the ground up.

Well Into The Radius or STALKER have been designed as singleplayer experiences, because it allows a narrower focus of resources, makes development easier, etc. And maybe because the dev's vision is one of a lonely experience (which has been stated explicitely for ITR). Hence why, if the absence of MP is a dealbreaker to you, same as the Hunt:Showdown player mentionned above : game is not for you.

If you had read my post in its entierity, which I doubt based on your answer, I even recognize that yes, multiplayer would be better than no multiplayer, if it came at no costs. So I'll quote myself, to clear up any misundertandings :

Originally posted by Saedriss:

While everybody will agree that if multiplayer got magically added to the game, at no cost, no delay, it would be a very good thing, things do not work that way. Everything has tradoffs, and the studio behind the game have estimated (with greater knowledge than us about their resources) that it was not a worthy endeavor.

However they may do that for a possible sequel game, which could be designed with that in mind from the start. Considering they posted job offering for people with such experience a few month back.

But since MP will never get added to the game, as explicitely stated by the devs at many MANY occasions during the last 2 years. Discussing the "if" and "when" of a multiplayer mode is as pointless as asking for it.

[Bombardiro Crocodilo]

Originally posted by Saedriss:

There is none because it is not an argument against coop, you misread me.

Why did you make it, then? We're talking about co-op multiplayer, not pvp multiplayer.

[Saedriss]

Originally posted by Ligmalz™:

Why did you make it, then? We're talking about co-op multiplayer, not pvp multiplayer.

I though this was a conversation but you either only read the first two line or have below average reading comprehension. OR, and that would my bet, you are doing a bit.
Which is fine, I mean, it's as productive as those topics will ever be.

[DragonOnYourShirt]

Originally posted by Saedriss:

Originally posted by Ligmalz™:

Why did you make it, then? We're talking about co-op multiplayer, not pvp multiplayer.

I though this was a conversation but you either only read the first two line or have below average reading comprehension. OR, and that would my bet, you are doing a bit.
Which is fine, I mean, it's as productive as those topics will ever be.

Dawg. You're grammar is all over the place first of all. Second, I read your post in its entirety and I think you're the one whose off base my guy. OP (original poster) is talking about 2-4 player co-op. Like Halo CE's campaign, Wildlands. Not a massive pvp multiplayer like Tarkov or PUBG. Granted, online co-op still isn't easy to setup. But to say the game isn't for someone just because they want to experience with a buddy or 3 is unfair. Besides, great single player games make awesome co-op games. Halo is a prime example of that.

[Xgpmcnp]

Originally posted by DragonOnYourShirt:

Originally posted by Saedriss:

I though this was a conversation but you either only read the first two line or have below average reading comprehension. OR, and that would my bet, you are doing a bit.
Which is fine, I mean, it's as productive as those topics will ever be.

Dawg. You're grammar is all over the place first of all.

Your*

[ZINK]

1+

[Bombardiro Crocodilo]

At the end of the day it is a fact that any singleplayer game only benefits from having a co-op feature. Because if you're not interested in using it, you can simply opt to not use it. It doesn't harm you, doesn't hinder you nor does it restrict you in any imaginable way.

Let the people who wish to play with a friend play with a friend. We're in 2023, there's no excuse for not going that extra mile, considering the fact that you can buy multiplayer frameworks in basically any major engine package.

There is no argument to be made against co-op, because all the arguments presented that are meant to be against it have nothing to do with it and co-op has zero impact on any of these scenarios.

[용자왕]

Funny how people think it's easy to convert a single-play game into a multi-play game

[Krowe]

Originally posted by BraveKing:

Funny how people think it's easy to convert a single-play game into a multi-play game

Nobody said it was easy el moron

[Bombardiro Crocodilo]

Originally posted by BraveKing:

Funny how people think it's easy to convert a single-play game into a multi-play game

No one said to convert anything. The criticism is towards the design decision to develop the game as a single player title.