Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
If you just think about the cheating Epedemic it wouldnt be a good Idea...without having a expensive ongoing Anticheatsupport.
Something where a small team could take on multiple waves of enemies would be cool with me.
I'm 100% okay with single player only. But the game will probably lack staying power after my second play through.
If you want MP go play Elite Dangerous.
ES2 is closer to Diablo 4 than it is to ED. D4 has a co-op style multiplayer with systems that encourage players to use it without punishing those who don't.
The Mass Effect 3 multiplayer was actually what I was thinking of when I made my earlier comment about waves of enemies. That was pretty contentious when it was announced, but I rather enjoyed it once I gave it a try. I can easily imagine doing ES2 rifts with friends.
Multiplayer helps build community bonds and it gives the game staying power above and beyond its replayability. I'd also argue that the replayability of ES2 is lower than ES1, but that's a more nuanced argument. Multiplayer needs to be implemented well in order to reap these benefits and you're right to point out that those resources could go towards the development of more single player content.
I'd welcome a multiplayer system in ES2 but I don't think it's required for me to enjoy this game.
I could see how this can be fun, especially in the end game.
I'll keep my fingers crossed even though the devs seem adamant about the single player route.
Maybe ES3.
But from a more neutral viewpoint: Multiplayer needs a completely different Workframe.
It begins with the necessary synchronization of the different Players, even if its only online-coop. Would be bad if you evade enemy fire and accidentily ram your Friend who has a little lag and destroy his ship in the Process.
The Engine in Everspace focus around the Player. More than one Player? Means the Engine has to do every Calculation x-times.... for each Player individually, especially if they are in different Areas.
True Multiplayer: This means that the Devs would have to install Servers for the needed Instances of the Game - Servers for thousands of Players are expensive... not to mention the follow-up costs, maintenance and such. As i wrote already.... the engine isnt designed to handle multiplayer. They would have to start from Scratch and create a true Multiplayer Version of Everspace.
If someone watches Internethistorian...... trying to patch a single-player engine into a multiplayer framework is the best way to ruin your Game. Thats an Option that only Studios like Bethesda actively try ;)
Additionally, developing multiplayer on one platform, would then require us to port that across to other platforms which would further increase the work and time required.
People that whine about this stuff are probably going to refund the game anyway.
Everspace 2 is a game fully designed as a single player experience, and so it would require massive overhauls to how it works under the hood in order to make netcode functional.
There's also a bunch of gameplay issues that make multiplayer problematic. How would one treat the issue of the Time Extender ult? Would it slow down time for all players in the area? Or would it simply speed up the user? What if there's PVP?
To be honest, I also would really love it if some time in the future this game received a multiplayer component. I just don't think it's feasible. Not unless modded.