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
Only time developing multiplayer if you're an indie is worth it is if you can somehow do it for free without wasting a ton of time and resources, that is, never, or you hate yourself, that could work too.
No one knows what multiplayer games become popular or get stable playerbases, no one, if they think they do or say they do they are lying or delusional or both.
So, multiplayer might be important for you, but it's just completely the wrong thing to expect when coming over to an indie game.
This.
Indie multiplayer games are pretty much a 50% chance of sucesses. There needs to be a consistent huge pool of rescources that 3 guys will never amount to.
If you bring up battlebit as an example those situations are far and few between. Other indie ♥♥♥♥ shows like Splitgate, Sector's Edge, and Quantum League are examples of indie shooters that fell into oblivion.
He was indeed; got the L, Ratio and Griddy back for more now.
They need to play the game first methinks before whining multiplayer.
Don't forget Max Payne 3.
But these were all games whose single-player was the big point. Multiplayer was tacked on because the company wanted net-coders busy since everyone was on call at these large companies.