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
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Hello! We don't have any plans for multiplayer at the moment
Having 2 dungeons on the same map? Then you could just as well play the same game in SP on the same level and being in a call and comparing notes/waves =)
There's many online articles covering how multiplayer is more popular, financially more successful and websites showing statistics prove this fact but you clearly don't read. MP works in several dungeon master games, but clearly you've never played these popular games.
Examples of other Dungeon Master games with MP include: Dungeons 3, War for the Overworld, Dungeon Keeper 3 are some examples which shows how it works.
I myself have no desire for MP and prefer the work to be concentrated on making this an excellent SP experience.
Here are some actual online articles showing SP preferred over MP.
https://www.allaboutgames.net/general/online-gaming-solo-player-vs-multiplayer-popularity/
March 11, 2022
In fact, the majority of people surveyed prefer solo gameplay (67%), compared to 23% who prefer multiplayer games. This is because many people like to tackle various challenges themselves without relying on others to help them. They may like the sense of achievement and accomplishment that comes with playing single player variations of video games. However, although single player and multiplayer are two differing styles of play, they both have their distinct advantages and disadvantages.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1276132/single-player-vs-multiplayer-video-gaming-preference-usa/
Oct 2021
The chart shows 59% prefer single player.
" An October 2021 survey of gaming audiences in the United States found that the majority of gamers preferred to play single player games where the only opponent was the game or the computer. A further 19 percent of respondents stated that online with friends was their main way to play games, which is further underlined by the popularity of multiplayer genres such as battle royale or first person shooters."
https://www.cbr.com/prefer-single-player-games/
Jan 16, 2021
"While both single-player and multiplayer games are great and allow people to escape from the monotony of everyday life, a recent study reveals that most gamers prefer single-player experiences."
https://www.kitguru.net/gaming/mustafa-mahmoud/single-player-games-are-more-popular-than-multiplayer-reports-sony/
Dec 1, 2020
"As reported by Vice, Sony’s “own data showed that people were spending more time playing single player games” debunking the idea that single player games are dead and will eventually be replaced by live-service titles."
https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dp34k/internal-sony-docs-explain-how-activities-became-a-cornerstone-for-ps5
Nov 30, 2020
"In the next slide, however, Sony explained that, in reality, its internal tracking data shows that "single player is thriving," and PlayStation users are regularly spending more time playing offline than online."
https://rectifygaming.com/single-player-vs-multiplayer-why-single-player-is-superior/
Oct 11, 2016
"Election season has arrived in the United States, and with it the overwhelming darkness at the prospect of choosing between the lesser of two evils. That’s why at Rectify Gaming, we’re proud to take people’s minds off the horrors of the coming November and cover the far superior world of video games. Like politics, gaming is largely split into two camps – the multiplayers and the single players. And while no one loses when choosing between the two, one is undoubtedly better than the other. Of the two, single player games have far more to offer players than their multiplayer counterparts. From the storylines, to how available they are to gamers, to how they are played, right down to the nuts and bolts of the games, single player games are the original and current king of the video game world."
Nice how you chose to cherry pick your information while ignoring actual FINANCIAL results showing multiplayer brings more money and actual facts regarding which are the most current popular games. Well here are actual financial results https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/downloads/47429f88p which concludes: "Publisher should only offer the single-player version when the cost of interaction is high. Depending on the relative proportion of interaction cost and the cost of game stories and challenges, the publisher should develop either just a multi-player version or both versions to maximize profit."
Now more financial facts so you can learn developers seeking big money need to lean towards multiplayer. Below is a list which shows games that have brought the most money to developers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PC_games
Finally a list which outlines the most popular games today and guess what... they're multiplayer games: https://twinfinite.net/features/most-played-games/
Your articles are primarily opinions whereas the ones I have provided outline the actual financial details as well as popularity of what's being played. Heck you can even take a look at the most popular games on Steam so you can learn it's multiplayer games which are popular.
Adding MP isn't as cheap as people on the Steam forum think. Some guy in another gameforum claimed it was a 5-10 hour thing to add....."cause it's just some quick online code" =p
The way a debate goes is that each side makes a claim, then presents data backing up their claim.
i am NOT going to do your work for you.
You know that actual means existing in fact, right? There is nothing in that opinion piece from a University, that is presented with no counter arguments, that shows any actual financial figures from any company's financial sheets.
Interesting that the references they use are primarily online gaming references. Maybe they use these sources for a reason instead of sources supporting SP play? I wonder?
They make this statement in the preface:
"A video game publisher may release a game in a multi- and/or a single-player version. The major
difference between these two versions is that, unlike its single-player counterpart, a multiplayer
game allows its players to cooperate and/or compete with other human players, thus bringing
them additional fun from social interactions."
and this in the body:
"Multiplayer games offer some exciting
new features, especially in the social and the
human intelligence aspects, that single-player
ones lack. "
I wonder which play style these authors support, MP or SP?
The funny part is that the conclusion supports what I am saying as the authors even state that in some cases it is better to only produce a single-player game.
Thanks for the support!
And most players never play the MP side of the game. Just because it is offered, does not mean it is used. I only play MP in Battlefield, but have never played MP in ARMA or any of the TW games.
However, I still bought ARMA and TW as I do like the subjects covered and the support viable single player. That they support MP does not matter to me.
You are taking the false logical view point that just because X, then Y, with no verifiable relationship. The sun does not actually move across the sky even though it looks like it does.
The articles I present are FACTS based on actual surveys and studies backed up by answers provided by players.
Waiting for your articles proving your statements, which should be easy for you. After all, you claimed above that: "There's many online articles covering how multiplayer is more popular, financially more successful".
Not SP and MP, but MP only.
Quite a few of the top 20 are SP-only here...just saying =)
Wondering is all your key skill because clearly STEAM statistics shows which games are the most active and the most popular, but my mistake for providing you a university reference since the mathematics within the article was beyond your comprehension. So feel free to keep ignoring actual statistics from Steam because facing the truth is beyond your skill level.
This is a perfect example of you talking out of both sides of your face... first claiming the university article is unfair by favoring a specific style and then in the very next sentence claiming it's a worthy article of support!! You must be planning to be a politician where you'll be claiming to be against wars yet simultaneously demanding selling weapons to all countries.
Please swallow some truth and review the steam statistics, but something tells me instead you'll keep twisting your mirrors and spewing smoke.
The CONCLUSION point of the university article and this list of games which delivered the most money explains "Depending on the relative proportion of interaction cost and the cost of game stories and challenges, the publisher should develop either just a multi-player version or both versions to maximize profit." This means similar games to those on the list which are ONLY singleplayer make less money.
You are taking the viewpoint of "this is your preference" thus the mathematics, statistics and actual results showing games which have multiplayer as more popular and greatest earning potential do not matter... which is blind logic.
Your articles were 'surveys'... not financial results,,, not statistics showing which games players are playing. When I presented university mathematics, list of games and list of active games you instead try claiming I was talking MP only which never happened.
My original post is asking if this SP game will have MP.... NOT for making the game MP only. So your final sentence is proof you're doing more smoke and mirrors to ignore the facts of the topic because "never did I say MP only."
Let me know when you actually are man enough to realize the facts clearly shown on STEAM, but something tells me that won't happen.
A reply that:
1. purposely misrepresents what I stated to create straw man arguments,
2. still does not contain, despite being specifically asked for it, a single factual based financial link supporting your claim for MP induced financial connections,
3. and most importantly, starts doing ad hominem attacks as you are losing the argument.
As you are showing that you have no desire for an actual debate on the facts, then
I will stop responding to you and leave you to your delusions.