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
8 
Report this post
'Preciate the reply.
Just come across this, in the store, again, and had forgotten that I already asked about split-screen, so I ran a search, before starting a new topic.
Man… looking back at the video, it seems a missed opportunity—I mean, this is MADE for split-screen!
Don't mind my musings on what could have been. Thanks, again, for your initially prompt and polite reply.
So, I saw a thread asking if the game was already dead, from a while back; in response, it was mentioned that there are 100 players on, at any given time… however, according to SteamCharts.com, there are only 5 players on right now, with a peak of 10, on the day, and the most ever being 29.
It made me wonder how developers feel when, inevitably, their game loses it's online playership, rendering it more or less unplayable, for all the years they spent working on it. I know that there appears to be many of whom rail against the inclusion of split-screen, but it really is a play for longevity—a life, after the initial hype fades.
From this angle, do you (developers) not see it as a worthy inclusion (read: worth the extra effort)? I know you guys obviously didn't manage it here, and you mentioned it was on your wishlist… but, with a seemingly unending amount of games coming out with split-screen, these days, it's hard to imagine this would have been magnificantly more difficult to implement.
I play on our big TV and if someone else in the family wants to join in they (or I) have to play on phone/ipad.
Just a note about the numbers playing: this is a multi-platform game with most players on android or iphone/ipad or switch with smaller numbers on PC, PS and xbox. For PC players, the game is also on Epic. I still play every day and there are always players to play with/against.
I suspect the developers (or their accountants!) may be looking at the numbers playing on each platform and the minority PC and consoles would have the main benefit from developing split-screen/local multiplayer versions.
But I think it would be a very big selling point for the PC and console versions and would be intense family or friends fun!
Yeh, idk—I just see it like a special offer at a store, where, for a trivial amount more (buck or two), you get another of whatever you were purchasing (read: huge ROI). That said, I won't pretend to know what the cost of split-screen implementation would be… but, again, based on the many games that have it, these days, it's hard to imagine the number is cripplingly high; factor in that it's less about how much you make, as much as cementing your legacy and protecting your work from ever becoming useless.
I just think it's too bad, but I'm in the minority, as you say. Thanks, heaps, for your reply; I know you're not the developer, but much obliged, all the same.