So what if we don't have any friends?

[🐭]

The problem isn't that I don't have friends. It's that my friends don't play games. So as fun as this looks, the whole "friends are mandatory" genre is killing me right now.

[Nayelianne]

The local co-op genre is currently very popular, and I'm personally very excited about that. If you feel particularly attracted to the genre perhaps it's in good timing that Steam's remote play together has launched. :)

If you currently don't have friends to play, there's a lot of places and groups where you can find people to co-op with and perhaps even make new friends. I know I saw quite a few open co-op rooms on Parsec for Overcooked too, so this game might be no different.

BUT if you really must play by yourself... the levels I tried on the demo were pretty fun even though I was alone (the difficulty is scaled down for single player, apparently, whereas on Overcooked and Catastronauts I can't even fathom the idea of playing by myself) so I really appreciated that they tried to make it viable for people who don't have friends they could play with.

[🐭]

Originally posted by Nayelianne:

The local co-op genre is currently very popular, and I'm personally very excited about that. If you feel particularly attracted to the genre perhaps it's in good timing that Steam's remote play together has launched. :)

If you currently don't have friends to play, there's a lot of places and groups where you can find people to co-op with and perhaps even make new friends. I know I saw quite a few open co-op rooms on Parsec for Overcooked too, so this game might be no different.

BUT if you really must play by yourself... the levels I tried on the demo were pretty fun even though I was alone (the difficulty is scaled down for single player, apparently, whereas on Overcooked and Catastronauts I can't even fathom the idea of playing by myself) so I really appreciated that they tried to make it viable for people who don't have friends they could play with.

Well you just touched on a larger problem. I'm married, we both have jobs, and we have a kid, so I simply don't have the time to make friends. So the whole 'match making, playing with randoms, one night stand, anonymous glory hole' aspect is more geared for somebody like me who just doesn't have much free time and just wants to jump into and out of a game when the opportunity presents itself. Being able to play with friends in a social setting sounds like an absolutely great time, but it's time I simply don't have. That's why I'm hopeful this 'friends are mandatory' genre will burn itself out soon.

[Nayelianne]

I'm sorry your current schedule doesn't allow you to make new friends, and that you can't get the people in your life to couch-co-op with you for various circumstances... That's unfortunate, but in that case, parsec's built-in matchmaking[support.parsecgaming.com] might be helpful for such games until steam launches a similar feature, no friend-making required.

There's also a huge amount of singleplayer games coming out to be enjoyed, so wanting a genre to burn out just because it doesn't accomodate your personal needs seems a bit aggressive though. I'm a huge fan of board games and it's very hard to find people to come to my home to play, but imagine if I wanted them to stop being made that way, or if I wanted MMORPGs to stop being created because I don't have the time to dedicate to them properly (despite really liking them). I'm not entitled to any of that. And this isn't that much different. The rising popularity of couch- co-op games doesn't erase the existence of good single player games, so there's no need to want the party game genre to burn itself out. I'm sure there's many other games you could enjoy if this one didn't have singleplayer scaling and if parsec's matchmaking with strangers weren't a possibility.

But as I mentioned, the game did scale down the difficulty for holding heavy objects and seemed perfectly playable in single player, so if the launch is any similar to the demo, you can be at ease in that regard.

My guess is that you'll be missing the funny aspect of playing with friends, but you'll still be able to finish the levels without feeling that they're too hard to accomplish alone (In fact, I bet carrying objects in two players is much harder because of the group coordination that it'd require, but that's where the laughs come in).

[🐭]

Originally posted by Nayelianne:

I'm sorry your current schedule doesn't allow you to make new friends, and that you can't get the people in your life to couch-co-op with you for various circumstances... That's unfortunate, but in that case, parsec's built-in matchmaking[support.parsecgaming.com] might be helpful for such games until steam launches a similar feature, no friend-making required.

It sounds like that's exactly what this entire genre needs. I'll try to look into it. Thanks.

Originally posted by Nayelianne:

There's also a huge amount of singleplayer games coming out to be enjoyed, so wanting a genre to burn out just because it doesn't accomodate your personal needs seems a bit aggressive though. I'm a huge fan of board games and it's very hard to find people to come to my home to play, but imagine if I wanted them to stop being made that way, or if I wanted MMORPGs to stop being created because I don't have the time to dedicate to them properly (despite really liking them). I'm not entitled to any of that. And this isn't that much different. The rising popularity of couch- co-op games doesn't erase the existence of good single player games, so there's no need to want the party game genre to burn itself out. I'm sure there's many other games you could enjoy if this one didn't have singleplayer scaling and if parsec's matchmaking with strangers weren't a possibility.

But as I mentioned, the game did scale down the difficulty for holding heavy objects and seemed perfectly playable in single player, so if the launch is any similar to the demo, you can be at ease in that regard.

My guess is that you'll be missing the funny aspect of playing with friends, but you'll still be able to finish the levels without feeling that they're too hard to accomplish alone (In fact, I bet carrying objects in two players is much harder because of the group coordination that it'd require, but that's where the laughs come in).

That's great and all, but there's a world of difference between, "I hope this friends are mandatory genre burns itself out soon." and "This is the cool kids game and only cool kids are allowed to play it! Friendless losers need not apply, so get lost you forever alone nerds!"

If you think those exaggerations are ridiculous, well first you're right. And second, it's every bit as ridiculous as implying single player is the only experience anybody who doesn't like the 'friends are mandatory' genre want. Specifically making a game couch co-op only, instead of allowing for online co-op, is exactly the problem. And if voicing a consumer demand for online multiplayer is akin to kicking in this cool kids club and demanding to be accommodated like an entitled brat, then specifically making a game couch co-op only is snobby high tier elitism.

This, and many games like it, look fun and, unlike with table top board games, it's actually possible to play such games without needing to let somebody fart into your couch and dribble urine on your bathroom floor. So no matter what arguments anybody tries to make, hate towards the 'friends are mandatory' genre will always be justified so long as the game is couch co-op only and playing it with complete strangers online can still be just as fun.

[Nayelianne]

Sorry if previous comment offended you in some way, I didn't mean to sound elitist nor imply that friendless people can't play (it was quite the opposite, in fact, since I was initially trying to provide alternatives for the game to be played regardless of friends).

I guess making comments having just woken up and before eating led me misunderstand and express myself poorly. Since even parsec (which doesn't require friends) didn't seem to be an option for you when I first mentioned it, I assumed the problem wasn't simply about the game being couch co-op, but rather the co-op mechanic itself, and the possibility of it not being singleplayer friendly (despite that it is). I guess I took it a bit personally that you'd want the whole genre to burn, but I understand your point better now.

It's nice to hear you might give parsec a try I hope it works well for you! I definitely saw a lot of open overcooked rooms (and other games) there the last time I used it.

The devs seemed open to the possibility of expanding it to online play at some point, so it might be something they will look into after launch. The implementation of online features with strangers can be very demanding on a small team (I'm not sure how big the team is) and can open a whole new can of worms and bugs, so it might be a while if it ever happens, depending on their projects.

Overcooked 2 for example added the much requested online co-op that wasn't available on the first game, but was extremely criticized for its level design and other quirks and online multiplayer problems when it launched, ultimately disappointing quite a few fans of the first game.
That sort of thing can really burn a game on its first release (and at least in the past, a game's success was marked around launch day, with a decreasing trend in revenue as time went by, unless new features were added and sales brought the attention back to it).

So my guess is that the lack of online at launch for Moving Out is partly to allow devs to focus their energy on firstly making sure they have a game that plays well, and then evaluating if online is worth the investment. I'm sure they know that it is a feature that might attract a bigger playerbase down the line, so let's hope for the best. :)

[🐭]

Originally posted by Nayelianne:

snip

Yeah I didn't mean co-op as a whole. I just meant the aspect where I absolutely need to know somebody just to play.

It's a good thing you brought up Overcooked 2 though. I've been thinking about that game a lot too, but I wasn't sure if I should get it because of the same exact "friends are mandatory" issue. But now that you've said it has online co-op, I may be getting it soon now.

I have a quick question though. I briefly skimmed their site for a minute and got a "selling direct to consumer" vibe from it. Does Parsec cost money?

[Nayelianne]

Originally posted by 🐭:

Yeah I didn't mean co-op as a whole. I just meant the aspect where I absolutely need to know somebody just to play.

It's a good thing you brought up Overcooked 2 though. I've been thinking about that game a lot too, but I wasn't sure if I should get it because of the same exact "friends are mandatory" issue. But now that you've said it has online co-op, I may be getting it soon now.

Hmm, overcooked 2 does have online co-op, but I don't own it so I can't confirm if it also has matchmaking with strangers though.

Originally posted by 🐭:

I have a quick question though. I briefly skimmed their site for a minute and got a "selling direct to consumer" vibe from it. Does Parsec cost money?

Parsec was free when I used it to play games, unless they changed something it should still be good. Perhaps it offered a monthly fee if you wanted to install and run games from a computer on the cloud instead of your own though. Browsing through their FAQ I found this:

"The core software is free to use. We offer a way to support the Parsec Software through our Warp Package. You can learn more about Warp here[support.parsecgaming.com]. To be clear, the streaming software and core functionality will remain free. We will not compromise the quality of the stream or hide features that are important to a great experience with Parsec. We set out to build the best game streaming software in the world, and we will not compromise that by blocking your access to that streaming functionality. Warp will come with badges, early access to features, and themes among other things.

In addition to that, we license an SDK version of Parsec[parsecgaming.com] to companies looking to incorporate low latency streaming into their software.

If you're a game developer looking to add online multiplayer to your game, check out our Game Developer SDK[parsecgaming.com]."

https://support.parsecgaming.com/hc/en-us/articles/115002701971-How-Does-Parsec-Make-Money-

So seems like it still stands true. xD

[🐭]

Originally posted by Nayelianne:

Parsec

Well I've been playing with Parsec off and on today and, my god, what a spectacle it was. People playing single player games, a full second input lag, lots of graphical lag, connection issues, and black screens everywhere.

There's certainly potential there, if not for one major problem. You can't host games if you're on Linux. Or MacOS. Or even Windows, unless you're on 8.1 or higher. This instantly nullifies any motivation I have to buy any couch co-op only game. At this point, I would have to see if I could run Parsec through Valve's Proton and trick it into thinking I'm on win10 or something.

And I want to take a moment to reflect on how many layers of helper programs I need now just to make up for the laziness here. I need to run Parsec through Proton, cause hosting is Windows only, and I need to run games like Moving Out and Out of Space through Proton, cause they're Windows only, just so I can play those games with other people, because they're couch co-op only. And this is an interesting junction to be at because anytime somebody requests a Linux port, a developer will often make an excuse along the lines of, "well nobody uses Linux." But what could be said here? If not making a Linux port is justifiable because "nobody uses Linux", then what's the justification for making a game couch co-op only? Is it because "nobody plays online co-op"?

10,000 different Linux users: "Can you make a Linux port?"
The developers in 10,000 different replies: "No, because nobody uses Linux."

10,000 different gamers: "Can you add online co-op?"
The developers in 10,000 different replies: "No, because nobody... uses Linux."

This whole "I don't use it so I don't see why anybody else would use it either" mentality needs to come to an end. It's one of the most arrogant excuses people use to justify laziness and negligence. How can anybody know for sure how great the demand is, if nobody ever tries to meet it? Make the product and let the results speak for themselves.

/rant

Anyways, I look forward to playing with Parsec some more. It's a bit of a dead avenue though, until I can find a way to host games myself. Having to live with whatever is available at the moment there, and other people's terrible internet and hardware, is a pain for sure. But there is fun to be had in there somewhere.

Also, I would hate to be Parsec because I'm pretty sure they're well on their way to a lawsuit. People playing these games for free? Nobody banning people hosting emulators and roms, including The Switch emulator? Nintendo assets as the default avatars? Companies like Sony and Nintendo have sued for less. Google especially would want to get in on that beat down because this is in direct competition with Stadia, and they're partnered with big name AAA companies. Those companies desperately want to turn video games into a subscription service that you have as little ownership in as possible, and because of the partnership, it's in Google's best interest to keep those companies happy. The second any of them catch wind of Parsec, the ♥♥♥♥ will hit the fan. Parsec is a dead man walking and doesn't even know it yet. So I'm going to try to enjoy it while it's still around.

[SMG Studio]

Thanks for hefty discussion. The game also is playable single player. And we will have an 'assist' mode to enable to allow younger kids and those with different abilities to enjoy the game. You can turn off certain things in the game that can become barriers.

So I hope that helps make the game more enjoyable.

Also Parsec mentioned above is great. And free!

[noxteryn]

Guys, if you can't play this particular type of games, why do you wish it to "die out" or "burn itself out"? Are you really so bitter that you don't want others to have fun just because you can't? Play the games made for you and let other people play the games made for them. Sure, ideally, all games should accommodate all players, but I would rather the developers focus on making the game they want than waste precious time on features that appeal to every demographic. If, for example, a dev spends more time working on bot AI to make a game more fun without other players, that's less time they're going to spend polishing the rest of the game.

[🐭]

See? Once again the attitude is, "Why can't you friendless losers just stay in your little corner? This is the cool kids club! You're not popular enough to be a part of this!" Well here's a better question. Why did the popular crowd ever change their mind on games? I miss the way things used to be, when video games were 'for nerds' and popular people just made a look of disgust when you told them you play them. Video games going mainstream was the biggest mistake the industry ever made. The popular crowd should have just stuck to drinking, Limp Bizcet, flip cup, and teen pregnancy.

But to answer your question, here's the problem. The bulk of the games "made for us" these days are ♥♥♥♥♥♥ single player games like walking sims and COD, and garbage multiplayer games like battle royales and COD. There is no denying that many of these couch co-op games are much more fun and absolutely don't need to be chained to the couch co-op only experience. But they are, and it doesn't seem to be for any glaringly obvious reason. The technology has advanced, and become cheaper and so much more available, so it is easier now than ever to support online co-op. If it's still too much work now, then how much easier does it need to be in the future before it can happen? When will the "it's simply too much work for a tiny team of 5,000 people" excuse finally no longer be tossed around by the general public? Does a better excuse have to be invented first?

[SMG Studio]

Originally posted by 🐭:

The technology has advanced, and become cheaper and so much more available, so it is easier now than ever to support online co-op. If it's still too much work now, then how much easier does it need to be in the future before it can happen?

I just want to answer on this.

It's a very thorny topic as there is no simple answer.

1: It's easier than it was before but it's still harder than making a local game. There's not just the code side (which is MUCH more complex when you have physics and fast paced games) but the UX/UI to enable it and then testing. Add to that potential cost to run servers and you have a potential 25-100% increase in development costs.

1A: It also depends on your code base and platform. Unity/Unreal have more support here others dont. If you try to add online LATE then it's a lot of 4 steps back 1 step fwd.

For Moving Out we have coded with online in mind but wont launch with it. For many reasons but mainly the risk to overall quality of the launch game and the time/cost to get this through consoles. There is 4x the paperwork and testing for Xbox and PS4 and Switch if you want online. That's 4x the work x 3 platforms... (Steam is about double the paperwork/testing)

The call was made to focus on making the game awesome and release then discuss plans.

2: Remote Play Together / PARSEC have all come in to solve these issues. While not perfect they are pretty damn good

3: Moving Out can be played in Single Player also. It shines with 2+ but it's not exclusively multiplayer like some games are.

I hope this gives context for both sides.


cheers
Ash@SMG

[🐭]

Originally posted by SMG Studio:

Originally posted by 🐭:

The technology has advanced, and become cheaper and so much more available, so it is easier now than ever to support online co-op. If it's still too much work now, then how much easier does it need to be in the future before it can happen?

I just want to answer on this.

It's a very thorny topic as there is no simple answer.

1: It's easier than it was before but it's still harder than making a local game. There's not just the code side (which is MUCH more complex when you have physics and fast paced games) but the UX/UI to enable it and then testing. Add to that potential cost to run servers and you have a potential 25-100% increase in development costs.

1A: It also depends on your code base and platform. Unity/Unreal have more support here others dont. If you try to add online LATE then it's a lot of 4 steps back 1 step fwd.

For Moving Out we have coded with online in mind but wont launch with it. For many reasons but mainly the risk to overall quality of the launch game and the time/cost to get this through consoles. There is 4x the paperwork and testing for Xbox and PS4 and Switch if you want online. That's 4x the work x 3 platforms... (Steam is about double the paperwork/testing)

The call was made to focus on making the game awesome and release then discuss plans.

2: Remote Play Together / PARSEC have all come in to solve these issues. While not perfect they are pretty damn good

3: Moving Out can be played in Single Player also. It shines with 2+ but it's not exclusively multiplayer like some games are.

I hope this gives context for both sides.


cheers
Ash@SMG

Thank you! I couldn't have said it better myself. It's not some arbitrary multi-million dollar sum, or a task that requires outsourcing to another company, or even the selling of several dozen souls. Most of the obstacles can be minimized with proper pre-planning. It's ridiculous the kinds of things that dwell in the imaginations of the people who defend with speculations.

But on the topic of speculations, I've always speculated on the legal aspects of a larger project. How many hoops do you have to jump through just to get the green light from a larger company like MS or Sony? Presumably you needed a lawyer for it? How long does it take to get through that whole process with them?

Also, doesn't the game have to specifically be programmed to make use of Remote Play Together's API before RPT will even do anything? Like there's pretty much no chance long dead games from a decade ago will ever support RPT, right? Or am I misunderstanding what's happening there?

[SMG Studio]

Legal: not that much legal stuff to get a game on a platform. For Xbox and Playstation you need to submit a game idea doc. So they approve that and your team essentially. This is to avoid some of the questionable games that might pop up. This takes about a week. Then you have the usual developer agreements to sign but like the ones from Apple and Google they are 100 pages long and you just sign them.

The online stuff is down per game. And you need to sign extra privacy stuff and then they audit that and add several layers of testing on that.

As for Remote Play Together and Parsec. No new code is needed. Our older game Death Squared worked out of the box. It's all handled on Steam's side. It essentially streams the remote player your screen and sends THAT players controls to your computer. The game essentially thinks you are sitting next to each other.

[🐭]

Originally posted by SMG Studio:

Legal: not that much legal stuff to get a game on a platform. For Xbox and Playstation you need to submit a game idea doc. So they approve that and your team essentially. This is to avoid some of the questionable games that might pop up. This takes about a week. Then you have the usual developer agreements to sign but like the ones from Apple and Google they are 100 pages long and you just sign them.

The online stuff is down per game. And you need to sign extra privacy stuff and then they audit that and add several layers of testing on that.

That process sounds so much faster than I thought it would be. I remember hearing stories about trying to get a licence from Apple just to sell programs on there. That put me off of Apple for sure. But that was over a decade ago too though so I don't know what it's like now.

Originally posted by SMG Studio:

As for Remote Play Together and Parsec. No new code is needed. Our older game Death Squared worked out of the box. It's all handled on Steam's side. It essentially streams the remote player your screen and sends THAT players controls to your computer. The game essentially thinks you are sitting next to each other.

Then why is it so poorly supported? I have 698 games in my library and only 86 of them actually support RPT.

Also, you still need friends to make use of RPT so that shouldn't even count really. I forgot to bring that up earlier.