Take your time! No really take your time. Its a good idea to finish one thing before starting another. Once you guys are done you can do what ever your plans are. Maybe get a bigger team, whatever you want. But I agree that if you are going to make multiplayer to do it after. And maybe take a couple days off.
Multiplayer needs to be implemented at the right moment when all the content is in place, we all know how harsh people are with their reviews when a game does not have the content players want.
If they make it as a separate game then whats the point in buying the original? Also if they have it as two games then that's what i call, My Friends, is a Money grabber! Also it will take a long time to Either clone the game or Remake it. Why no just add it in so its not 2 Different games? Whats the Point!
So, if not short or medium term, why not definitely long term. Also if it requires to redo everything, wouldn't it be smart to do it now, instead of redoing more everything later?
Also, two different games that are the same, just one with multiplayer support really does sound stupid.
I agree with Falco above. Love this game, love everything you are doing, but honestly, learn from the mistakes of others and either decommit from multiplayer entirely or stop progress and start baking it in now. Others have tried to tow that "maybe in a DLC or expansion after release" concept and have failed miserably. Because when its all said and done, there's a point where you reach a maximum threshold and the effort and amount of work required to make the concept work is no longer viable (financially, resource-wise or time-wise).
IF you were going to add multiplayer to this game at all, you would have to do it now before you crossed that threshold. (And I'm one of the arguably few out there that would support you on such a turn.)
But if not, then please, just say multiplayer is not going to happen and be done with it. Otherwise, you are setting up a lot of your fans for major disappointment.
Hopefully, the tone of this post comes off as supportive and constructive (and not a rant), because that is my intention.
I completely agree with the other recent posts here, if multiplayer is going to happen it needs to happen now or never becuase it's still going to take a reasonable amount of time to get everything developed and working properly. I second multiplayer with all my heart, just to share the exploration of the ocean with a friend is worth allot i think.
I honestly wanted to get the game because i thought it WAS co-op. I love surviving with my friends, and this world is beautiful... and I hate playing alone. This post turned me away, so Im glad I found it. Hopefully tho there will be multiplayer.... eventually...
I don't know why they don't do multi-player now. All it would take is to have the option added to the main menu so that (a) we host the game, or (b) we join the game. Because of there only being 2 seats in the escape pod I think it should just be 2 player for the moment (due to small map size and there not being any other pods around). By doing the join/host part it would allow the host computer to do most of the work and just send/receive the player sink data to/from the other computer. Since both computers have all of the same game data for the map and resources all that has to be sent is the information regarding the players and the stuff they build (relatively small amount of data when compared to the map). Also since we have a limit on how fast we can move, build, kill, and destroy stuff it makes it that much easier to do. The devs could even go as far as to use steams multi-player code to get it started (this would just be temporary as steams code is full of bugs but it does work; just look at space engineers).
It would require much more than adding options to the menu. Player identity would need to be established as every UI object would require a completely new logic tree added to it for the extra player(s). And then every logic tree pair would have to be synced so that whether the player is using the object or the extra person in their game is, the resources are consumed and generated properly from the correct inventories. To your point above, constructions and in-game objects becomes a shared resource but so do their inventories. And this includes every lootable object in the game, whether its in a chest, in a player locker or just lying on the ground. New game mechanics like resource polling would have to be introduced to ensure the multiple games remain in sync about what's been looted and where. AI behavior would have to be modified to prioritize new available targets rather than responding to the single player entering their range of influence. The devs weren't kidding when they said it would take months or longer of effectively rebuilding the game from the ground up.
And even if they did do it now, the game they would come back with months from now would be remarkably different from the one you know today. Many of the current mechanics would not work in the new game and be removed or pushed back until they can be redesigned. They simply have too much invested in the current iteration to even consider changing things up for MP. It's just not going to happen.
It would require much more than adding options to the menu. Player identity would need to be established as every UI object would require a completely new logic tree added to it for the extra player(s). And then every logic tree pair would have to be synced so that whether the player is using the object or the extra person in their game is, the resources are consumed and generated properly from the correct inventories. To your point above, constructions and in-game objects becomes a shared resource but so do their inventories. And this includes every lootable object in the game, whether its in a chest, in a player locker or just lying on the ground. New game mechanics like resource polling would have to be introduced to ensure the multiple games remain in sync about what's been looted and where. AI behavior would have to be modified to prioritize new available targets rather than responding to the single player entering their range of influence. The devs weren't kidding when they said it would take months or longer of effectively rebuilding the game from the ground up.
And even if they did do it now, the game they would come back with months from now would be remarkably different from the one you know today. Many of the current mechanics would not work in the new game and be removed or pushed back until they can be redesigned. They simply have too much invested in the current iteration to even consider changing things up for MP. It's just not going to happen.
They could leave most of what you said like it is (creature ai for example). All it really needs is data sync since if a player is using the item then the other can't. The creatures would just go after the first to enter their range or the closest to them. Instead of trying to complicate everything just keep it as simple as possible.
<--- Computer programmer, robotics engineer, and retired US Marine.
I like to stick with a dual moonpool setup. I leave 1 Sea Moth docked and have it named as the "(base name) Pod" as tough it was meant to stay at or near the base just for use around it (kind of like the way the small subs are used near current day under water research bases). Then I have the Cyclops as my main transport ship with its own SM. With a current total of 5 bases built spread out over the map so I have a base nearby for resupply and emergencies.
If they were to add a few more life pods (even if they were sunk) then I could see having more than 2 players (but this is for much later in development). I think they should stick to 2 player co-op only for now (so it is a different game but stuck inside this one with the only difference being the number of players 1 or 2). By doing the 2 in 1 game style setup it will allow them to keep all the work they have doe so far and use a second team to work on the multiplayer side of stuff at the same time. It will also let them pass information back and forth in a way that lets both sides work together toward improving the game even further (by learning from each other). I also think that they should have the area outside of the map setup to be procedural as a placeholder until they finish each new biome. Then once they have decided the map is complete they can have the area outside of that be kept procedural so that the world will feel more like an endless ocean/planet. It would also allow for a much larger capacity of resources for us to use since it would allow them to spawn procedurally as we go.
I don't know why they don't do multi-player now. All it would take is to have the option added to the main menu so that (a) we host the game, or (b) we join the game.
If only it were as simple as adding a couple options to the main menu
Adding Co-Op or multiplayer is not simple, at all. It would require months of work. We want it to happen, but it would mean we basically stop working on the game right now, and do co-op for months. Currently we'd much rather make a great game first, then see if it's feasible for co-op to happen. That being said, most of us on the team want it to happen. We just can't promise it right now.
I don't know why they don't do multi-player now. All it would take is to have the option added to the main menu so that (a) we host the game, or (b) we join the game.
If only it were as simple as adding a couple options to the main menu
Adding Co-Op or multiplayer is not simple, at all. It would require months of work. We want it to happen, but it would mean we basically stop working on the game right now, and do co-op for months. Currently we'd much rather make a great game first, then see if it's feasible for co-op to happen. That being said, most of us on the team want it to happen. We just can't promise it right now.
Hate to be the one to point it out, but everyone else seems to have no want to be the one to speak up. Your game is amazing. Putting off the co-op coding will only make it that much harder later. have someone work on that if you want to work on other stuff, but putting it aside means youll just have to do more work later then may be required now. Dilly dally shilly shally~
That said, the game looks amazing, looks like it performs well, and even SOUNDS amazing. But Im not the only one turned away at the prospect of no co-op. Some people like single player experiances. Alot of us dont. Humans, to iritating, are social. Would it be possible to have someone in your group work on the co-op issue while others do whatever is needed "sooner"?
Would it be possible to have someone in your group work on the co-op issue while others do whatever is needed "sooner"?
Not feasible for just 1 person to do it I'm afraid. As I said in my previous post it would require most, if not all of the programming team months of work. We're a small company and need to choose our battles. We appreciate some people only like multiplayer games and co-op games though, which is why it's not off the table for the future, but no promises.
What about hiring a second team to work with you to do the multi-player part of the game while you keep working on the single-player part. Then if the #2 team finds something that could help the #1 team it can be passed on to them and vise-versa. (Yes I know it may increase the overall cost of the game or possibly even slow down the progress since one of the people from team #1 would have to move over to team #2 as a team leader, but it would also reduce the amount of work that would have to be done later on as you get closer to final release or the update after next.)
On another topic (off subject) since a dev is responding to this thread. Why not have the area outside the current map area setup so that it can be procedural as a place holder until you have the next section finished. Then as you finish each section you just move the procedural area out of the way. This will allow you to have a procedural area set up already for when you decide that the map is complete.
Also of how you make the save not compatible with the new updates. Since when we build our bases too close to or in the solid area of the ground it removes the ground in that space why not have it do this to the new map when it gets updated instead of destroying the base/forcing us to start a new game? (Yes I have many many questions.)
Nothing like minecraft here, about the only thing one could change on the avatar would be the diving suit color maybe? really isn't much point since you can't really see your survivor in a 3rd person view at the present, altering what one can see like the Cyclops, Seamoth colors or maybe even the base you build (Don't know if they even want to implement base colorization) is all there is for you to see and modify for your pleasure, kind of pointless to customize something you can't really see at the moment.
If and when they do put some sort of multiplayer system in they might consider customizing avatars, at the present, waste of time.
I love this game. However, I would really like a co-op or multiplayer experience. One option to consider (you probably have thought about it), I would be willing to throw down extra funds for a DLC that unlocks multiplayer to offset the development costs of hiring more programmers to re-code everything for multiplayer. If you decide to take this route you could even do a kickstarter. We could prepay for the DLC (or donate extra towards the project as an option) and when the total funds reach the "Goal" or target amount to pay for the development of co-op/multiplayer you could then begin the project, if it ends up looking like not enough people are committed to reach the required funding goal then you could scrap the kickstarter and refund (considering how kickstarters go and how amazing this game is in it's unfinished state I find this highly unlikely).
This could even have extra goal points to allow you to speed up development.
What I like about UWE is the fact that they take care of their games for years. I am not affraid of lacking multiplayer or co-op. Damn, believe in the devs littlle bit people They certainly will do the right things for Subnautica and MP (or co-op) is the right thing. If it will take time... Hell, I will wait as long as necesarry ((:
schkorpioI can mspaintJoin Date: 2003-05-23Member: 16635Members
edited November 2015
I almost only exclusively play co-op games these days, so I will be waiting. These types of games really suit co-op too. I just hope the game will still be relevant by the time it's "finished"
If your saying you don't have enough people to work on Co-Op and features at the same time then maybe the team that is working on Future Perfect should be working on Subnautica Co-op instead? Future perfect seems like an odd sort of little pet project to be throwing resources at when you have a major game that's missing a huge feature that MANY MANY players are begging for.
Future Perfect is already on hold anyway , but it's an interesting and useful game-making tool that many would also miss. Plus some people already paid for it.
Comments
Bruh really? Kids these days are so spoiled.
you now, no paying. plz guyz. it herts!
That's because kids are more social than adults. >.<
Don't Starve Together was a hilariously dumb decision.
Also, two different games that are the same, just one with multiplayer support really does sound stupid.
IF you were going to add multiplayer to this game at all, you would have to do it now before you crossed that threshold. (And I'm one of the arguably few out there that would support you on such a turn.)
But if not, then please, just say multiplayer is not going to happen and be done with it. Otherwise, you are setting up a lot of your fans for major disappointment.
Hopefully, the tone of this post comes off as supportive and constructive (and not a rant), because that is my intention.
Just my two cents
And even if they did do it now, the game they would come back with months from now would be remarkably different from the one you know today. Many of the current mechanics would not work in the new game and be removed or pushed back until they can be redesigned. They simply have too much invested in the current iteration to even consider changing things up for MP. It's just not going to happen.
And even if they did do it now, the game they would come back with months from now would be remarkably different from the one you know today. Many of the current mechanics would not work in the new game and be removed or pushed back until they can be redesigned. They simply have too much invested in the current iteration to even consider changing things up for MP. It's just not going to happen.
<--- Computer programmer, robotics engineer, and retired US Marine.
Plus I would have a use for my triple moonpool.
If they were to add a few more life pods (even if they were sunk) then I could see having more than 2 players (but this is for much later in development). I think they should stick to 2 player co-op only for now (so it is a different game but stuck inside this one with the only difference being the number of players 1 or 2). By doing the 2 in 1 game style setup it will allow them to keep all the work they have doe so far and use a second team to work on the multiplayer side of stuff at the same time. It will also let them pass information back and forth in a way that lets both sides work together toward improving the game even further (by learning from each other). I also think that they should have the area outside of the map setup to be procedural as a placeholder until they finish each new biome. Then once they have decided the map is complete they can have the area outside of that be kept procedural so that the world will feel more like an endless ocean/planet. It would also allow for a much larger capacity of resources for us to use since it would allow them to spawn procedurally as we go.
If only it were as simple as adding a couple options to the main menu
Adding Co-Op or multiplayer is not simple, at all. It would require months of work. We want it to happen, but it would mean we basically stop working on the game right now, and do co-op for months. Currently we'd much rather make a great game first, then see if it's feasible for co-op to happen. That being said, most of us on the team want it to happen. We just can't promise it right now.
Hate to be the one to point it out, but everyone else seems to have no want to be the one to speak up. Your game is amazing. Putting off the co-op coding will only make it that much harder later. have someone work on that if you want to work on other stuff, but putting it aside means youll just have to do more work later then may be required now. Dilly dally shilly shally~
That said, the game looks amazing, looks like it performs well, and even SOUNDS amazing. But Im not the only one turned away at the prospect of no co-op. Some people like single player experiances. Alot of us dont. Humans, to iritating, are social. Would it be possible to have someone in your group work on the co-op issue while others do whatever is needed "sooner"?
Not feasible for just 1 person to do it I'm afraid. As I said in my previous post it would require most, if not all of the programming team months of work. We're a small company and need to choose our battles. We appreciate some people only like multiplayer games and co-op games though, which is why it's not off the table for the future, but no promises.
On another topic (off subject) since a dev is responding to this thread. Why not have the area outside the current map area setup so that it can be procedural as a place holder until you have the next section finished. Then as you finish each section you just move the procedural area out of the way. This will allow you to have a procedural area set up already for when you decide that the map is complete.
Also of how you make the save not compatible with the new updates. Since when we build our bases too close to or in the solid area of the ground it removes the ground in that space why not have it do this to the new map when it gets updated instead of destroying the base/forcing us to start a new game? (Yes I have many many questions.)
Nothing like minecraft here, about the only thing one could change on the avatar would be the diving suit color maybe? really isn't much point since you can't really see your survivor in a 3rd person view at the present, altering what one can see like the Cyclops, Seamoth colors or maybe even the base you build (Don't know if they even want to implement base colorization) is all there is for you to see and modify for your pleasure, kind of pointless to customize something you can't really see at the moment.
If and when they do put some sort of multiplayer system in they might consider customizing avatars, at the present, waste of time.
This could even have extra goal points to allow you to speed up development.
Multiplayer yes but onlu co-op ...
I hope SN never become a PVP wargame