What drives you to play single-player if DST is newer?

[Machine Reaper]

Wagstaff and Adventure Mode.

[PunkShark]

beautiful colors, one thing i can feel i'm tired of is the normal world of DS. The old dead and dark style which i of course will always love, that being said SW and hamlet has taken its place for me, it has changed so much its hard to go back to the old roots. Then again, most of us has been through this bandwagon for years ever since the beginning.

And while DST has multiplayer there's just something that is missing when i'm playing it... idk if its more content (although i hope the newest content can keep me interested again) or if its music or colors or what it is.

Like, multiplayer is fun, but i'm more so thrived to play singleplayer all the time lately.

 

[Crimson Chin]

I will never understand the decision to continue development on singleplayer even after multiplayer came out. It is not hard to satisfy everyone. They could have very well scaled mobs hp to amount of players and designed things with solo play in mind too. I love both of the singleplayer DLCS, but am more disappointed that I have to play them on DS and can't on DST. As of now, nearly all of the DST content could be played solo if they did what I said and tweaked mob hp and AI if you are playing solo.

It is also just very confusing for new players looking to buy the game, they have what are essentially the same two games being sold separately on the steam store with separate content. DST should have been the sequel to DS, it is right now the more polished game. If it were designed to be played solo too, it would have made everyone happy.

Some people here are listing some of the awesome stuff from Hamlet, but that could have been just as awesome on DST. 

[Owlrust]

27 minutes ago, Crimson Chin said:

I will never understand the decision to continue development on singleplayer even after multiplayer came out. It is not hard to satisfy everyone. They could have very well scaled mobs hp to amount of players and designed things with solo play in mind too. I love both of the singleplayer DLCS, but am more disappointed that I have to play them on DS and can't on DST. As of now, nearly all of the DST content could be played solo if they did what I said and tweaked mob hp and AI if you are playing solo.

It is also just very confusing for new players looking to buy the game, they have what are essentially the same two games being sold separately on the steam store with separate content. DST should have been the sequel to DS, it is right now the more polished game. If it were designed to be played solo too, it would have made everyone happy.

Some people here are listing some of the awesome stuff from Hamlet, but that could have been just as awesome on DST. 

I always thought it'd be nice to see one single launcher for the game that lets you choose what you want to play. Think Rare Replay style of selection. IMO of course

[minespatch]

I get to play singleplayer without people invading my base. DST is when I want strangers to come over.

[Computer-7]

15 hours ago, Crimson Chin said:

I will never understand the decision to continue development on singleplayer even after multiplayer came out. It is not hard to satisfy everyone. They could have very well scaled mobs hp to amount of players and designed things with solo play in mind too. I love both of the singleplayer DLCS, but am more disappointed that I have to play them on DS and can't on DST. As of now, nearly all of the DST content could be played solo if they did what I said and tweaked mob hp and AI if you are playing solo.

It is also just very confusing for new players looking to buy the game, they have what are essentially the same two games being sold separately on the steam store with separate content. DST should have been the sequel to DS, it is right now the more polished game. If it were designed to be played solo too, it would have made everyone happy.

Some people here are listing some of the awesome stuff from Hamlet, but that could have been just as awesome on DST. 

I never understood why dst and ds are different games this problem wouldn't exist if they just decided to make dst a dlc or something.

[inferjus4]

9 minutes ago, Computer-7 said:

I never understood why dst and ds are different games this problem wouldn't exist if they just decided to make dst a dlc or something.

Klei could merge somehow those two games, but it looks like it is hard to implement or has no sense.

[4 Da LOLs]

1 hour ago, Computer-7 said:

I never understood why dst and ds are different games this problem wouldn't exist if they just decided to make dst a dlc or something.

its because the base code of DS is spaghetti compared to DST

[Computer-7]

46 minutes ago, 4 Da LOLs said:

its because the base code of DS is spaghetti compared to DST

so they decided to make a new engine for a game they didn't think they would work on very much past adding caves.

[GetNerfedOn]

 - the Dry Season Work Theme

 - caves and ruins can actually run in DS alone on my crappy laptop, unlike in DST where it cant

- you can bring Rock Lobsters to the surface

- Teleportato-based World Regen

- many other reasons already aforementioned

[Machine Reaper]

2 hours ago, Computer-7 said:

so they decided to make a new engine for a game they didn't think they would work on very much past adding caves.

not really, the community back then was begging for a multiplayer version, we were given a DS Multiplayer version that had same health system as vanilla DS but it was only DS Vanilla content.

[Rellimarual]

On 5/20/2019 at 5:21 PM, Crimson Chin said:

I will never understand the decision to continue development on singleplayer even after multiplayer came out

You may not ever understand it, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t good reasons for it.

What I will never understand is why some people think that multiplayer automatically makes single player obsolete. It’s not a given that multiplayer games are better than single player, especially DS, which the devs conceived of as a SP game and resisted adapting to MP because they felt it wasn’t a great fit. Lots of people prefer SP and right now I am super thankful for the continued development of it because my current living situation makes playing an online game impractical.

[Crimson Chin]

31 minutes ago, Rellimarual said:

You may not ever understand it, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t good reasons for it.

What I will never understand is why some people think that multiplayer automatically makes single player obsolete. It’s not a given that multiplayer games are better than single player, especially DS, which the devs conceived of as a SP game and resisted adapting to MP because they felt it wasn’t a great fit. Lots of people prefer SP and right now I am super thankful for the continued development of it because my current living situation makes playing an online game impractical.

You seem to have entirely missed my point in this thread and the other thread you replied to me in. DST is the sequel to don't starve. It makes no sense to continue supporting DS. The multiplayer part doesn't even have to matter.  They could have made Hamlet for DST and it would have been just as enjoyable for solo players and people who like multiplayer. I don't get what is so hard to understand about that. It is purely a good thing. If content was designed for multiplayer and solo play everyone would be able to enjoy it the way they want. Everyone would be happy, including you!

Singleplayer is obsolete because it is the inferior game.The DLCs are all it has going for it, but as I said many times could be enjoyed alone on DST if they were playable there. It runs on the older engine and is just a less polished DST. I am not saying that a singleplayer mode shouldn't be a thing... I'm practically begging for solo play on DST. I'll explain that again, I guess. If DST had a solo play option singleplayer would actually become obsolete, which is what should have happen right when DST was released. If the game scaled depending on the player count you would be able to play alone just fine. All of DST's content right now would be completely playable alone if they just did some minor tweaks if you selected a "solo play" mode or something when making a world.

I completely understand people who enjoy playing alone because of connection issues, but connection issues don't exist if you are playing alone on DST. Hosts don't lag. The only time lag is an issue is when you are playing with others. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I know little about this stuff. I just don't see why a host would be lagging. If there are any issues with lag, it is most likely due to some bug, and not connection issues. I realize the game checks your account for your skins, and that requires a connection, but as someone said in the other thread this issue doesn't matter. They are just skins. Not to mention, there are probably work arounds for issues like these. I'm not a game developer, but I doubt it is impossible to fix Wortox and even skins being unavailable if you lack an internet connection. But, hey if i'm wrong and that is completely impossible, you still wouldn't be lagging as you are the host of your own game. The problem that people who want to play solo have is that the game does not scale or tweak mobs at all. It is nearly impossible to do any of the raid bosses alone. That's why I want a solo play mode.

Really, this would benefit everybody, including you.

[Rellimarual]

31 minutes ago, Crimson Chin said:

completely understand people who enjoy playing alone because of connection issues, but connection issues don't exist if you are playing alone on DST. Hosts don't lag. The only time lag is an issue is when you are playing with others. Please correct me if I'm wrong

You’re wrong. The solo player’s computer still needs to connect to Klei servers, and performance issues worsen if you have weak internet access and you’re running caves. Hosts do lag. It’s worse with more users but hosts still lag. 

Hosts don’t lag when they play offline, but if you play off line you can’t use skins or for-pay characters like Wortox. That’s not acceptable to the majority of DST players.

 

[Machine Reaper]

20 minutes ago, Crimson Chin said:

snip

your suggestion of having a Dynamic scaling system in DST which can allow Solo players to have lesser health mobs that are easier for a single player to kill then I'm very much up for it, infact I believe another game I play called Zandronum (DOS Doom Multiplayer port) it has a special dynamic health/damage modifier which adjusts health of monsters and their damage to you and to themselves according to number of players, not only that but Monsters multiply in numbers if there are more then 2 players in a level, essentially balancing the game out.

if this can be done in DST and content of SW and HAM brought over later on (SW seems to be already floating in DST realm now) then it will not only make the game playable by users that enjoy Solo, it will also greatly benefit Coop players who want to be in a world like HAM/SW  Together.
 

so yeah, I think Klei should only focus on DST and make the game Dynamic that Solo plays can be enjoyable and they won't have to make new content for DS which is not working out properly and is only taking more effort to make it as good as DST.

 

Spoiler

Not gonna lie but I have been playing DST solo for quite a long time but I have never been able to take on mobs that require several playesr to beat and some tricks and tips do come in handy but they still feel out of place and less enjoyable

 

3 minutes ago, Rellimarual said:

You’re wrong. The solo player’s computer still needs to connect to Klei servers, and performance issues worsen if you have weak internet access and you’re running caves. Hosts do lag. It’s worse with more users but hosts still lag. 

Hosts don’t lag when they play offline, but if you play off line you can’t use skins or for-pay characters like Wortox.

He meant playing the game completely offline with an offline server, he didn't mean by making the server online and then playing it.

and skins/special characters can be MADE playable offline by buying them first and making them available to players offline who have bought them just like the game itself.

Klei hasn't done that yet so I'm still waiting tho its not a big deal.
 

[Rellimarual]

2 minutes ago, MWY said:

He meant playing the game completely offline with an offline server, he didn't mean by making the server online and then playing it.

I’m not sure he does mean that, but as I said, most solo DST players play online because they want to use skins and for-pay characters.

If you want the mobs and bosses’ health to scale according to the number of players, just use the Health Adjust mod, for crying out loud! The last thing I’d want is for Klei devs to waste their time on something like that when there’s a mod that already does it perfectly well.

[Machine Reaper]

Just now, Rellimarual said:

I’m not sure he does mean that, but as I said, most solo DST players play online because they want to use skins and for-pay characters.

If you want the mobs and bosses’ health to scale according to the number of players, just use the Health Adjust mod, for crying out loud! The last thing I’d want is for Klei devs to waste their time on something like that when there’s a mod that already does it perfectly well.

There is also a mod of skins and characters that you can use to play with them offline for crying out loud.

we are suggesting a solution where there won't be 2 games where players of one game will be continuously disappointed and players of other will always get the better stuff, DS and DST should become combined and form into a single game that all can play and enjoy instead of two games in which one is inferior to the other and double the work for Klei.

if you don't want that tho, then we will continue to cry that DS is not getting the same attention as DST.

[Rellimarual]

There is a mod enabling the use of all skins in *single player.* There is no such mod in multiplayer because Klei prohibits it, for obvious reasons.

Look, the question was “Why play single player DS?” For many players, including myself, one answer is that DS performs better than DST when one’s internet connection or computer is weak. I still play solo DST, but less often since moving to a rural area with satellite internet. It’s great to have an alternative in DS, where the game’s performance is not hobbled for the sake of a feature (multiplayer) that I’m not even using. I don’t want that choice taken away. Having two different games just doesn’t seem like that big of a deal to me. The game’s are cheap and having to quit one to launch the other is much less aggravating than being forced to play a laggy game.

[pe5e]

7 hours ago, Crimson Chin said:

You seem to have entirely missed my point in this thread and the other thread you replied to me in. DST is the sequel to don't starve. It makes no sense to continue supporting DS. The multiplayer part doesn't even have to matter.  They could have made Hamlet for DST and it would have been just as enjoyable for solo players and people who like multiplayer. I don't get what is so hard to understand about that. It is purely a good thing. If content was designed for multiplayer and solo play everyone would be able to enjoy it the way they want. Everyone would be happy, including you!

There is so much wrong with this, I dont even know where to start. How is DST a sequel to DS? It is clearly not and Klei also never claimed this. I also find it hilarious that you say he missed the point of the thread and you yourself ignore a full thread page of resons why people rather play single player instead of DST and even claim that continuing to support DS makes no sense. What an arrogant thing to say to those people. Not to mention that trying to combining both games is nearly impossible without having to drasticly change how some things work like the teleportato, sublayer worlds an linking worlds. I highly doubt it is even possible at all. Hamlet for DST would have never worked for the same reason that mods in single player that combine DLCs into one world always fail. The themes of the different world just dont fit together in one world and make it seem incredible artificial. And before you say that they bring over some SW stuff. They are clearly not. The new DST update is nothig like SW just because there are now boats in it.

Singleplayer is obsolete because it is the inferior game.The DLCs are all it has going for it, but as I said many times could be enjoyed alone on DST if they were playable there. It runs on the older engine and is just a less polished DST. I am not saying that a singleplayer mode shouldn't be a thing... I'm practically begging for solo play on DST. I'll explain that again, I guess. If DST had a solo play option singleplayer would actually become obsolete, which is what should have happen right when DST was released. If the game scaled depending on the player count you would be able to play alone just fine. All of DST's content right now would be completely playable alone if they just did some minor tweaks if you selected a "solo play" mode or something when making a world.

Again being completely arrogant and ignoring all the reasons posted here. DS is not the inferior game, many believe it is better if you only consinder solo play. You are pushing this ******** view with nothing to back it up and just grab those things from thin air.

It all comes across as you just being incredibly mad that you cant play SW and Hamlet in DST, so you on a rampage to thrash single player. Get of your high horse and accept that people see things differnt here. If you really cant bring yourself to play DS then simple wait for the mods.

Really, this would benefit everybody, including you.

No, it wouldnt benefit everyone. That is totally short-sighted and ingnores all the problems that would come with it. It is simple, really: DS is the far superior option if you want to play solo, if you want to play with some friends go ahead and play DST. Solo DST is just worse in about every single way from DS.

 

[Crimson Chin]

1 hour ago, pe5e said:

here is so much wrong with this, I dont even know where to start. How is DST a sequel to DS? It is clearly not and Klei also never claimed this. I also find it hilarious that you say he missed the point of the thread and you yourself ignore a full thread page of resons why people rather play single player instead of DST and even claim that continuing to support DS makes no sense. What an arrogant thing to say to those people. Not to mention that trying to combining both games is nearly impossible without having to drasticly change how some things work like the teleportato, sublayer worlds an linking worlds. I highly doubt it is even possible at all. Hamlet for DST would have never worked for the same reason that mods in single player that combine DLCs into one world always fail. The themes of the different world just dont fit together in one world and make it seem incredible artificial. And before you say that they bring over some SW stuff. They are clearly not. The new DST update is nothig like SW just because there are now boats in 

 I realize now that I said thread and not post, my apologies. What I meant is that he missed the point of my posts. I'm not going to defend DST being a sequel though, because I'd say you are right about that. They are the exact same game, DS is just the lesser one. Arrogant? I'm not sure why are you are getting upset by what I am saying and now calling me names, but really I am sorry if I came of as rude. If anything, I want everyone to be happy, including you. As I said in post, I want all players to enjoy Klei's wonderful content in the ways they want. I also wasn't suggesting combining the games at this point, If they wanted DST to be a DLC for DS back then, sure, but they didn't do that and we are way to far into development. What I'm asking for is for them to focus on one game and working to make everyone happy there, solo players and people who like multiplayer.

Quote

Hamlet for DST would have never worked for the same reason that mods in single player that combine DLCs into one world always fail. The themes of the different world just dont fit together in one world and make it seem incredible artificial. And before you say that they bring over some SW stuff. They are clearly not. The new DST update is nothig like SW just because there are now boats in it.

Once again, I would like if they ported the DLCs over, but I understand that's unreasonable to ask for at this point. I'm just saying that if Hamlet was designed from the ground up for solo play and multiplayer, and then put on DST instead of singleplayer, the devs would be in a much better situation now, and everyone would be happy, again including you! The devs clearly are having issues with developing content for singleplayer, I would say its due to the lack of resources, giving 12k copies away for free and the far smaller playerbase. Please understand that this would help the players and the devs. The devs would be rewarded much more by making content for DST as it has the much bigger playerbase. And as I said many times in my posts, if solo play was a thing for DST, everyone would be just as happy there.

 

8 hours ago, Rellimarual said:

 Having two different games just doesn’t seem like that big of a deal to me. The game’s are cheap and having to quit one to launch the other is much less aggravating than being forced to play a laggy game.

I'm not sure you realize how silly this looks on the steam store. Imagine you are a new player looking to purchase the game and find that there appears to be two versions of the same game on the steam store. This is extremely confusing and unnecessary. 

9 hours ago, Rellimarual said:

I’m not sure he does mean that, but as I said, most solo DST players play online because they want to use skins and for-pay characters.

If you want the mobs and bosses’ health to scale according to the number of players, just use the Health Adjust mod, for crying out loud! The last thing I’d want is for Klei devs to waste their time on something like that when there’s a mod that already does it perfectly well.

Once again, there are easy solutions to these problems. It is absolutely worth the Dev's time to fix them. Also, I'm sorry, but this logic that mods fix everything is very upsetting. Why should players have to go out and subscribe to mods that do things the game should be able to do? This is another thing that is definitely worth the dev's time. Not to mention, these mods just scale HP. There are other things that can be tweaked to make DST more enjoyable for solo play. 

[pe5e]

4 minutes ago, Crimson Chin said:

What? I said my post, not the point of the thread. I'm not going to defend DST being a sequel though, because I'd say you are right about that. They are the exact same game, DS is just the lesser one. Arrogant? I'm not sure why are you are getting upset by what I am saying and now calling me names, but really I am sorry if I came of as rude. If anything, I want everyone to be happy, including you. As I said in post, I want all players to enjoy Klei's wonderful content in the ways they want. I also wasn't suggesting combining the games at this point, If they wanted DST to be a DLC for DS back then, sure, but they didn't do that and we are way to far into development. What I'm asking for is for them to focus on one game and working to make everyone happy there, solo players and people who like multiplayer.

You say it again and again that DS is the lesser version, but didnt mention yet why you think so. This thread points out many reason why a lot of people dont think so. I also dont understand why you keep saying they should focus on one game when DS and DST have two different teams?! I didnt want to come off as rude either but you keep saying really utopian and oversimplyfing stuff without mentioning why you think so or how this should be achived, so it just comes off as arrogant. If that wasnt your intention then fine, but a bit of clarification would be nice. One can wish for a lot but without reasoning or ideas it doesnt mean much.

Once again, I would like if they ported the DLCs over, but I understand that's unreasonable to ask for at this point. I'm just saying that if Hamlet was designed from the ground up for solo play and multiplayer, and then put on DST instead of singleplayer, the devs would be in a much better situation now, and everyone would be happy, again including you! The devs clearly are having issues with developing content for singleplayer, I would say its due to the lack of resources, giving 12k copies away for free and the far smaller playerbase. Please understand that this would help the players and the devs. The devs would be rewarded much more by making content for DST as it has the much bigger playerbase. And as I said many times in my posts, if solo play was a thing for DST, everyone would be just as happy there.

Again, no reasons are given. WHY do you think it would have been better if Hamlet was created for DST instead of DS? WHY do you think 2 games are a problem and if you dont think they are, WHY should it be a problem that players from DST also buy DS to play those DLCs? WHY would Klei be better off with your solution? WHY would everyone be much better off? 
Just a lot of assumption with no reasons given.

I'm not sure you realize how silly this looks on the steam store. Imagine you are a new player looking to purchase the game and find that there appears to be two versions of the same game on the steam store. This is extremely confusing and unnecessary. 

There seems to be our misunderstanding. DS and DST are not the same game. They have the same basics but that is about it. Also, how is DS and DST both being on steam confusing? DS like most survial games is a single player game, so no suprise there. And DST has its multiplayer aspect right there in the title as well as the first sentence of its description on steam. Seems very clear to me what both games are geared towards.

 

[Crimson Chin]

Ok, apologies, but I have no idea how to quote on mobile so im just going to reply your points in order, pe5e.

1. DS is the lesser game. It is less polished and runs on the older engine. It also .. well lacks multiplayer, an optional feature that purely adds to the experience. There is no reason to purchase DS now that DST exists, well that is if solo play existed. And your point about them being two different teams, I absolutely believe it would be beneficial for them to merge and work together. They are both talented teams and if they work together I believe they could accomplish great things. Once again, this would benefit the devs. The Hamlet team got little for their efforts on Hamlet, thats part of the reason I believe it was rushed out and released so suddenly. Why do you think the devs should continue wasting their time making content exclusive to their lesser game when it can be enjoyed by everyone on DST, solo or together? DST has the much larger player base. Their work would be rewarded and people would be able to enjoy it how they wanted to.

2.They are selling two versions of the same game on the store. This is extremely confusing for users looking to purchase the game. I already did explain most of these, but ill do it again. If Hamlet was designed for DST not only would it be exposed to a bigger player base, players could enjoy it anyway they want to. Solo or together. I am sorry, but players shouldn't have to purchase a lesser version of the game to play DLCs that could have very well been designed to work on DST too.

3. Wow. You keep saying I am not explaining my points, but why do you think DS and DST are not the same games? And maybe its not confusing to us, but I assure you this is confusing to random users looking to buy the game. Multiplayer doesn't usually justify releasing a copy of the same game just with online play. I understand why they made this decision, but people who have no idea about the Don't Starve franchise will not understand this. Its very silly.

[pe5e]

19 minutes ago, Crimson Chin said:

1. DS is the lesser game. It is less polished and runs on the older engine. It also .. well lacks multiplayer, an optional feature that purely adds to the experience. There is no reason to purchase DS now that DST exists, well that is if solo play existed. And your point about them being two different teams, I absolutely believe it would be beneficial for them to merge and work together. They are both talented teams and if they work together I believe they could accomplish great things. Once again, this would benefit the devs. The Hamlet team got little for their efforts on Hamlet, thats part of the reason I believe it was rushed out and released so suddenly. Why do you think the devs should continue wasting their time making content exclusive to their lesser game when it can be enjoyed by everyone on DST, solo or together? DST has the much larger player base. Their work would be rewarded and people would be able to enjoy it how they wanted to.

I am sorry but this seems silly to me. You see DS as less because it was built earlier and doesnt have multiplayer? Those are your resons? The DS engine is fine and personally I think DS is polished better than DST (for reasons look at some points made in the thread like mob health etc.). That it doesnt have multiplayer shouldnt be an issue because people that bought DS werent looking for multiplayer. Otherwise they would have bought DST. No, they were looking for a single player survial game. Also, I doublt that Klei would even make more money if only one game existed because DS is often the first game of the two that people pick up. You ask me why they should "waste" their time to invest in single player? Because Hamlet and SW still lack some tiny things. I doubt doing updates for DST is earning them much more if any. They mostly earn stuff with the skins. You contuine to say that your utopian version of DST (again highly unlikly to even be possible) is better for everyone but this is simply not true. It would only benefit people that have interest in multiplayer. What about players that only want to play single player? Those players only get a ****ter single player version then (can we at least acknowledge that DS > DST singleplayer?). So no, not everybody would enjoy this change. Their work IS rewarded in single player, I dont know why you think otherwise. SW and Hamlet are great even fantasic DLCs that would only would require a bit more tweeking and bug fixing. That 12k giveaway was a mistake by Klei (I suspect mostly because they ****** up with the beta test and couldnt get the free copies out in time to the beta testers) and I certainly see how it cost them revenu.

2.They are selling two versions of the same game on the store. This is extremely confusing for users looking to purchase the game. I already did explain most of these, but ill do it again. If Hamlet was designed for DST not only would it be exposed to a bigger player base, players could enjoy it anyway they want to. Solo or together. I am sorry, but players shouldn't have to purchase a lesser version of the game to play DLCs that could have very well been designed to work on DST too.

Assuming we count both SW and Hamlet as about 1/3 of DS, then DST is only about 1/4 of DS. So how are they the same game. I already said that them have the same basics but a huge amount of stuff is different even outside the DLCs. I dont know why you bring up Hamlet again here but look above. As for people shouldnt have to purchase both games, that is absurd. Nobody is forcing them to experience it all and both DS and DST are enormously huge games with a lot of depth for a laughable low price. I would have surely paid even 50-60 bucks for each game. Again DS being "lesser" is laughable and if you really cant stand the single player game (for reasons still not explained) then choose the terrible DST SW/Hamlet mods instead.

3. Wow. You keep saying I am not explaining my points, but why do you think DS and DST are not the same games? And maybe its not confusing to us, but I assure you this is confusing to random users looking to buy the game. Multiplayer doesn't usually justify releasing a copy of the same game just with online play. I understand why they made this decision, but people who have no idea about the Don't Starve franchise will not understand this. Its very silly.

See my points above. DST is only the same in the basics and I explained that. I am sorry again but one should be able to decyper from the title, the decription and the trailer on steam alone that DST is aimed towards multiplayer while DS is not. This is not rocket science. And even if newer players completely ignore said points and buy it, they can still refund it if they bought the wrong version. Multiplayer alone wouldnt justify a new game, I agree, but like I said above DST is not simply DS with multiplayer. A lot of stuff is changed and events and updates still happen to DST that set it apart from DS. 

 

[Crimson Chin]

7 hours ago, pe5e said:

 

Ok, I replied to you on the other thread. I don't want to start repeating the same things here and there so I will just link it.

 

[MidrealmDM]

On 5/18/2019 at 6:02 PM, Owlrus98 said:

Why play the base games when you could play the co-op version?

Because base game has features and characters that aren't in DST (different playing experience)

Because the base game has built in goals that DST lacks (adventure mode, building teleportato, surviving The Aporkalypse)

Because other people are annoying

Because I don't want to play with strangers and my friend don't play