I Must bring this up AGAIN! -Hamlet and Shipwrecked

[chirsg]

more than 2 shards can lug most computers. the 2 shards is borderline as it stands. 

having separate clusters but the ability to travel between clusters would be pretty major since you could have the 2 other clusters totally dormant while running the usual 2 shards everyone knows and loves.

 

[Starphire]

If you local machine can't handle running separate servers, there's always the option of running them as dedicated on another machine. Other, more demanding games such as Ark: Survival Evolved have allowed similar mechanics of linking servers. I've even seen it ALREADY DONE in DST on various custom servers where you have a hub world that links other worlds to it and allows their community to hop around between them. When you jump into the Seaworthy it could hand you off to the IP of the SW server (w/ Volcano slave) or the Skyworthy for Hamlet. A configuration file could allow you to determine the IP the Seaworthy/Skyworthy will connect you to.

If SW or Hamlet were paid DLC then u could join the main RoG (Caves slave) server but u wouldn't be sent anywhere when you clicked on seaworthy or skyworthy if you didn't own the associated DLC. You'd still be able to play with your friends b/c you could use the RoG server as the main base world where everyone returns to after their DLC adventures.

I'm really dying to see this brought into DST. I play solo mainly and I don't see much incentive to playing DS anymore when DST solo offers much more in my eyes.

Yes Klei would have to build the DLC in DST from the ground up as they proved they're capable of in the creation of DST from DS. It would save them having to reinvent the wheel every content patch as they'd be adding already existing content from DS (integrating it in) to DST.

All our skins are here in DST. As Klei drops in the content bit by bit they'd have the option to monetize it by adding the SW & Hamlet characters one by one, brand new skins packs for those characters, and the associated belongings for the DLC. It's obviously up to them to determine how quickly they'd be able to do this but I could see this carrying them into the next 2-3 years of content updates and skin packs for the shop.

This is exactly what Klei and the community want: new content to play ingame that was previously inaccessible AND the associate skin packs to go with this new content. What's not to love? I believe one of the best decisions Klei ever made was creating DST from the already existing DS. Now they can continue that legacy by bringing the content they've already worked so hard to create (SW & Hamlet) to DST as well.

[Mr. Despair]

Most of SW is a reskin of RoG and Hamlet was designed over how some very common resources (like silk) are harder to get in Hamlet, It's not gonna happen.

At best you could ask to add some mechanics like interiors and i still think that's unlikely.

[BoysenSyrup]

I mean... I'd like them for base decoration? 

[Starphire]

People that want to play DS & DLC will still have the option to do so. I don't think Klei is going to be too motivated to make more content for DS in the future as it stands, when doing so stretches them too thin as a studio (during the development of Hamlet next to nothing happened in DST, even basic maintenance and patches were few and far between) and MUCH BETTER monetization options exist for them in DST. Klei has already proven their focus atm is to create content for DST.

There's nothing to say that just as they undertook Hamlet in the past they couldn't do so again after completing their intended cycle for DST. It's selfish to deny the entire community of DST the option to be included in the DS content as well, especially as many of them will NEVER buy the DLC for DS and they have no intentions of playing DS singleplayer b/c they want the social aspect of playing it with their partner/friends.

It's a shame that the DS/DST community became separated in the first place tbh. Honestly it could be a development cycle that works; if it WAS successful for them to bring SW & Hamlet into DST (and I can't see why not) then wouldn't this stimulate them to produce more original content for DS FIRST and then repeat bringing it to DST thereafter? That way the people who WANT to play DS would have the privilege of accessing it first while still ultimately being inclusive to the much larger DST player base.

Best of both worlds. *thumbs up*

For those of you who are desperate to see Klei continue to produce more content for DS or even be motivated to maintain it on a more ongoing basis, you could use DST as a reason to incentivize them to do so.

[Mr. Despair]

10 minutes ago, Starphire said:

If it WAS successful for them to bring SW & Hamlet into DST (and I can't see why not) then wouldn't this stimulate them to produce more original content for DS FIRST and then repeat bringing it to DST thereafter?

Currently they get money when people buy the DLCs (And in some cases people that only have DST buy DS to play SW/HM), What money will they generate by adding the DLCs for free in DST?

[Mike23Ua]

for complicated reasons I couldn’t even begin to explain, putting the entirety of SW and Hamlet into DST added in on top of Return of Them would be an absolute disaster, you would have to many things clashing with one another and it won’t make sense.

Yes I want SW & Ham, but I want them as their own independent and completely separate worlds, You can’t host Hamlet Themed Pig Civilization worlds.. for example if the rest of the pigs are unintelligent and living in their shacks picking fights with Merms.

Now what would be a totally viable way of adding “Portions” not all of those DLCs into DST is exactly how they’ve been doing already, finding a way to added it into DST and making it fit, for example Wobster and Wobster Den come from Shipwrecked, the boating mechanics as well as a good many boat upgrade structures are multiplayer derived versions of their SW Counterparts.

The Robotic Centipedes in the new dlc update are a nod to hamlets robotic mobs.

Palm Trees, Sandy Beaches, Crabbit, Volcanic Biomes, Jungles, Palm Guardian, Primeape  hut, Walking Piranha plant, Snakes, Scorpions, Coconuts, Piko Squirrel, Pog I don’t really need much other than that they can do small themed islands, or they can do full hostable worlds.. 

But ultimately it’s Klei’s decision what they want to do, and I’m just stating that before we get forge/gorge and some over used horrible battle pass system that almost all games use now days to the point I’m sick of it, I would MUCH rather have SW/Ham content compatible with DST.

In fact... if Klei created a Kickstarter campaign to fund just exactly the development of that, I would gladly support that campaign!

[Starphire]

@Mr. Despair:

I'm pretty darn sure they make a lot more money from selling skin packs in their shop (where it's likely they don't have to share a cut with Steam as they do with paid DLC on their Steam Store Page) for their multiplayer game than any paid DLC they create for the singleplayer version. Skins are more lucrative than content sadly.

As a player I much prefer ingame content I can sink my teeth into vs. skins. HOWEVER saying that I really make use of the aesthetic options skins provide and I participate in that aspect of the game as do many, many others. I miss that aspect when playing DS, and KNOW from watching others than they also miss having skin options when they play DS. So right now making content for DST, they can use the content they create to springboard skin packs off of as we've all seen them doing for quite a while already. Remember those character reworks they were doing? The halloween, christmas, and chinese new year events with all their associated costumes and skins?

Like I said, the player base for DS must be much more minimal than it is for DST. One just has to observe the Twitch channels for DS & DST to see the evidence. I'm sure much more content is currently being generated on the DST Steam workshop for example, or videos for DST as there is a much larger audience and demand for them than there is for DS.

So any content they make for sale in DST likely gives them a greater profit margin AND a significantly larger number of sales than content produced for DS.

@Mike23Ua:

Just because there are separate modes of playing a game does not mean that it would result in chaos. It's fallacious to say that when it's evident from DS ITSELF that it works and when it's also present with great success in other games (again, I can return to the example of Ark: Survival Evolved or mention Minecraft as someone else did earlier in this thread).

As I explained in my first post in this thread, it'd be entirely possible for them to do if they provided portals in the main RoG/Caves world that linked to separate servers running SW & Hamlet. It's exactly how the game is set up in DS with the Seaworthy and Skyworthy right now.

Ark: Survival Evolved allows people playing completely different versions to play together. Consider the differences between Scorched Earth (Ark's equivalent of SW perhaps? hehe) or Aberration and the original Island. Differently worlds, different species, etc. yet you can upload content from one world/server into another or travel from one world to another if the server owner sets it up.

So the free, base version of RoG that comes with the game, and which Klei has been making changes to in the latest Beta, will still remain unchanged by the DLC and still accessible for free to everyone. The DLC content would be safe and separate from the RoG content b/c it'd be running in its own server. So you see? You can choose which server type to run: an RoG world as normal, or a SW one, or an Hamlet one. Anyone can join the RoG one and you can link that world to another SW and/or Hamlet server via the Seaworthy or Skyworthy portals IF the server owner decides to do so.

So literally you could continue to play the RoG base game (with its DST additions such as the ocean content) and literally have nothing change. They could add the SW/Hamlet content in a way that would simply be an OPTION for players who want to access that content and if not, then nothing in their experience is compromised.

In fact, it would even be optional whether or not they make the SW/Hamlet paid DLC. Klei has proven to be reasonable in the past and the argument can be made that it'd be in everyone's best interest to make the DLC content itself free b/c they can either sell the characters themselves and/or skins packs for them or the DLC such as belongings ON TOP of the content as it drops. Which is EXACTLY what they've been doing with the current Return of Them content they've been producing.

 

[Mr. Despair]

28 minutes ago, Starphire said:

....

If they want to add tropical skins they could just do it in summer, no reason to import both DLCs.

And like i said: most of SW is basically a reskin and the HM experience is ruined by having access to RoGs biomes from the get go, It really wouldn't add much to the experience and the bright colors of the DLCs wouldn't fit with the atmosphere they seem to be going for imo.

I doubt that the servers could handle all without lagging like crazy too.

[Starphire]

@Mr. Despair: Game performance is not an argument that works in DS' favour. Just consider Hamlet. I've never lagged in DST like I have in Hamlet due to have incredibly closely packed all the objects are in the environment. It's far more dense than in DST and that works against the game. Or look at the lag you encounter in the jungle or the insanity of the bugs spawning en masse as I've seen.

Look at server hosts? They can rent a server rack in a server farm and run multiple copies of DST servers on it from a variety of clients and it runs better than most locally hosted b/c it's a setup that's designed to do so. It's no different than Ark: Survival Evolved or Minecraft.  The RoG server, the SW Server and the Hamlet server would be no different than 3 different RoG servers running in that same machine. Everyone knows if you want to provide the best experience for those playing with you, a dedicated is almost always the better option.

So what I'm saying is that them adding SW servers or Hamlet servers as possibilities would literally change NOTHING in regard to performance. No person is required to run multiple servers on their local machine. Just like now, as people choose with the use of mods, they can choose which server world they'd like to run. Like Ark: Survival Evolved. I could start up my Scorched Earth server or my Island world of my Aberration, my choice.

DST is DS ported to mulitplayer so if it works in DS it's gonna work in DST as far as biomes or 'colours' are concerned and to say that SW is simply a reskin of RoG I believe is false and oversimplification. It's completely its own experience that frankly outright beats SOME of the current ocean content in DST (ie. compare boats vs. rafts). Nothing in RoG's ocean content need change b/c of the addition of SW content in this way; it'd simply be a different world type with its own unique flavour and experience. And while I do not agree with your assessment that it's simply a reskin even it was is that not Klei's exact business plan atm? They're making money in DST solely from the sale of skins that reskin already existing items...

As far as the brighter colours are concerned, if you've played the game you'll note that at least from gorge they've employed a new artist to create content and skins for the game that features a slightly brighter and more colourful art style that is already steering DST in that direction and would fit in wonderfully in the SW aesthetic. I for one am a fan of their work and look forward to seeing more of it. Just look at how beautiful the new halloween skins are for Wurt or Wormwood, for example. Of course art style is subject to personal opinion but to say that the brighter colours of the SW DLC or the wacky tones of Hamlet would be reason to NOT bring that to DST is silly. I don't see you lobbying for them to remove SW or Hamlet from DS b/c their unique colour palettes and texture style happens to depart from the original RoG art design.

[Mike23Ua]

Just so you know, Xbox One does not- and to the best of my knowledge has never had.. Dedicated Servers. What we have are Player Hosted Servers, Which are hosted by the player running them, and that session also ends immediately for everyone playing the moment said Host leaves the game.. There aren’t any 24/7 servers running- They all run from a Host, and they can get laggy as hell to the point that the game Quite literally becomes Unplayable.

However- I can have 5 different world saves, And it would be GREAT if I can host 5 different actual world “Themes” amongst each of those 5 saves-

1- Classic pre-Return of Them DST with pre-rework character abilities and a Cardboard purely cosmetic ocean, 2- Dont Starve Together: Return of Them with Sailable Ocean & all the stuff we have now, 3- DS Shipwrecked themed world, 4- DS Hamlet themed world, 5- DST New Moon Themed world (or Whatever RoT is leading up too.)

Connecting all these worlds together Via, Seaworthy/Skyworthy would just feel like such an unnecessary feature that we don’t really NEED.. Hosting them as Separate World saves you can load would be fine.

And only the HOST would need to own the DLC- for everyone else trying to Join the hosts world who does NOT own the DLCs would only need to sit through a little bit longer of a loading screen while the game reads something like “Charlie is Downloading DLC Assets sit tight while she conjures up a horrible world for you to die in with your friends!”

Boom, no complicated extra server shards needed, no DLCs clashing with the content that Klei has already put out.. and most importantly of ALL players don’t get locked out of playing with their friends by separating their fan base between who has and who does not have DLC.

That is the entire REASON Return of Them has been a free update- Klei wanted to add more core content to the game for everyone to enjoy, without sticking that content behind a payment wall.

Now- As for as Adding that content over into current DST for free for everyone, as someone who paid for Both Shipwrecked and Hamlet I would feel slightly shafted in that ordeal, because it would feel like content I paid for was just blindly being given out to everyone for free.

Now- State of Decay 2 actually DID do this, I bought the Ultimate Edition that included all the games DLC add ons, only for them to discontinue my version of the game and update SoD 2 to SoD 2: Juggernaut edition- A whole new build of the game with improved graphics, physics engine, & every dlc to everyone for Free..

What does that have to do with DS/DST?

Well- before you report me for being Off-Topic I will tell you: It allowed the Developers of SoD to only have to worry about fixing bugs and glitches for ONE VERSION of their game, rather then having to do it the Horrible Way that Ark Survival Evolved does and have players have to download update after update after update... Per DLC expansion.. It basically allowed them to ensure that the new engine build- WOULDNT also clash with any of the used to be “paid DLCs”

And that is a 100% totally viable option if Klei choose to go THAT Route- Imagine them simply canceling DS single Player, DST, DS Shipwrecked DLC, DS Hamlet DLC, and pulling all existing versions of the game to only sale something called the Dont Starve Complete Collection.

And just like with the case of SoD 2- rather you DID or DIDNT buy the additional DLCs your version of the game is updated to include them anyway & from that point forward- There would BE no separation between DS/DST/SW/Hamlet because ALL of That would be in the same game.

And IF Klei went that route: They could then go CRAZY adding Shipwrecked and Hamlet Characters, Character Skins, Belonging Cosmetics and DLC themed island biomes into the oceans of DST- Etc into the game for crazy amounts of potential extra profit..

They can even “Credit” players who already bought the DLCs the rights to play as DLC characters (if they all get added to the game) Without having to weave or buy them.

...... As much as people Say the Merging of DS/DST/SW/Hamlet is never going to happen- I just provided a case where it DID Happen (albeit with another game from another company but still..) My POINT is-

Depending on What CONSOLE you Bought DS/DST on: Your version of the game ALREADY came bundled including those DLC expansions.

For example Xbox One version of DS Single Player has ALWAYS had Reign of Giants content available from Day One, PS4 and PC players bought that dlc expansion separately but for Xbox it’s ALWAYS been part of our game and you can’t go on the Xbox store and find a version of DS that doesn’t include RoG already.

Guess What? If you bought DS on NINTENDO SWITCH- then it comes pre-bundled with RoG AND Shipwrecked DLC- And again Switch players CAN’T buy a version of the game that doesn’t already include that content.

I think in all honesty it’s time to Discontinue single player DS AND DST and it’s DLCs... and Turn the game into a single combined product- a franchise United under a single purchase.. A Don’t Starve Complete Edition.

You may be asking why on earth should Klei EVER do that.. well for one- Players playing Single Player would be able to use and enjoy and earn Their DST skin drops while playing Hamlet or Shipwrecked..

Isn't that alone enough of a reason?

Edit: and I should also mention that Console players PS4, Xbox & Switch have JUST RECENTLY got the Hamlet expansion- so Klei should first make all the profit off of that, before maybe 3-5 years from Now uniting the entire DS Franchise under a single product.

So As I said I DONT see SW/Hamlet being added to DST ANY TIME soon.. but a few years from now? Anything is possible.

[Charlie Dark]

1 hour ago, Mike23Ua said:

 

And only the HOST would need to own the DLC- for everyone else trying to Join the hosts world who does NOT own the DLCs would only need to sit through a little bit longer of a loading screen while the game reads something like “Charlie is Downloading DLC Assets sit tight while she conjures up a horrible world for you to die in with your friends!”

Well... the devs need to make money, too. I-I don't think they'd cancel the classic versions/dlc. I think they can still make money! Thank GabeN for steam sales... DS is very similar and very different too merging them wouldn't be their best idea.

[bruhmoment23]

God let this thread die already

[Mike23Ua]

2 minutes ago, Charlie Dark said:

Well... the devs need to make money, too. I-I don't think they'd cancel the classic versions/dlc. I think they can still make money! Thank GabeN for steam sales... DS is very similar and very different too merging them wouldn't be their best idea.

My only problem with that is they have the development team for DS and DST spread out as it is- you only need to look at the most recent DS single player patch update that added things like Beefalo taming, fences, and gates- Features DS Solo didn’t really even Need but they updated the game for anyway.

So basically- instead of having their entire DS/DST development team working exclusively on new content for DST- they also have to have people working on DS Solo for bug fixes, said aforementioned Beefalo update etc..

When if the games were combined- I think we would have much larger much more impactful DST updates because they would have more people working on it, rather then having development teams and updates spread between DS/DST.

[Charlie Dark]

3 minutes ago, Mike23Ua said:

My only problem with that is they have the development team for DS and DST spread out as it is- you only need to look at the most recent DS single player patch update that added things like Beefalo taming, fences, and gates- Features DS Solo didn’t really even Need but they updated the game for anyway.

So basically- instead of having their entire DS/DST development team working exclusively on new content for DST- they also have to have people working on DS Solo for bug fixes, said aforementioned Beefalo update etc..

When if the games were combined- I think we would have much larger much more impactful DST updates because they would have more people working on it, rather then having development teams and updates spread between DS/DST.

I feel like... it wouldn't work. Sometimes people just... want to enjoy the games separately. People want to play singleplayer offline, too. Plus DST is a sequel... isn't it? 

[GetNerfedOn]

porting the dlcs is economically impractical, technically unfeasible, out of thematic bounds and narrative design and characterization, plus there are tons of conflicting mechanics which if altered or removed severely damage the intended experience of each DLC (e.g. boats, fish, waves, wind, volcano, hayfever, aporkalypse, fog, crocdogs, bats, etc). however much ppl bring this up and insist upon the contrary, the facts remain.

i also still do not see how adding the dlc's to DST - a better game with a smoother engine and better mechanics - won't kill aforementioned DLC sales.

Plus i don't see why people who don't have the DLC should be able to play it without buying it by simply playing on other servers with DLC content. That defeats the entire purpose of placing a price tag on the DLCs.

[thegreatJash]

Those two things really are the only reason why you would buy the normal singeplayer. Adding those to DST would kill the singlepayer.

[Mike23Ua]

48 minutes ago, thegreatJash said:

Those two things really are the only reason why you would buy the normal singeplayer. Adding those to DST would kill the singlepayer.

Is killing single player DS really such a sin though? Listen to me please, I Bought and paid my Money for Shipwrecked And Hamlet, I even bought Shipwrecked twice for Mobile Smartphone! But... there is a tender sadness in playing those DLC expansions- You have to throw away playing with your friends or all your cool DST cosmetics that you’ve purchased to play SW/Hamlet content.

Now as for what @Charlie Dark said about if the games were merged into one product that people wouldn’t be able to still enjoy uninterrupted single player play without having to be connected to online, that isn’t true either.. in the same way I can play DST Offline- I would still be able to play DSSolo worlds Offline.

But as for myself, I believe I paid roughly around 25 extra $$ for the Ultimate Edition of SoD2 only for them to later turn around and give the expansions I paid extra for away for free to everyone regardless of if they did or did not buy the DLC, now you would THINK I would be angry with that decision but actually it was the exact opposite: I was beyond thrilled to find out that I wouldn’t have to beg my friends to buy 2-3 extra expansions to play them with Me.

And the way I looked at that situation is that the money I and others paid for the Ultimate Edition- Directly went into the funding of the Juggernaut Edition.

So as you can probably tell by now- Klei eventually giving everyone a 4.99$ DLC I paid money for Wouldn’t kill Me.

Alternatively- They could make it more like Minecraft, as in only the host needs to buy and own the DLC content and any of the hosts friends can join the Host, but if those friends want to continue to enjoy that content when the host is not around to host it, then just like with Minecraft they will have to buy their own copy of that mash-up/bundle pack.

You guys are looking at this like it’ll kill Klei’s profit sales- When it’s highly possible it could end up being the single defining factor that further drives them.

Klei has to ask themselves do they risk losing sales of DS single player to gain sales on DST.. Or just leave things as they are now.

As to how it works in Minecraft: I’ve actually been able to make informed DLC purchasing decisions by being able to Sample that content hosted by someone who actually owns it..

And IF Buying Shipwrecked/Hamlet made those expansions compatible with BOTH DS and DST.. providing Content in BOTH games, it may in all honesty- cause people to buy BOTH DS and DST.

But... do not take my word on any of that- because I’m no marketing sales man and I have absolutely no idea how beneficial or how disastrous such things could be to Klei.

What I CAN say with absolute certainty is that PC players are enjoying a good bit of this content already and for 100% FREE rather they did or did not buy the DLC expansions through mods that Klei themselves approved & promote- When what I suggested above, Could probably be a better actual Sales driving alternative.

[themightyone]

I would prefer for DS to add a few more QOL features from dst and some more dst bosses like bee queen . But other than that I kind of prefer them separate . 

What I would love is the ability to be able to pause in dst in private server games . That would be amazing. 

[Well-met]

So far the biggest counter point seems to be "I can't use skins in DS1"

I can't tell if that's funny or sad.

[HomShaBom]

Why add extra unnecessary context to the answers? My answer is no but it's not because "I think DS is fine as it is." I say no because it's important for DST to not have paid DLC that would segregate the player base.

[Knowbodie]

8 minutes ago, HomShaBom said:

Why add extra unnecessary context to the answers? My answer is no but it's not because "I think DS is fine as it is." I say no because it's important for DST to not have paid DLC that would segregate the player base.

Guys, I just pulled a big brain move: Make the DLCs weaveable!

Or get it free from the original.

You're welcome

[Pelontriques]

while i'd love Shiprekt and Hamlet content to be ported over to DST, I think the Island Adventures crew are working on porting Shiprekt and making it compatible with everything.

it's not financially feasible, i don't think.

[Prajdo]

We should at least have that Veggie Burger and Coconut Palm Trees in the oasis (those Birchnut Trees looks so odd there).

[Skulldura]

just add it as optional shards i do not see how this is still a debate its stupid its not in and its stupid you guys think keeping an obsolete game not obsolete by omission is a good thing