''Together'' DLC for DS

[Hungry French]

You all know that Vanilla DS is now mostly bought for Hamlet and Shipwrecked.  But what about DS and RoG itself ? From the year 14 from the moment of the release of RoG to 19, we received 2 more dls and QoL. And then... Silence... From year 19 to year 23, the game did not receive any updates or dls. On the 10th anniversary of DS, the developers still released an update and, moreover, quite good ones trying to make the game as balanced, responsive and bug-free as possible. And added some new content (Wigfried says thanks for the new nettle dish). In general, the Mega Update pleases with almost every line of changes (although to be honest there is still something to balance and fix). The only thing that does not please is that the rework of the guardian of ruins appeared in DS. (Previously, he was the scariest DS and RoG bosses and only a dragon fly could compete with him, he would have increased hp by leaving the core mechanics of the boss's stanlocks. Or it is better to remove the locks in the game so that he regains the status of one of the most terrible bosses.) But what's next? The developers do not plan to make major new updates. The difference between DS and RoG and DST is already 7 years old. DST has become much larger . Both DS and RoG have gone into oblivion, since "Why would I play DS if the content is in DST and supplemented with a bunch of updates and there is no online and skins".  From myself, I can say that in many aspects DST is simpler than the original, especially with regard to survival and characters. And DST ignores the existence of a solo game because pvp changes adversely affect the co-op and solo game. And the co-op balance adversely affects the solo game. Yes, the increased hp of bosses and mobs like some players, but many do not like that bosses require 2-6 times more grind in a solo game. But not everyone likes such a long preparation and many bosses more . What prevents you from making a new DLS ? With the transfer of content from DST to DS. This is quite profitable, because it is always easier to transfer than to make completely new content. And players who love DS and RoG will finally get content. Perhaps in this dlc it would be possible to supplement Shipwrecked, which has the largest map in all dlc and is quite empty... In Hamlet, it would be possible to supplement the island of the apocalypse calendar on which there is nothing but a hidden altar in the ruins of pigs. Well, add a couple of bosses, so that there would be competition with the number of bosses of the ordinary world. Monetary profit, the happiness of solo players and the absence of a dead game. And if they stop updating DS, what will happen then? For the 20th anniversary of the DST series, it will still receive new updates. And DS... we've been surviving in Dont Starve for 20 years, but solo DS is dead for 14 of those years. The 10th anniversary update looks like a 10th anniversary gift. And maybe Klei, have prepared a game to do something else with it. Why DS doesn't get love... Maybe then we can do a survey of the players

[Notecja]

To be fair, after huge update that fixed all or most of bugs (I don't track if it was all, I will need go back to game to see if anything is left) DS and its expansions feel more like finished game. I don't expect anything else, instead I would let devs just focus on DST, for all that unpolished, loose and/or missing stuff. With recent updates DST suffer new problems and smaller issues, and it needs polishing and expanding what is already good and could be better. Ofc I would be happy for another DLC for DS and I am going to buy it, but I don't expect anything more.

[cropo]

3 minutes ago, Notecja said:

To be fair, after huge update that fixed all or most of bugs (I don't track if it was all, I will need go back to game to see if anything is left) 

They probably didn't fix the Shipwrecked permanent season removal glitch. I didn't see it in the patch notes and it's one of the biggest issues that has plagued Shipwrecked since they allegedly fixed the season desync glitch from entering other shards.

[Hungry French]

1 hour ago, Notecja said:

To be fair, after huge update that fixed all or most of bugs (I don't track if it was all, I will need go back to game to see if anything is left) DS and its expansions feel more like finished game. I don't expect anything else, instead I would let devs just focus on DST, for all that unpolished, loose and/or missing stuff. With recent updates DST suffer new problems and smaller issues, and it needs polishing and expanding what is already good and could be better. Ofc I would be happy for another DLC for DS and I am going to buy it, but I don't expect anything more.

DS against the background of DST looks unfinished. Especially incompleteness is observed in caves. The Shipwrecked map is huge, but there is very little content. Hamlet is almost perfect. They still haven't made the watermelon hat usable (it doesn't cool like in DST). Or a tar lamp is worse than a torch...

[Antynomity]

2 hours ago, Hungry French said:

DS against the background of DST looks unfinished. Especially incompleteness is observed in caves. The Shipwrecked map is huge, but there is very little content. Hamlet is almost perfect. They still haven't made the watermelon hat usable (it doesn't cool like in DST). Or a tar lamp is worse than a torch...

Don't Starve is a much more fleshed out experience compared to DST. DST has been bloated a ton by a lot of the recent and previous updates with no sign of them getting more fleshed out outside of the "core ehnancement updates" depending on what those will be exactly.

[Hungry French]

1 hour ago, Antynomity said:

Don't Starve is a much more fleshed out experience compared to DST. DST has been bloated a ton by a lot of the recent and previous updates with no sign of them getting more fleshed out outside of the "core ehnancement updates" depending on what those will be exactly.

Well, the experience in the Caves is not particularly intense, as the ruins lack the ultimate goal.It would be ideal if a Toadstool could be added to the caves, and an Atrium could be added to the ruins. The bones of the fuel squad would be an additional motivation to explore the caves.  Passage to the Atrium... We already know that the Atrium is in ruins. You can also add tentacles to the caves. Then the bones, the toadstool and the passage to the atrium give real motivation to explore them. Shadow heart ? It could be done so that it would fall from the guardian, because he is a shadow creature. Well, you can add Hutch. On the surface... The only thing you need is a lunar altar. Then additionally surface exploration + moonstone crafting. Well, probably an Ant lion. A very cool boss who would be annoying by the fact that you have 2 bosses in a season. Well, crafts related to toadstools and mushroom farms for lamps. And mouse caves... Why are there no mouse caves in the DS, if they are even in the game code?Then the game will be perfect. Not overloaded like DST, but caves and ruins will get a second life.

[Ulisesvolador]

6 hours ago, Hungry French said:

What prevents you from making a new DLS

DLC's*, and the reason is profit, I doubt many DST players would buy new DS DLC's. The DST playerbase is a lot more bigger than the DS one and porting DST stuff to DS would take a loooooot of time and resources.

6 hours ago, Hungry French said:

Why DS doesn't get love...

Because the game is already finished for them, in fact, they only planned to make RoG DLC.
Why can't these people accept that DST is the sequel? (Im not saying that DS should stop being supported, they should keep fixing bugs and adding small changes).

[Mike23Ua]

38 minutes ago, Ulisesvolador said:

DLC's*, and the reason is profit, I doubt many DST players would buy new DS DLC's. The DST playerbase is a lot more bigger than the DS one and porting DST stuff to DS would take a loooooot of time and resources.

Because the game is already finished for them, in fact, they only planned to make RoG DLC.
Why can't these people accept that DST is the sequel? (Im not saying that DS should stop being supported, they should keep fixing bugs and adding small changes).

I don’t know about that.. DST is meant to ACTUALLY be a Standalone DLC expansion to Dont Starve- Not an actual sequel, it’s literally like for example- The Undead Nightmare DLC for Red Dead Redemption..

You could buy JUST that DLC (digital or on disk) and you don’t need to own Red Dead Redemption to Play it..

HOWEVER if you own other RDR DLCs- They are compatible with Undead Nightmare (Weapons, Mini-Games, Clothing Items from other DLCs are useable in Undead Nightmare & Vice-Versa.

You guys are treating DST as its own separate game when Klei literally advertised and sold it as a DLC expansion to Solo Dont Starve.

So if you want my opinion- I think Shipwrecked & Hamlet should be playable in DST if you own them, I also think that DST characters should be playable in DS if you own DST.

And finally.. if Klei made another DLC for DS it too should be compatible with DST.

Because DST isn’t an Actual sequel.. it’s a DLC that can be played without needing to own the rest of the game.

Klei may be adding more and more content to it that further and further separates the two games apart.. but it was originally sold as just a DLC expansion to DS.

[gamehun20]

6 minutes ago, Mike23Ua said:

Because DST isn’t an Actual sequel.. it’s a DLC that can be played without needing to own the rest of the game.

Why would it be considered a dlc for base game ds? 

[Ulisesvolador]

16 minutes ago, Mike23Ua said:

DST is meant to ACTUALLY be a Standalone DLC expansion to Dont Starve

That was in the very beginning, now as we can see its an independent game that doesn't need Don't Starve to run, a "Standalone Expansion", but not a DLC.

16 minutes ago, Mike23Ua said:

it’s a DLC that can be played without needing to own the rest of the game.

That's not a DLC then. You don't need DS to play DST and you don't/can't buy DST as a DLC in the DS store page.

16 minutes ago, Mike23Ua said:

So if you want my opinion- I think Shipwrecked & Hamlet should be playable in DST if you own them, I also think that DST characters should be playable in DS if you own DST.

And finally.. if Klei made another DLC for DS it too should be compatible with DST.

They need to remake the entire game like they did in the DST beginnings for that to happen.

[Antynomity]

17 minutes ago, Mike23Ua said:

Because DST isn’t an Actual sequel.. it’s a DLC that can be played without needing to own the rest of the game.

It is a sequel, story wise, game wise, etc.

19 minutes ago, Mike23Ua said:

So if you want my opinion- I think Shipwrecked & Hamlet should be playable in DST if you own them, I also think that DST characters should be playable in DS if you own DST.

How much money will that huge time investment of porting all that content bring them? 0. I'd love for the DLCs to be brought over just because of how much more fleshed SW is compared to the current ocean but it's just not a realistic thing that'd ever happen, not in DST, or any future DS game.

[Hungry French]

56 minutes ago, Ulisesvolador said:

DLC's*, and the reason is profit, I doubt many DST players would buy new DS DLC's. The DST playerbase is a lot more bigger than the DS one and porting DST stuff to DS would take a loooooot of time and resources.

Because the game is already finished for them, in fact, they only planned to make RoG DLC.
Why can't these people accept that DST is the sequel? (Im not saying that DS should stop being supported, they should keep fixing bugs and adding small changes).

There are a lot of solo players in DST. It will be interesting for them to buy and try the DST experience, but it is off-balance for a solo game. DS and RoG have their own fans who like them more than DST. 

1 hour ago, Ulisesvolador said:

DLC's*, and the reason is profit, I doubt many DST players would buy new DS DLC's. The DST playerbase is a lot more bigger than the DS one and porting DST stuff to DS would take a loooooot of time and resources.

Because the game is already finished for them, in fact, they only planned to make RoG DLC.
Why can't these people accept that DST is the sequel? (Im not saying that DS should stop being supported, they should keep fixing bugs and adding small changes).

This is literally the same game, but expanded, with multiplayer and balance for multiplayer and pvp. DST is not designed for solo play. The balance and meaning of some items and objects and even characters is purely for solo co-op games.Naturally, players do not want a "sequel" created purely for multiplayer, but a balanced game for solo play. DST turned DS into a boss rush, weakening many aspects of survival, breaking characters, sleep, fire damage, etc.

[Mike23Ua]

11 minutes ago, Ulisesvolador said:

That was in the very beginning, now as we can see its an independent game that doesn't need Don't Starve to run, a "Standalone Expansion", but not a DLC.

That's not a DLC then. You don't need DS to play DST and you don't/can't buy DST as a DLC in the DS store page.

They need to remake the entire game like they did in the DST beginnings for that to happen.

https://www.klei.com/games/dont-starve-together
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-alone#:~:text=Stand-alone expansion pack%2C an,to use the new content

[Ulisesvolador]

1 minute ago, Mike23Ua said:

https://www.klei.com/games/dont-starve-together
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-alone#:~:text=Stand-alone expansion pack%2C an,to use the new content

I mean that's what I said, it's advertised as "Standalone Expansion", but not as a DLC.

[Mike23Ua]

1 minute ago, Ulisesvolador said:

I mean that's what I said, it's advertised as "Standalone Expansion", but not as a DLC.

https://www.giantbomb.com/standalone-dlc-release/3015-8663/games/

[Ulisesvolador]

1 minute ago, Mike23Ua said:

https://www.giantbomb.com/standalone-dlc-release/3015-8663/games/

1. DST is not in that list.

2. I don't know if I can trust that source.

[Hungry French]

9 minutes ago, Antynomity said:

It is a sequel, story wise, game wise, etc.

How much money will that huge time investment of porting all that content bring them? 0. I'd love for the DLCs to be brought over just because of how much more fleshed SW is compared to the current ocean but it's just not a realistic thing that'd ever happen, not in DST, or any future DS game.

From the point of view of the game, it is the same game with new content. There are no plot justifications why there is no atrium in the DS, a moonstone for creating a staff of moons. Literally almost every DST mob or object is in question. Did Charlie or Maxwell create it ? There is no reason why there are bat caves only in DST, although in DS they are also in the game code and they can even be summoned. Why aren't there many items from the DST not unique to boss drawings.  Or do you seriously think that Lorno's characters could not make a fence and a gate? The same ewecus as it turns out was before Charlie, as was the reworked guardian of the ruins. Both the atrium and the Ancient Fuelweaver according to Laura were before Charlie, but they do not exist in DS.

[Hornete]

I like DS where it's at. It might not get more updates any longer for the long future, but it's a complete finished game that I can enjoy. Not every game needs to be live-service!

Generally, I think I like DS's content and progression style much more than DST. it's a lot more free than how DST progresses and for me personally excels at the Survival and Sandbox aspects over DST .

Would some stuff be cool to bring over from DST? Heck yeah! I think there's some things that are just objective improvements like a lot of QoL such as crafting menu (I would argue DS needed it more than DST honestly haha). But as for actual content/reworks/bosses/whatever, DS is a very differently designed game, and I think the content specifically made for it fits better than porting over major pieces from DST. Just my two cents though.

[Hungry French]

22 minutes ago, Antynomity said:

How much money will that huge time investment of porting all that content bring them? 0. I'd love for the DLCs to be brought over just because of how much more fleshed SW is compared to the current ocean but it's just not a realistic thing that'd ever happen, not in DST, or any future DS game.

Huge time ? Yes, time is not short. But this cannot be compared even close to making a completely new dls. Music, ideas, design, content, program code have already been created. And just transferring content takes a lot of time, but not a huge amount of time

[Ulisesvolador]

17 minutes ago, Hungry French said:

There are a lot of solo players in DST. It will be interesting for them to buy and try the DST experience, but it is off-balance for a solo game. DS and RoG have their own fans who like them more than DST. 

Yea I know there are DS enjoyers in DST, but if klei released the "Together Content Port" in DS I doubt people would buy that, I mean, why I would buy content that I already have and can enjoy in DST?

20 minutes ago, Hungry French said:

This is literally the same game, but expanded, with multiplayer and balance for multiplayer and pvp. DST is not designed for solo play. The balance and meaning of some items and objects and even characters is purely for solo co-op games.Naturally, players do not want a "sequel" created purely for multiplayer, but a balanced game for solo play. DST turned DS into a boss rush, weakening many aspects of survival, breaking characters, sleep, fire damage, etc.

I agree with you, they should really balance stuff for the people that like to play alone.

[Hungry French]

16 minutes ago, Ulisesvolador said:

I mean that's what I said, it's advertised as "Standalone Expansion", but not as a DLC.

Why don 't DS and RoG know how to create completely unique content ? Why can't we give motivation to play both DST and DS, and not purely play only DST? Where is the unique content ? Why buy DS+RoG if there is a DST that costs less, has 2 times more content, multiplayer, skins and will receive updates in the future. Yes, RoG has a good balance for singles, when there is no balance for solo games in DST, and what else will make players play not in DST?

[Ulisesvolador]

2 minutes ago, Hungry French said:

Why don 't DS and RoG know how to create completely unique content ? Why can't we give motivation to play both DST and DS, and not purely play only DST? Where is the unique content ? Why buy DS+RoG if there is a DST that costs less, has 2 times more content, multiplayer, skins and will receive updates in the future. Yes, RoG has a good balance for singles, when there is no balance for solo games in DST, and what else will make players play not in DST?

I think you quoted the wrong person or the wrong comment from me.

But DS has Hamlet and Shipwrecked (better than DST ocean content).

[Hungry French]

8 minutes ago, Ulisesvolador said:

Yea I know there are DS enjoyers in DST, but if klei released the "Together Content Port" in DS I doubt people would buy that, I mean, why I would buy content that I already have and can enjoy in DST?

A counter-question. Why should I buy DS and RoG if I have and can enjoy the same content in DS? Buy DS purely for the sake of 2 dls? Funny. And why buy RoG ?

[Ulisesvolador]

3 minutes ago, Hungry French said:

A counter-question. Why should I buy DS and RoG if I have and can enjoy the same content in DS? Buy DS purely for the sake of 2 dls? Funny. And why buy RoG ?

Uh... What?

[Hungry French]

Just now, Ulisesvolador said:

Uh... What?

I wrote DS instead of DST. I was wrong.
A counter-question. Why should I buy DS and RoG if I have and can enjoy the same content in DST? Buy DS purely for the sake of 2 dls? Funny. And why buy RoG ?