Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I was wondering if i can locally play multiplayer with a person using only one copy of the game

(I have a sister and she's excited to play the game)

I was wondering the same thing. I play Don't Starve on steam, but I downloaded the standalone version on my little brothers computer so he could play it. Would I be able to play multiplayer local Lan with my little brother without having to buy another copy of the game?

Edited by TheG4MER14
  • Like 1

From day one I always thought Don't Starve needed to be multiplayer. The only people who would ever fight it are hipsters who want to remain in this exclusive club. This game is going to surge in popularity for a good reason.

 

Ive played DS for only about 10 hours and at the end of my life I always find myself asking "what now? I wish I could play with friends" and then I die. This SHOULD have been a multiplayer game from day one. Some things are just not as fun alone and I believe Don't Starve is one of those games.

From day one I always thought Don't Starve needed to be multiplayer. The only people who would ever fight it are hipsters who want to remain in this exclusive club. This game is going to surge in popularity for a good reason.

 

Ive played DS for only about 10 hours and at the end of my life I always find myself asking "what now? I wish I could play with friends" and then I die. This SHOULD have been a multiplayer game from day one. Some things are just not as fun alone and I believe Don't Starve is one of those games.

I guess it don't release at the day one,cause i guess this is their frist game who uses the multiplayer,and belive me,do a multiplayer is to hard.

Klei said to:"The game is only a single man hardcore survivor"or something else,but when klei finished the game,they falled in a tedius hole,so they did the Regin of Giants,and when it's done,they see how is their talent and go to the principal point of community

 

"Multiplayer"

 

If you see,u'll found a lot of people asking about multiplayer,they said it doesn't have,but they did

U only need to say:"thank you Klei"and not "how many people died waiting this?And why not at the frist day?I'm to mad"

 

I'm so excited for multiplayer to come out. I would presume that players would spawn randomly and have to find each other - they probably wouldn't be able to see other players on their own map and this would make it harder to play. 

 

Th

 

I'm so excited for multiplayer to come out. I would presume that players would spawn randomly and have to find each other - they probably wouldn't be able to see other players on their own map and this would make it harder to play. 

 

They would have to spawn players together, that's not a fun way to start don't starve's special gift

It's something called a 'secret'... ;)

 

They wanted it as a big surprise!

 

it was probably division in the ranks . the team that was porting it to ps4/psp vita probably felt it would be expected and the pc team was like we dont need to do it because most games are single player and nobody complains . but if ps4/vita get something it should make its way to pc . exclusive content is typically only relevant when comparing consoles vs each other not pc

Unicorns, unicorns,
Blubbermuffins, unicorns.
Oh how I love, unicorns,
Unicorns, unicorns...

They prance around in green grass,
I dream of them in science class.
But when they appear in my dreams,
I always, always, scream...

Unicorns, unicorns,
Blubbermuffins, unicorns.
I didn't talk about blubbermuffins,
Oh well...


- Anonymous Genious

From day one I always thought Don't Starve needed to be multiplayer. The only people who would ever fight it are hipsters who want to remain in this exclusive club. This game is going to surge in popularity for a good reason.

 

not really hipsters(not in my case at least). just felt the game is still incomplete and needs more improvements and tweaks before being labelled "the best singleplayer game they can make". If they can't even see how they could do so much stuff better in the singleplayer mode, I don't think they can make a multiplayer game as entertaining as it sounds like.

You should do something with repspawning like with the touch tables but with more uses with more people becuase it would suck if you died and then you couldn't play with your friends on that world anymore that would piss me off

I registered to say that I'm insanely happy about this and it's a great idea. Me and my friends have mentioned more then once that this game would be great to play together. Seeking things, building things and what not, awesome!

***** HAPPY!

You should do something with repspawning like with the touch tables but with more uses with more people becuase it would suck if you died and then you couldn't play with your friends on that world anymore that would piss me off

 

How about reviving them, helping them back up, or bandaging, or an item you make to revive or whatever. Some ideas. Helping them back up type of thing seems like the best idea just to avoid that issue altogether, most likely if someone died to something your friend will to :\

 

Well, this is a nice thing to read now that I'm back. 

 

 

As for whether it's "good or bad," while Don't Starve Together stays optional, that is entirely subjective to each player's decision.

 

Here's mine: 

 

 

As noted, Klei said that they wanted to make the best game they could, and the idea of the game (then) was a single-player developed game. Re-coding it for multiplayer after its release (then) both would require a major overhaul ruining the elegant feel of the game they wanted to show in its (then) current format, and additional resources which would have taken away from (then) the development of the (then) constantly planned (free!) updates for the game was offering for six months.

 

 

However, now the game has been released, had its world fleshed out based on Klei and our feedback, and had its add-on (RoG) released as an optional component, the game has had its full cycle. Klei even has a newer game still in Alpha awaiting feedback on how you can make it a better game too (see here for Invisible, Inc. which I also own BTW.)

 

All that done, Klei now decided after much of DS was fleshed out to conceptually see if multiplayer was feasibly able to be done. Well, when the developers and others of the DS team positively flip out (on something they used to worry would risk the integrity of the game,) then it's a great day that we have such a future option down the line. 

 

Option, that's the key word.

Like the Reign of Giants, you can choose whether to use it or not. 

Except the multiplayer add-on is free for us DS game owners (until it passes Alpha stages.)

 

 

Of course some things I still wonder how they will implement.

Such as:

  • Sleeping and sleep-affecting radius items
  • How the game won't crash when multiple players try to take the same item simultaneously
  • How the players will communicate when there is no "chatting" architecture in the single player game and whether the communication whether by text, voice, etc will work organically or feel like a hinderance
  • If PvP is in the game or not, and if it is, can it be optionally toggled on by consenting players only
  • How the resources in Don't Starve Together (DST) are to be rebalanced for viable varying number of players multiplayer survivability
  • Will players who have and not have the RoG DLC be able to all access it in MP or do all players have to have the DLC (and would the DLC content even be available in the DST addition.)
  • Will we be able to have multiple characters who are the same characters or are we "locked" into one character per person and "choosing after" players are "locked out" from choosing another "Wilson" or "Wolfgang," etc?  

And so forth....

 

 

But i'd rather have options later than no options ever. 

 

And yes, I too am in the camp that wants the player character histories/backstories fully fleshed out as well as more seasonal creatures (I'm looking at you summer) added to the game, but Don't Starve Together specifically has more people hired as not to detract from the original team that maintain and (possibly) improve the current game 

 

 

My support on the no multiplayer was based on the concept this was made to work elegantly as a single payer game and not to take away resources from its future development as updates were released. 

 

 

Now such a thing is not an issue (with a full content cycle released including a DLC pack and an optional multiplayer not a mandatory one,) even I (who was strongly against MP to keep the integrity of the game the high standard it is) have no problem with this optional component.

 

Again, optional.

 

if you think it will ruin the game, don't freakin play multiplayer. (Anyway, you'll obviously die from the Badger while speaking how the game's not the same  and you're not paying attention...and yes, i CAN have your stuff when you "leave" then ;) )

 

So, I'm willing to try DS Together and play with my friends here, and see how it works.

if it's fun I'll keep playing it, if not, I won't. 

 

Simple. 

 

 

 

 

P.S.

Oh, and Klei, if you want to specifically get me this "gift," remember, my birthday is July 25th. Hope you're done soon :grin:

Edited by the truthseeker
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
  • Create New...