UnionGaming Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Shipwrecked doesn't fit as a DLC. What kind of DLC has a whole new world and gets away with reskins? It's an expansion that was poorly added to the base game for whatever reason. There should be a Standalone version (given free to DLC owners at dev's discretion) that costs more but has maybe more stuff or a few more characters and gets rid of the Seaworthy in favour of a fully SW world. Without SW tag and that stuff. SW has a completely different feel to it. In the sense of it, it IS a sequel. (Also makes 0 sense lorewise as a DLC instead of Standalone. Confirmed canon cus of DoyDoy Teal in DST so. It sucks.) My one gripe with SW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SapphireBullets Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Actually they had initially planned it as a standalone game but responded to community demand for RoG integration. You can't please everyone, it seems, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnionGaming Posted February 23, 2016 Author Share Posted February 23, 2016 Just now, SapphireBullets said: Actually they had initially planned it as a standalone game but responded to community demand for RoG integration. You can't please everyone, it seems, They screwed up by pandering to a bunch of entitled kids who want to pay less for the game. You can please everyone. The kids would get used to Standalone. The DLC on the other hand is cringeworthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousKoala Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I am honestly ok with both options, but you can tell SW was meant to be standalone. I mean, you don't reskin an entire world, entirely re-do a mechanic that was just a not so invisible wall(the ocean), and flat out replace foundations of the game(chester, pig king, etc.) for a dlc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnionGaming Posted February 23, 2016 Author Share Posted February 23, 2016 4 minutes ago, AnonymousKoala said: I am honestly ok with both options, but you can tell SW was meant to be standalone. I mean, you don't reskin an entire world, entirely re-do a mechanic that was just a not so invisible wall(the ocean), and flat out replace foundations of the game(chester, pig king, etc.) for a dlc. Thank you For it to be a DLC it should HAVE to be one world. And it still wouldn't fit well at all. Having the option of DLC and Standalone at the same time, with Standalone costing more and possibly having more (POSSIBLY, PUT DOWN THE PITCH FORKS) would help solve this problem and help out the ones who want to pay less. Simple? @SapphireBullets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnionGaming Posted February 23, 2016 Author Share Posted February 23, 2016 Think of it this way. The DLC is the equivalent to Multiplayer Starter Pack for Black Ops 3. The Standalone is the full game. A hell of a lot more in price, but quite a bit more content. And a lot of people might buy only the Multiplayer starter pack. Maybe they'll use it as a demo. In any case, the only thing this is for Klei and Capy is MORE PROFITABLE. (Though if they decide to do this and add more to Standalone it should include 2 characters. Wastien and Watricia. YOU KNOW THE ONES.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeputyDeath Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I Agree with this a lot. World integration was entirely unnecessary, and if anything just blatantly cheating. All those things that are missing from Shipwrecked for good reason - cheap gold, koelefants, the Tam o' Shanter, walking cane and hounding shootius - can be brought back into the tropics, removing the challenges of not having an automatic turret or being able to get stacks and stacks of gold without even trying. I don't see the point of redesigning a game if you're just going to integrate it with the old one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousKoala Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 6 minutes ago, PackimBaggins said: Think of it this way. The DLC is the equivalent to Multiplayer Starter Pack for Black Ops 3. The Standalone is the full game. A hell of a lot more in price, but quite a bit more content. And a lot of people might buy only the Multiplayer starter pack. Maybe they'll use it as a demo. In any case, the only thing this is for Klei and Capy is MORE PROFITABLE. (Though if they decide to do this and add more to Standalone it should include 2 characters. Wastien and Watricia. YOU KNOW THE ONES.) Wastien appearently IS Warly, just with weirder name. Watricia has sooo much potential. Appearently she had a volleyball like "Willson" in Cast Away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiddyGuy Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 8 minutes ago, DeputyDeath said: cheap gold, koelefants, the Tam o' Shanter, walking cane and hounding shootius - can be brought back into the tropics, Correction you can get the walking cane from the lottery slot machine, but yes you could get it easily by going to RoG and then coming back to the tropics, also by the way the houndius shootius is kind of hard to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luponius Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I disagree with the entire argument, if not the suggestion. It's possible to make a standalone, but that's something the developers I'm sure already assessed and resulted that a DLC would be picked up by more players, therefore greater income, at less pressure and effort of creating an entirely new game, which could very well go wrong since game development can be hit or miss sometimes. 38 minutes ago, PackimBaggins said: They screwed up by pandering to a bunch of entitled kids who want to pay less for the game. You can please everyone. The kids would get used to Standalone. The DLC on the other hand is cringeworthy. That circular logic could be applied right back to you. You are now the one who are going to have to get used to a DLC. And calling the majority of the player-base a bunch of entitled kids is not doing anyone any favors. However right you might be, this thread was turned into a cooked grenade with such statements, and any possibility of being listened to has unfortunately diminished when displaying such an attitude. World integration is yet another feature, available for some, not forced on others. I have found the Seaworthy multiple times, took it once and never again bothered, it was my game and my decision to stick to exclusive SW content. Others might not, and are given the option should they choose to do so. Shipwrecked was clearly an attempt at furthering the Don't Starve reach, but the costs and risks involved resulted in a slightly more limited but nonetheless fun DLC. From my point of view more work can be done, and is being actively committed by the staff and things are coming along quite nicely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnionGaming Posted February 23, 2016 Author Share Posted February 23, 2016 3 minutes ago, Luponius said: I disagree with the entire argument, if not the suggestion. It's possible to make a standalone, but that's something the developers I'm sure already assessed and resulted that a DLC would be picked up by more players, therefore greater income, at less pressure and effort of creating an entirely new game, which could very well go wrong since game development can be hit or miss sometimes. That circular logic could be applied right back to you. You are now the one who are going to have to get used to a DLC. And calling the majority of the player-base a bunch of entitled kids is not doing anyone any favors. However right you might be, this thread was turned into a cooked grenade with such statements, and any possibility of being listened to has unfortunately diminished when displaying such an attitude. World integration is yet another feature, available for some, not forced on others. I have found the Seaworthy multiple times, took it once and never again bothered, it was my game and my decision to stick to exclusive SW content. Others might not, and are given the option should they choose to do so. Shipwrecked was clearly an attempt at furthering the Don't Starve reach, but the costs and risks involved resulted in a slightly more limited but nonetheless fun DLC. From my point of view more work can be done, and is being actively committed by the staff and things are coming along quite nicely. The devs lost profits, they screwed up half of ROG when using seaworthy, ROG has forwards compatibility but SW doesn't backwards. It was a mistake however you spin it. Get over it and realise that. And then you say it would better not to have 2 versions and solve every problem. Are you trolling? Also, SW is finished as of Thursday. Stop expecting massive changes and underwater caves. IT ISNT HAPPENING. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luponius Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Just now, PackimBaggins said: The devs lost profits, they screwed up half of ROG when using seaworthy, ROG has forwards compatibility but SW doesn't backwards. It was a mistake however you spin it. Get over it and realise that. And then you say it would better not to have 2 versions and solve every problem. Are you trolling? Reading comprehension. I agree with your suggestion, not your argument. Two versions would be better, but that isn't happening now is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnionGaming Posted February 23, 2016 Author Share Posted February 23, 2016 4 minutes ago, Luponius said: Reading comprehension. I agree with your suggestion, not your argument. Two versions would be better, but that isn't happening now is it? HENCE why this is a suggestion. PLEASE READ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiddyGuy Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 21 minutes ago, Luponius said: 15 minutes ago, PackimBaggins said: HENCE why this is a suggestion. PLEASE READ. Reading comprehension. I agree with your suggestion, not your argument. Two versions would be better, but that isn't happening now is it? @Luponius If my friend is offending you please excuse him he's a bit to excited about dimension hoping in don't starve RoG and Shipwrecked, also by the way you have a cute profile picture! ^_^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luponius Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 1 minute ago, GiddyGuy said: @Luponius If my friend is offending you please excuse him he's a bit to excited about dimension hoping in don't starve RoG and Shipwrecked, also by the way you have a cute profile picture! ^_^ Oh no offense taken, I'm arguing the point not the person. Just clarifying for other people who might read this thread and read up on the rude posts being put forward by Packim as though his is the only voice. 5 minutes ago, PackimBaggins said: HENCE why this is a suggestion. PLEASE READ. I know it was a suggestion which is why I agreed with your suggestion of making a standalone, I have however disagreed with your argument as to why it isn't, and partially disagree with why it should be. You shared your views and I shared mine, I've read everything you wrote and have no intention of having a go at you. On the other hand your excessive excitement led you to insult a portion of the community and bring about an unfeasible suggestion from a place of unnecessarily harsh criticism. The process of integrating as a DLC was already decided upon, it's highly unlikely they will back up from their initial intention of providing the RoG, SW connection, and as such the suggestion you provide, while beneficial to the game is not feasible in its form. If we can find a way of maintaining the RoG link many players have already voted for, while simultaneously extending the SW game, and seeing the devs compensated duly for their work, that would be a more appropriate and actually feasible suggestion. It is in this direction I decided to argue your point, hope it clarifies my intentions and leaves no room for misunderstandings, personal or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnionGaming Posted February 23, 2016 Author Share Posted February 23, 2016 4 minutes ago, Luponius said: Oh no offense taken, I'm arguing the point not the person. Just clarifying for other people who might read this thread and read up on the rude posts being put forward by Packim as though his is the only voice. I know it was a suggestion which is why I agreed with your suggestion of making a standalone, I have however disagreed with your argument as to why it isn't, and partially disagree with why it should be. You shared your views and I shared mine, I've read everything you wrote and have no intention of having a go at you. On the other hand your excessive excitement led you to insult a portion of the community and bring about an unfeasible suggestion from a place of unnecessarily harsh criticism. The process of integrating as a DLC was already decided upon, it's highly unlikely they will back up from their initial intention of providing the RoG, SW connection, and as such the suggestion you provide, while beneficial to the game is not feasible in its form. If we can find a way of maintaining the RoG link many players have already voted for, while simultaneously extending the SW game, and seeing the devs compensated duly for their work, that would be a more appropriate and actually feasible suggestion. It is in this direction I decided to argue your point, hope it clarifies my intentions and leaves no room for misunderstandings, personal or otherwise. Very passive aggressive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luponius Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Haha you got me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SapphireBullets Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 59 minutes ago, PackimBaggins said: Thank you For it to be a DLC it should HAVE to be one world. And it still wouldn't fit well at all. Having the option of DLC and Standalone at the same time, with Standalone costing more and possibly having more (POSSIBLY, PUT DOWN THE PITCH FORKS) would help solve this problem and help out the ones who want to pay less. Simple? @SapphireBullets Why are you asking me? I would have been into it either way. I was relating some information, followed by an observation, not an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stl1234 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 This is what DLCs used to be before shipping half-finished games and offering the completion of the base game as a DLC became a common place practice. It isn't practical from development perspective to build new games unless there are problems with it, it is much more cost effective to improve upon what exists, especially in a game as extensible as Don't Starve, this is even easier. It isn't practical monetarily either. Building on top of what exists allows them to reach both old and new players. Better reach = more profits. Finally, it isn't meaningful for this game's content to be separate games. This game thrives on variety. Combining world with wildly different characteristics into a single play through is what most people want. And it is optional, so anyone wants to stay in one world can choose to do so. So, it is essentially a win, win, win scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyJam Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Didn't we have this talk months ago... If you only want to play SW then just play SW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnionGaming Posted February 23, 2016 Author Share Posted February 23, 2016 Here comes the fanboy brigade! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyJam Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Just now, PackimBaggins said: Here comes the fanboy brigade! You are one shady little bird. haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnionGaming Posted February 23, 2016 Author Share Posted February 23, 2016 5 minutes ago, stl1234 said: This is what DLCs used to be before shipping half-finished games and offering the completion of the base game as a DLC became a common place practice. It isn't practical from development perspective to build new games unless there are problems with it, it is much more cost effective to improve upon what exists, especially in a game as extensible as Don't Starve, this is even easier. It isn't practical monetarily either. Building on top of what exists allows them to reach both old and new players. Better reach = more profits. Finally, it isn't meaningful for this game's content to be separate games. This game thrives on variety. Combining world with wildly different characteristics into a single play through is what most people want. And it is optional, so anyone wants to stay in one world can choose to do so. So, it is essentially a win, win, win scenario. A new world that's 100% different feel and reskins IS NOT A DLC. You're completely wrong on the "this is what DLCs used to be" - THIS IS WHAT SEPERATE EXPANSION PACKS LIKE THIS ONE SHOULD BE USED TO BE LIKE. EXCEPT, KEYWORD "SEPERATE". It uses the same engine and I could literally combine Vanilla and SW right now to put together a basic concept of a barely functional, but still SW standalone. THAT is what it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeW Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 The OP is an alt account of a previously banned forum member here to troll other forum users. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.
Please be aware that the content of this thread may be outdated and no longer applicable.