Singleplayer DLC

[The Curator]

Honestly, absolutely zero hype for Hamlet because of this.

"Here's more content for our game, but you can only play it in the outdated singleplayer version of said game"

That's, that's just so great.

 

Am not sure if Klei understands that DS and DST at technically the same game, just a different iteration. So what are they trying to give players more reason to go play the singleplayer game over the multiplayer game, it's the same game. The difference is the singleplayer has less content, no multiplayer, and less polished combat. So they're consciously breaking up content and dumping it into the old singleplayer to try to get players to go back to it, instead of just adding it to the new multiplayer which is the entire lifeblood of the game. Yes they don't want the singleplayer to just become pointless, but they happen to have made that choice by releasing the multiplayer as a separate entity to begin with. There's only even a portion of players in the singleplayer game at a given time compared to the multiplayer now, why, because the multiplayer has more content and polish and can literally be singleplayer if one chooses so.

It's very unfun and discouraging to know that the centre of the game and it's playability, Don't Starve Together, is purposely being locked out of an expansion just so the developers can try to make Don't Starve look better. It already had Shipwrecked. And, in order to play this new expansion you are basically not allowed to be online and must have a combat handicap.

Generally it's such a demoralizing concept that the game is getting more content, but it's exclusive to an older version of the same game which also has no multiplayer and is missing random pieces of content.

[JohnWatson]

lol

[Maslak]

Ayy, lmao
Also, I think that's wrong forum section, isn't i?

[The Curator]

2 minutes ago, Quoth143 said:

Do you ever not complain?

 

4 minutes ago, JohnWatson said:

lol

 

 

Just now, Maslak said:

Ayy, lmao

 

Yes, how constructive. General toxicity.

[Ajosen]

the forums resident happy man

[JohnWatson]

Just now, The Curator said:

Yes, how constructive. General toxicity.

I apologise

[ImDaMisterL]

If you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion, simply do not post.

Don't derail the thread, thank you.

[minespatch]

10 minutes ago, The Curator said:

It's very unfun and discouraging to know that the centre of the game and it's playability, Don't Starve Together, is purposely being locked out of an expansion just so the developers can try to make Don't Starve look better.

Okay, man., last year and early this year we got a huge lore drop for DST. Maybe Klei would rotate things annually so DST will get some more lore next year?

[Ajosen]

honestly, i would like single player to have many of the features that dst has :bee queen, ruins regeneration, the atrium... I am excited for this DLC though. And im pretty sure they know of this ive been repeating this over and over again on the Dont starve forums. Pls klei give us some of the cool stuff BEEFALO TAMING!  

[MrDeepDarkmind]

It just tells you that DS and DST are different universes 

[Quoth143]

5 minutes ago, ImDaMisterL said:

If you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion, simply do not post.

Don't derail the thread, thank you.

Sorry.

[minespatch]

1 minute ago, MrDeepDarkmind said:

It just tells you that DS and DST are different universes 

Different universes, interconnecting lore.

 

 

[Quoth143]

5 minutes ago, minespatch said:

Different universes, interconnecting lore.

 

 

I would say different branching timelines. 

[oCrapaCreeper]

People ask for more single player content and DLC's, Klei makes a new DLC and and a free update for Shipwrecked, but in the midst of all this some people are complaining about them adding content to single player? I suppose that's expected, there's always "that guy".

And they made it clear DST is a different game. That's why you pay for it separately. That's why It takes place in a different time. That's why it has different content. It's "a sequel of sorts", as put by the main menu.

[minespatch]

3 minutes ago, oCrapaCreeper said:

What is with you people?

Wait, me?

[Maslak]

 With Shipwrecked and incoming Hamlet DLC, Don't Starve will be even more separate game. I don't mind this. Playing alone has it's upsides, too. It feels quite magical to explore new content, if you ask me.
 Don't Starve Together became separate game because there would be too many difficulties with adding multiplayer to DS, iirc. This was Klei's decision and now we see results. You can't really change this.

@oCrapaCreeper Don't generalise like this. Not everyone feels comfortable with being put in the same bag as Curator
I'm delighted with current news. I don't really care about DST stuff since I can't really experience new content anyway due to lags, I don't play DST very often. Singleplayer game getting love is great, and that means more content I can experience and pay for to show Klei how I like their game.

[Tylordian]

Hey guys.... what if ther e  i s   l or e   though, maybe we could get some Pig backstory, and maybe the ancient pig ruins will tell us something about the other ancients.... or what if the pigs were the ancients? What if the pigs were forced underground by the ancients? There is so much lore potential here.

[minespatch]

2 minutes ago, Tylordian said:

Hey guys.... what if ther e  i s   l or e   though, maybe we could get some Pig backstory, and maybe the ancient pig ruins will tell us something about the other ancients.... or what if the pigs were the ancients? What if the pigs were forced underground by the ancients? There is so much lore potential here.

Same questions I'm asking.

[CaptainFun]

I'm personally thrilled with everything about the update, except for the Forge. I'm not big on DST stuff that asks for groups of more than 2. 

[TheKingofSquirrels]

I agree. It's ridiculous. 

[TheKingofSquirrels]

9 hours ago, oCrapaCreeper said:

And they made it clear DST is a different game. That's why you pay for it separately. That's why It takes place in a different time. That's why it has different content. It's "a sequel of sorts", as put by the main menu.

So if it's a sequel, with all this new new content...WHY ARE THEY UPDATING THE OLD GAME EXCLUSIVELY?

[oCrapaCreeper]

6 minutes ago, TheKingofSquirrels said:

So if it's a sequel, with all this new new content...WHY ARE THEY UPDATING THE OLD GAME EXCLUSIVELY?

Because tons of people are asking them to? That seems fairly obvious. 

[TheKingofSquirrels]

Just now, oCrapaCreeper said:

Because tons of people are asking them to.

Yes, to update it with stuff from Together first...

[oCrapaCreeper]

3 minutes ago, TheKingofSquirrels said:

Yes, to update it with stuff from Together first...

But most people have asked for more DLC, and DLC makes them money off the game well after release. It seems most logical to add stuff people want that they will pay for.

 

 Together stuff can stay in Together unless they are quality of life stuff.

[TheKingofSquirrels]

9 minutes ago, oCrapaCreeper said:

But most people have asked for more DLC, which is what makes them money off the game still, I might add. Together stuff can stay in Together unless they are quality of life stuff.

What is this of quality of life stuff people keep mentioning?

And no, I'm sorry, I think most people requested for 

a) Together updates transferred to Singleplayer

b) If DLC to singleplayer would to be be added to the game, then add it naturally like RoG, not as a different shard world.  (see Shipwrecked reception).