So Why Was DST A Re-Release Anyways

[TheKingofSquirrels]

10 hours ago, minespatch said:

It's important to keep them seperate since DST is a sequel. The DLC for single player is basically different paths from the Maxwell Reign which Charlie wasn't throned yet.

If DST is the sequel, then why are they adding DLC exclusively for the original -.-

When you make a sequel, you don't go back to adding content to the first game, because everyone should be playing the sequel. 

 

I understand why they made them two different games. There were too many things from Singleplayer that would have had to been changed and ruin the single-player experience, for example: using tents.

But what I don't understand, is why the can't just past the ANR content to DS. Balance the bosses out a little bit and cut the lore crap out, and that's it. That's all you need to do. Especially, when a lot of updates for DST actually work better for singleplayer games (like beefalo riding or adorable larva).

 

12 hours ago, Mani E. said:

You are aware that DS and DST are entirely on different engines right? And the need to make DS DST would greatly upset an incredible amount of fans and bring a rise to many balance issues? The reason these games are seperate is because they are entirely different experiences, DS is meant to be played alone and as such has room for stories and games that cannot be done in DST. And DST is a multiplayer experience set in the future of DS that accomodates a team of up to 6 players or far more, the game is not meant to be played alone.

Sure, you can say the game can have a together mode in original DS, but this would need so much tweaking and rebalancing that it would just be easier and more profitable to release DST as a standalone.

Probably because DS has:

- Reasonable loading times when running caves.

-A better experience when playing alone.

- Unique bugs and features that are unique to DS.

- Adventure mode.

- Characters that aren't in a state of overbalance or underbalance due to teams (Warly and Wes are exceptions, but that's because they're meant to be challenges)

- Almost no lag whatsoever (Unless you really **** things up with rocklobsters or your pc is bunk)

- Less "filler" content that serves no real use and doesn't really fit the flow of the game.

- No idiots that absolutely destroy your experience of the game by inhabiting the same server as you.

- A better singleplayer experience in general, with health amounts that are tailored to a single player.

- More endgame content and easier time with megabases.

- Shipwrecked and the upcoming Hamlet expansion.

- Multiple caves per world.

- and a heck of a lot more.

Also, personal preference! Maybe you should let people buy and enjoy the games they wanna play?

I understand your point, but it's still frustrating. All of those things are nice and I miss the hell out of them. I can't play singleplayer anymore, because whenever I start a new world I'm reminded all of the things that are missing. I think "Oh I can't fight Klaus" and "Oh, I can't ride Beefalo" and "Oh, I can't explore the Atrium" and "Oh, I can't build fences" and "Oh I can't do this" and "I can't do that". It underwhelms so much, that I end up giving up and just start a closed server in DST.

Point is, all the new content is at DST. This is why people say there's no point playing DS anymore. That's all there is to it.

 

[Pink_Infatuation]

this is such an uneducated post i'm not sure where to begin......

for starters, you're neglecting the fact that single player is still being treated as a separate game with DLC like shipwrecked getting beta updates and the eventual Hamlet DLC, which are unlikely to ever make it to multiplayer because the coding base is so vastly different that translating them over would require years+ the time it took for them to develop new reign. "Why didn't they do that from the beginning?" because from the beginning they said repeatedly that it would never happen, it was a bad idea, and just the process of making a system with multiple players is already so far off from the base game's system that it would be impossible to treat them as if they were the same.

All of the DST content is balanced around multiple players, every new function is an aspect of PvP or mass-PvE content that they regularly add and update. It's not a sequel- it's a different way to play the game entirely. "you can play it single player and it's basically the same" no, because 1) 2 DLC's and adventure mode multiplayer won't have 2) the way combat and gameplay works is vastly different 3) DST was made to be played with multiple people, and modding it to be workable in a single player context is about the same excuse you could make to say you could mod single player DS to be multiplayer (on a local scale, which has been attempted). That doesn't mean you can't do it, but modding them to be like the other game kind of makes your argument pointless anyways because if you're going to change the game that much why are you complaining about them being separate.

the "story" mode of DST is not playable(minus forge if that continues to have new separate events), but rather art and updates that are represented in gameplay changes and having excuses for certain players to exist. The Forge, the New Reign, all of that is entirely exclusive to DST because it makes a 0% context in any other setting. Why would there need to be a new reign in single player when it already has a system that effectively does that but doesn't have to make the excuse of "how do we have every character in the same room"? in single player, whoever you beat adventure mode as last is on the throne. In DST, you need to have a reason to have each individual character existing at once in the same area so that any character is playable and the throne isn't empty. The story, gameplay, and coding building blocks are all so vastly different that the only universe it would work to be in the same game as single player (which would be so unnecessarily convoluted and confusing - "why isn't this content just in single player if they're in the same interface menu?!" "because they're basically separate games." "then why not make them separate games?!" oh wait.) is if it were a paid DLC side game that popped up as a separate thing on the steam library menu.....

Sounds familiar for some reason......

 

[TheKingofSquirrels]

17 minutes ago, Pink_Infatuation said:

All of the DST content is balanced around multiple players.

Sorry, but this is just wrong.

For example, the Extra-Adorable Lavae is more suited for single-player than multiplayer. In DST, you log out and it's just abandoned, and as the world keeps running because it's multiplayer, it will just die. 

Same deal with Beefalo riding. The whole taming process is a laborious task that takes many, many days, and if you log out, the world keeps running and if you miss just one day, the whole process has to be started again from scratch. And once you do tame it, you have to keep feeding it and riding it DAILY for it to stay domesticated. And that's not even mentioning the fact that when you leave, it's vulnerable to be murdered by literally anything. There is no point in having domesticated Beefalo in DST, unless you have your own private server and are playing solo style.

And explain to me how fences are specifically balanced for only multiple players.

Sorry, but you are just wrong.

 

[MrKoopa]

56 minutes ago, TheKingofSquirrels said:

If DST is the sequel, then why are they adding DLC exclusively for the original -.-

When you make a sequel, you don't go back to adding content to the first game, because everyone should be playing the sequel. 

Sure you can.

 

It could be that Maxwell's door is broken and transports Wilson to a jungle instead of the adventure world (alternative reality) or something else.

We don't have any good information about Hamlet on when and how he got there. Only that "In Don’t Starve: Hamlet, Wilson discovers a lost town of aristocratic Pigmen nestled within a foreboding tropical jungle."

[Pink_Infatuation]

33 minutes ago, TheKingofSquirrels said:

Sorry, but this is just wrong.

For example, the Extra-Adorable Lavae is more suited for single-player than multiplayer. In DST, you log out and it's just abandoned, and as the world keeps running because it's multiplayer, it will just die. 

Same deal with Beefalo riding. The whole taming process is a laborious task that takes many, many days, and if you log out, the world keeps running and if you miss just one day, the whole process has to be started again from scratch. And once you do tame it, you have to keep feeding it and riding it DAILY for it to stay domesticated. And that's not even mentioning the fact that when you leave, it's vulnerable to be murdered by literally anything. There is no point in having domesticated Beefalo in DST, unless you have your own private server and are playing solo style.

And explain to me how fences are specifically balanced for only multiple players.

Sorry, but you are just wrong.

 

... you realize how funny this sounds right.

"if you play single player and leave it for one day it'll die"

that's why it's suited for multiplayer. If you're even remotely friendly with anyone you play they can watch over the lavae for you. People can help you tame the beefalo (in fact, you could argue it is literally designed to be a team effort), and if you make a pen with a saltlick that's not even a problem. I guess it may be because i play with people who have two brain cells, which isn't always a common characteristic for randos lol but it's not hard to manage. It doesn't matter who tames the beefalo or who keeps track of the larvae. and if you're doing PvP then why are you giving them extra time anyways, you should all be quitting at once to begin with. That is, if you're going for fair, balanced pvp...

Fences are a super cheap way to build bases early on, so it makes sense that DST would see it first- a situation where staking territory at day 10 is much, much more important that it'll ever be in single player because you're not competing with anyone.

Doesn't mean I don't want it in single player though. that's your one point that stands. 

[TheKingofSquirrels]

3 hours ago, Pink_Infatuation said:

... you realize how funny this sounds right.

"if you play single player and leave it for one day it'll die"

You are quoting something that doesn't exist...What even is this?

Do you realise how "silly" you sound by making up a quote?

3 hours ago, Pink_Infatuation said:

that's why it's suited for multiplayer. 

No, you didn't address any of my points and just made something up...What are you doing?

3 hours ago, Pink_Infatuation said:

If you're even remotely friendly with anyone you play they can watch over the lavae for you.

So you are saying, that at any given time, a friend of yours will be available on the server to take care of your larvae...Are they going to be playing 24/7, or are you going to be taking shifts?

Do you realise how dumb this sounds?

3 hours ago, Pink_Infatuation said:

I guess it may be because i play with people who have two brain cells, which isn't always a common characteristic for randos lol but it's not hard to manage.

Yeah, try doing this on a public server, see how that works out for you.

3 hours ago, Pink_Infatuation said:

Fences are a super cheap way to build bases early on, so it makes sense that DST would see it first- a situation where staking territory at day 10 is much, much more important that it'll ever be in single player because you're not competing with anyone.

What kind of logic is this?....

First off, placing a fire pit and a science machine is enough to stake claim. You don't need fences for that. You also need a science machine to craft fences, so by the time you have fences, you already have staked your claim with your science machine.

Secondly, "staking claim of land" is not something you do in this game (unless you are playing with a mod that protects your land).

Thirdly, fences are more of a decorative item and are good for trapping mobs. I should have mentioned gates before as well. The most important use for gates are for animal cages, which like I said before, keeping pets in multiplayer is pointless because anyone can just come along when you're logged off and kill them easily. 

So no, the larvae and the domesticated beefalo are updates that make far more sense in singleplayer, than multiplayer. Sorry.

 

 

3 hours ago, Pink_Infatuation said:

"if you play single player and leave it for one day it'll die"

AND THIS DOESN'T EVEN MAKE ANY SENSE?!?! WHAT DO YOU MEAN?!?!

In singleplayer, when you stop playing, the world freezes. So no, they don't die. What on earth are you talking about?

[Pink_Infatuation]

3 minutes ago, TheKingofSquirrels said:

AND THIS DOESN'T EVEN MAKE ANY SENSE?!?! WHAT DO YOU MEAN?!?!

In singleplayer, when you stop playing, the world freezes. So no, they don't die. What on earth are you talking about?

that's what you were saying. that if you leave it it'll die. and I was saying that's dumb and isn't true unless there's other people on the server who own it and are not you and can take care of it for you with little to no effort.

it's funny seeing you run in circles tho.

" In DST, you log out and it's just abandoned, and as the world keeps running because it's multiplayer, it will just die. "

"because it's multiplayer"

if you're playing with other people, they can watch over it.

and when you freaked out and said "but people won't be on 24/7 to watch it" is this because you're playing on a dedicated server set to run when nobody is on it? in which case, just don't do that? pretty simple.

[TheKingofSquirrels]

Just now, Pink_Infatuation said:

that's what you were saying. that if you leave it it'll die. and I was saying that's dumb and isn't true unless there's other people on the server who own it and are not you and can take care of it for you with little to no effort.

it's funny seeing you run in circles tho.

" In DST, you log out and it's just abandoned, and as the world keeps running because it's multiplayer, it will just die. "

"because it's multiplayer"

if you're playing with other people, they can watch over it.

If it's singleplayer...It won't die. That's the whole point of my argument. How are you not getting this? DS world freezes when you are not around. Have you not played singlplayer before?

And like I said before, unless you have friends that will be there 24/7, your larvae will die in multiplayer whether you left it with friends or not. At some point, your friends will log out and leave it to die. End of story.

[Pink_Infatuation]

Just now, TheKingofSquirrels said:

If it's singleplayer...It won't die. That's the whole point of my argument. How are you not getting this? DS world freezes when you are not around. Have you not played singlplayer before?

And like I said before, unless you have friends that will be there 24/7, your larvae will die in multiplayer whether you left it with friends or not. At some point, your friends will log out and leave it to die. End of story.

I have about a collective 1500 hours on both games give or take.

"DS world freezes when you are not around. "

Yep. that's how they work. in single player, you leave, and things are paused until you return. correct.

in DST the world does not pause unless the owner of the server leaves, or it's shut down by other means via console if it's a dedicated server.  In which case, if you leave before the server is shut down, logic would dictate that that means somebody is on the server (unless it is predetermined to be one that stays open forever without you on it, in which case good luck with ANYTHING sticking around since randos will come in and destroy everything). 

If someone else is on the server.. hold on for this..

if someone else is on the server, they can feed the beefalo/larvae.

i know, crazy.

"At some point, your friends will log out and leave it to die. End of story."

 

yes, and at that point the server will end. Or whoever owns the server- if they leave, the server will now be paused until you return next time. It will be in a stasis. and when the next person returns, the larvae will be there. alive. 

trust me. i've played a LONG time with larvae in the server.

[TheKingofSquirrels]

3 hours ago, Pink_Infatuation said:

I have about a collective 1500 hours on both games give or take.

"DS world freezes when you are not around. "

Yep. that's how they work. in single player, you leave, and things are paused until you return. correct..

So if you understand that, what was the point of your last two posts? Where you were arguing it would die if you left it in singleplayer. 

3 hours ago, Pink_Infatuation said:

... you realize how funny this sounds right.

"if you play single player and leave it for one day it'll die"

Did you mean to say multiplayer?

3 hours ago, Pink_Infatuation said:

If someone else is on the server.. hold on for this..

if someone else is on the server, they can feed the beefalo/larvae.

i know, crazy.

"At some point, your friends will log out and leave it to die. End of story."

 

yes, and at that point the server will end. Or whoever owns the server- if they leave, the server will now be paused until you return next time. It will be in a stasis. and when the next person returns, the larvae will be there. alive. 

trust me. i've played a LONG time with larvae in the server.

Ok, but there's a lot of variables that you are not considering. What if it's a dedicated server and have to leave? What if they don't own the server? What if they do, but everyone is at separate bases? What if your friend doesn't want to take care of your pets (taking of a beefalo is a bit of work) and have other priorities? What if they are not that good of players?

My point is, while it's possible to log out and have your friends take care of it, you shouldn't be surprised if you come back and find it dead. It's like leaving your baby with complete strangers. 

That's why, it's a mechanic much more suited for singleplayer than multiplayer.

 

3 hours ago, Pink_Infatuation said:

I have about a collective 1500 hours on both games give or take.

"DS world freezes when you are not around. "

Yep. that's how they work. in single player, you leave, and things are paused until you return. correct.

in DST the world does not pause unless the owner of the server leaves, or it's shut down by other means via console if it's a dedicated server.  In which case, if you leave before the server is shut down, logic would dictate that that means somebody is on the server (unless it is predetermined to be one that stays open forever without you on it, in which case good luck with ANYTHING sticking around since randos will come in and destroy everything). 

If someone else is on the server.. hold on for this..

if someone else is on the server, they can feed the beefalo/larvae.

i know, crazy.

"At some point, your friends will log out and leave it to die. End of story."

 

yes, and at that point the server will end. Or whoever owns the server- if they leave, the server will now be paused until you return next time. It will be in a stasis. and when the next person returns, the larvae will be there. alive. 

trust me. i've played a LONG time with larvae in the server.

Also, your fence argument is still dumb. Soz

[Residays]

They should just do what Valve did with CS 1.6 and CS CZ.

Basically CS CZ had a lot of development and was supossed to be more than now, 3 companies worked with Valve to make the single player campaign (Valve basically pays somebody to get legal rights and then pays them to make the game a lot of the time), 2 of them weren't accepted and it was with the final that they just decided to go with it. CZ felt dissapointing overall, so they just gave 1.6 to CZ owners and CZ to 1.6 owners, and if anybody tried to buy one you would get the other game without paying more.

They already gave DST near release to DS owners so I personally don't see any problem with this, just make DS come with RoG.

[Sinister_Fang]

8 hours ago, The Curator said:

Good contribution.

*Sigh*

[Maslak]

1 hour ago, TheKingofSquirrels said:

So if you understand that, what was the point of your last two posts? Where you were arguing it would die if you left it in singleplayer. 

Did you mean to say multiplayer?

Ok, but there's a lot of variables that you are not considering. What if it's a dedicated server and have to leave? What if they don't own the server? What if they do, but everyone is at separate bases? What if your friend doesn't want to take care of your pets (taking of a beefalo is a bit of work) and have other priorities? What if they are not that good of players?

My point is, while it's possible to log out and have your friends take care of it, you shouldn't be surprised if you come back and find it dead. It's like leaving your baby with complete strangers. 

That's why, it's a mechanic much more suited for singleplayer than multiplayer.

It's Don't Starve Together because it's meant to be played together. Pink already explained everything.
Some features are directed at group of players, not a single person. And by group I mean people playing together, helping each other.
Pubs can be a nice experience but they are definitely not true, full DST experience. We all know it.

I'm sorry if you don't have friends to take care of your beefalo or lavae.

[minespatch]

6 hours ago, Mani E. said:

I don't know the exact stats, but in DS you can freeze to death any day after day 3 regardless of your winter clothes, the winter clothes only slow down the freezing process whereas in DST a good winter set can halt freezing entirely. This is the reason why you never see pro DS players  ring thermal rocks alongside winter clothing, because when the thermal rock becomes cold the freezing process speeds up and the winter clothes are basically useless. Honestly, I don't know what they changed in DST to make it more forgiving.

So the waterlogging ROG mechanics work in a similar matter? My single player games decided to switch my starting times from autumn to Spring. So I'm not used to be wet.

[PillsStealer]

Shipwrecked is fun

[TheKingofSquirrels]

1 hour ago, Maslak said:

Some features are directed at group of players, not a single person. And by group I mean people playing together, helping each other.
 

I can agree with that, but Pink said ALL, which is wrong. Some features work just as well, or even better as single-player features. 

I'm glad we can agree on that. 

 

4 hours ago, Pink_Infatuation said:

... you realize how funny this sounds right.

"if you play single player and leave it for one day it'll die"

that's why it's suited for multiplayer. If you're even remotely friendly with anyone you play they can watch over the lavae for you. People can help you tame the beefalo (in fact, you could argue it is literally designed to be a team effort), and if you make a pen with a saltlick that's not even a problem. I guess it may be because i play with people who have two brain cells, which isn't always a common characteristic for randos lol but it's not hard to manage. It doesn't matter who tames the beefalo or who keeps track of the larvae. and if you're doing PvP then why are you giving them extra time anyways, you should all be quitting at once to begin with. That is, if you're going for fair, balanced pvp...

Fences are a super cheap way to build bases early on, so it makes sense that DST would see it first- a situation where staking territory at day 10 is much, much more important that it'll ever be in single player because you're not competing with anyone.

Doesn't mean I don't want it in single player though. that's your one point that stands. 

How is this getting likes? His argument doesn't make any sense. The thing he's quoting ins't a thing I said! He just made it up! I swear this community really has issues sometimes...

[watermelen671]

3 hours ago, TheKingofSquirrels said:

When you make a sequel, you don't go back to adding content to the first game, because everyone should be playing the sequel.

That statement is illogical. Just because Blizzard releases a new WoW expansion doesn't mean everybody wants to immediately hop onto it (Which is why there are legacy versions of the game), or look to the mobile space: there are plenty of apps made that are, by all extents and purposes, sequels, but the original is still given attention and updates. (See apps like Dragonvale and Dragonvale World) There will always be people who enjoy the original over the sequel, and that's probably one of the reasons why Klei made DST a stand-alone title.

Among those there are reasons like:

• It'd cost more money to completely rework DS into what DST has become
• Since it'd cost more money for the devs, players will have to pay more for the game
• Certain mechanics would be thrown completely out the window
• Things would be removed, thus no longer making it the "whole" game it previously was
• People like you would STILL whine and complain about it anyways

And if they were to simply pull the game off the shelf, the likely scenarios would occur:

A. Players lose their money, and make them less likely to further support Klei in future endeavors (Which is a HUGE problem)

B. Klei would have to reimburse players for their purchases (Which loses them money, most likely resulting in them losing overall profit)

And if they pulled the game off the shelf, and give them DST instead...well, they'd STILL be losing money! Because it cost them more to completely rework the game, and the stand-alone title was being sold at a cheaper price!

At the end of the day, Klei is a company, that needs money to keep making the great games that they're known for. And if releasing DST as a sequel while not abandoning the original makes them more money, then that's what they'll do.

[astroapyr]

As far as I know: Don't Starve Together is the first MMO game made by klei. Since multiplayer was something new for them, maybe they wanted it to be a whole new experience for the players that already owned and played Don't Starve, and I believe they didn't mixed em up because not everyone is interested in playing solo or multiplayer so they left the buyers to choose what they want.

Also, imagine if we had to pay for every dlc, it would be annoying, on the other side imagine if klei gave everything free for us, these updates we receive require effort, effort consumes calories, to get calories you need food and money for food, they need income without limiting our game experience man, give them a break.

 

Also, as nome stated in another post, klei is a small company and I believe they are still learning and improving, we actually don't know if they are aware that making a different game from an original one was a bad choice or if they are convinced it was the best choice, all we know is they are working hard to give something new for both single players and multiplayers and we should be gratefull for it.

Spoiler

Sorry if I use too much words as "believe", "imagine" and "I think", I know they make my statements sound weak and baseless, I'm just giving you an empathic POV.  But even if I dont agree with everything everyone says here, I know you all want klei to git gud.

 

[minespatch]

7 minutes ago, DelroyBM said:

klei is a small company

This.

[JoeW]

12 hours ago, The Curator said:

It just begs the question of why they felt the need to release the multiplayer as a separate game instead of just adding the multiplayer onto the first game.

It's hypocrisy, they talk about not wanting to drive too much of a split between the merit of playing DS or DST; when they're the ones who made the divide in the first place. Thus, DS lacks all kinds of A New Reign content and DST lacks Shipwrecked and soon Hamlet as well. It's ridiculous, they're the ones who felt the need to literally release the same game again but this time with multiplayer; instead of just giving the original game multiplayer. It's the same game, yet its being sold separately and each copy is missing content that the other has.

I don't believe that we have ever said we don't want to "Drive too much of a split between the merit of playing DS or DST". This hasn't been true since we announced DST to begin with. The entire point from the beginning was that one would not affect the other. 

We explicitly decided not to make Don't Starve multiplayer because it would take resources we did not have for a game that wasn't designed to support it and would drastically effect our ability to deliver Don't Starve as we had promised. Then we figured out another way. This was a big deal at the time, and many players did not want the single player game to be changed because of our decision to work on multiplayer. We kept them separate and the people who were happy with the single player game didn't have to deal with all the updates and changes to the game they loved because we added content that they didn't want. And if we had not chosen to go about things this way, DST would have just never been made. 

It's fine if you don't understand or agree with the decision and I understand that you weren't around when it was all happening, but your choice of wording is consistently abrasive and needs to be toned down; because it only causes arguments and the thread is going to end up getting shut down. 

 

[CarlZalph]

'Bout the biggest gripe I have with the split is that the mod API and way certain things are handled in both versions means having two forks of codebases for mods to function the same/similar.

In some cases the changes needed to make another version work can result in needing to use upvalues and the LUA debug library interface, which isn't the most elegant of solutions and can break during updates more easily than function wrapping/hooking.

Being well versed in just one codebase doesn't necessarily mean that you can do the same in the other just as easily, and may take effort on your part to port it.  Look at how many DS mods aren't in DST and vice-versa due to the incompatibilities.

 

From a consumer standpoint I can see why some people would see the split as a bad thing, since it would from a layman's point of view be paying for two copies of essentially the same game.

While this is not completely true, it's all about the perception of the buyer that really matters when the buyer is making the decision to pay at all or not.

 

From a company standpoint I can see why Klei decided to split and if I were in a similar scenario I might have done the same if I needed more funds/employees/time due to budgeting concerns.

Unfortunately real world constraints exist and it was decided that splitting was the best course of action at the time, and so it is so.

As Joe pointed out there, they had also made a promise to the community.  I respect those who keep to their words more than those who do not, and I feel that many others would agree.  Something about loyalty comes to mind.  It reminds me of other companies before they got too big to care.  I just hope Klei doesn't hit that point any time soon when they get too big and stop caring.

[Toros]

I sometimes wonder why some people are still part of the forums when literally every post I’ve ever seen them make is completely unreasonable whining about the game.  It’s like the same three users have the magical ability to be incredibly disrespectful to all the hard work by Klei while at the same time contributing nothing of value to discussions.

Also, I resent the implication that KCDA could ever have anything in common with Curator.  KCDA is the grumpy man on the mountain but he absolutely has put the time into learning DS like the back of his hand.  He has some positions that I don’t agree with (I don’t like using bugs, and I only think 98% of mods dillute the experience) but I greatly respect his knowledge about the game and he probably has answered thousands of questions asked by new players.

In contrast, I’ve never seen Curator say a positive thing about DS/SW or DST, every post he makes shows he clearly lacks knowledge about the basics of the game, and a casual google search or very basic logic completely obliterates his argument every time.  I don’t understand how someone can be so confidently wrong so many times in a row, nor know their audience so badly.

The basic premise of this thread is ridiculous.  Klei had to develop an entirely different game to make DST happen and have been wonderful at continually providing more free content.  I’ve bought every game they’ve made for pc, and given away copies of DS and DST and I don’t regret one cent I spent on any of it.

[TheKingofSquirrels]

15 hours ago, JoeW said:

I don't believe that we have ever said we don't want to "Drive too much of a split between the merit of playing DS or DST". This hasn't been true since we announced DST to begin with. The entire point from the beginning was that one would not affect the other. 

We explicitly decided not to make Don't Starve multiplayer because it would take resources we did not have for a game that wasn't designed to support it and would drastically effect our ability to deliver Don't Starve as we had promised. Then we figured out another way. This was a big deal at the time, and many players did not want the single player game to be changed because of our decision to work on multiplayer. We kept them separate and the people who were happy with the single player game didn't have to deal with all the updates and changes to the game they loved because we added content that they didn't want. And if we had not chosen to go about things this way, DST would have just never been made. 

It's fine if you don't understand or agree with the decision and I understand that you weren't around when it was all happening, but your choice of wording is consistently abrasive and needs to be toned down; because it only causes arguments and the thread is going to end up getting shut down. 

 

That's understandable, but why can't some of the ANR content from DST be passed to DS?

When you first announced DST, you said this:

"Single player Don't Starve will not be affected by the addition of multiplayer except for content or features not specifically related to multiplayer gameplay."

But that's not what's happening. Stuff like fences, gates, Winona, Beefalo riding, Extra-Adorable Lavae and other certain mobs and items are not specifically designed for multiplayer and wouldn't hurt the single-player experience (I mean, people have been asking for door/gates since even before DST existed), and yet they remain exclusive to DST. Why? The reality is, single player has been affected by the addition of multiplayer, because all updates have been going exclusively to DST and ahve therefore made DS an outdated game. 

At the moment, DS just feels incomplete. I can't ever play it because whenever I start a new game I think "Oh, I can't tame beefalo" and "Oh, I can't fight Klaus", and "Oh, I can't build a simple gate" and "Oh, I can't do that" and "Oh, I can't do this". It gets to the point where it's so underwhelming, I just don't see any point in starting a DS world because there's so many things missing, and I just quit and play on a closed server in DST (but now I can't do that because you are adding Hamlet). Is what I'm saying so unreasonable? 

Could we please get some confirmation on this? Will there ever be updates for DS (not including Shipwrecked or Hamlet)? Can you please confirm so we can stop hoping and making posts about something that will never come?

 

 

 

[Rellimarual]

1 hour ago, TheKingofSquirrels said:

That's understandable, but why can't some of the ANR content from DST be passed to DS?

Consider the possibility that you, knowing next to nothing about the developement and the programming of these games, are wrong in your belief that all if this would be fairly easy. Have you tried the fence/gate mod for DS? It’s a mess, and not, I believe, because the modder was inept. As someone pointed out earlier, they have very different engines, even if they do look similar on the surface.  If was a simple matter to add these features to DS, then Klei would most likely have done it by now. If it will, as seems to be the case, require a major overhaul of the game, then I can’t say I blame them for skipping it. People will pay more for a significant chunk of new content, like Hamlet, but not changes that look minor on the surface but are incredibly intensive underneath.

It still is possible that Hamlet will also bring with it that sort of overhaul and that Klei is actually trying to rewrite major parts of the game to add certain features. But it’s also possible that it’s just too impractical. They continue to give us TONS of free stuff, so I don’t think the issue is that they don’t care or are too stingy, as some of the people on this forum imply.

At this point, I really do wish that someone from Klei would speak to this complaint so that we don’t have to dredge it up over and over again. I don’t think they have an obligation to, as they haven’t done anything to merit that, but it would at least provide a basic response that can be used to nip this stuff in the bud

1 hour ago, Toros said:

.  I don’t understand how someone can be so confidently wrong so many times in a row,

I feel your frustration, but am guessing you don’t watch the news!

[TheKingofSquirrels]

17 minutes ago, Rellimarual said:

Consider the possibility that you, knowing next to nothing about the developement and the programming of these games, are wrong in your belief that all if this would be fairly easy. Have you tried the fence/gate mod for DS? It’s a mess, and not, I believe, because the modder was inept. As someone pointed out earlier, they have very different engines, even if they do look similar on the surface.  If was a simple matter to add these features to DS, then Klei would most likely have done it by now. If it will, as seems to be the case, require a major overhaul of the game, then I can’t say I blame them for skipping it. People will pay more for a significant chunk of new content, like Hamlet, but not changes that look minor on the surface but are incredibly intensive underneath.

You are right. I'm aware that I don't know anything about development and I'm completely out of my depth when talking about these sort of things. However, I would argue that there is a difference between modders who do this as a hobby and actual developers who work on this full time. If a modder can port it and make it kinda work, then surely Klei could do it.

But again, I digress. I'm assuming it's an easy thing to, and I shouldn't do that. 

17 minutes ago, Rellimarual said:

They continue to give us TONS of free stuff, so I don’t think the issue is that they don’t care or are too stingy, as some of the people on this forum imply.

Not since ROG. Everything new they've given us for DS has been paid DLC. Or did I miss something?

Again, I appreciate the fact that they can only work on this as long as it's profitable. That's just how it is. I don't judge them for it. 

17 minutes ago, Rellimarual said:

At this point, I really do wish that someone from Klei would speak to this complaint so that we don’t have to dredge it up over and over again. I don’t think they have an obligation to, as they haven’t done anything to merit that, but it would at least provide a basic response that can be used to nip this stuff in the bud

I agree.