Restricting DLC world-hosting and DLC character selection?

[EuedeAdodooedoe]

Could this work? And would the fanbase be okay with it?

I remember that in the past, Klei mentioned that the way the wanted to introduce RoG into DST was that everyone would have access to RoG content in the game, but the characters would be limited only to those who bought the DLC for the single player. That never happened and the content was just brought into the game for everybody.

This got me thinking... why wasn't this done? Because mods were already allowing these characters? I guess... I mean, it wouldn't be splitting the fanbase, it's just that not ever player would be able to use all of the characters.

Considering that people would like to have single player DLC brought into DST, couldn't it be possible to simply make it so that you can host a server with a certain DLC's content if you own the single player DLC and characters would be limited to what you have. So, you would still be able to play with other players on SW-integrated servers, but not be able to host a server with SW content or play with the characters specified. And I think this can actually work if you set things up properly; client only needs to see and hear what's going on, they don't need most of the mechanics code, really, as that can be handled on the server-side. Although I guess it might mean changing the way the game functions at least to some extent.

So, I'm wondering what others think of this method. It wouldn't split servers that you can join, which encouraging other players to purchase single player and its DLC, which could support further development of the game, rather than Klei scraping off of whatever comes from skins, some of which partially ruin the aesthetic of the game too imo as some have been cheaply made.

[Toros]

...Is the purpose of the thread to speculate on and advocate for a less player-friendly implementation of DST?

Or is it to speculate on SW being ported to DST, a question that is asked biweekly and whose answer has been clearly "not going to happen"?

Considering the characters have already been ported over, I think if it's speculating on SW being ported (it's not going to be by Klei) trying to segregate content in the matter you're suggesting would be phenomenally bad implementation.

[MondayNight]

I fail to see the point of this thread in the context of present DST settings as all updates were free and for all the player-base, also all characters (the new one, Winona, as well) are already implemented, again free and for the entirety of player-base to use. Also, as previously stated, SW won't be implemented in DST, at least not in the foreseeable future.

Is this an attempt to rephrase a "pls, Klei, implement SW, even if is done with split player-base, and look, a lot of people will be alright with it"?

[GiddyGuy]

This just kinda seems like an anti consumer idea.

[1v0]

Free content is good but you have to see the bad side of it too ... Because it's free you won't get the same ammo of content as you would in a DLC . So I'm ok with getting free content but I want DLC too because I fear that we won't get new biomes and new features (think RoG) , that will be here to stay and make our survival world better and bigger .

As for the way to make it I think it should be done like - only the one that buys it can host a DLC content server . But everyone no matter if you own the DLC or not can join it . This way no separation of the community . Because only 1 needs to host and 5 (or more I hope) can join free for free . For example I only play with my friends and 95% of the time I'm the host so ... Only I buy it and host so no matter if they own it or not they can join .

As for the price ... I don't mind it , the base game itself is fairly cheap and I won't mind to give 4-8 $ for a RoG level content (new features , new characters , new biomes , and so on ...) RoG was so good  that if you play without it you will almost feel like playing a different game .

[EuedeAdodooedoe]

@Toros @xxVERSUSxy No, this is not "Pls implement SW, Klei, PLS!"

Toros and @GiddyGuy, how would this be less player-friendly/anti-consumer though? You'd get what you pay for when you host your own world and possibly a bit more if you play on somebody else's server. I find it interesting why you're all so hostile towards this idea, but at the same time, love the idea of the game being flooded with cosmetics.

My thought was to have this for RoG too, but if not for RoG, then for whichever following DLC that MAY be coming in the far future for DST.

[CarlZalph]

If it were to be monetized in this fashion, then I would have to lean on the idea that the gate's at the server host and once people join in then they won't be left out as the 'worst case scenario' from a consumer standpoint.

 

But this leads to the issue that dedicated servers, where the majority of regulars I see tend to go on, would be the main ones hit.

Issue is that these people are the ones hosting for free as-is, and would be essentially slapped in the face by Klei to push them to pay more than they already are doing for the costs of hosting.

 

I don't see why Klei wouldn't just put an in-game feature that lets you donate money to them directly from the Steam wallet with no expectancy of reward in return.

Could then have on the main menu the total time played by the user and the average cost per hour played as a sort of a means to tell someone just how much entertainment they're actually getting per dollar spent.

[GiddyGuy]

Well I don't really think they're short on money since they're working on five different games all at the same time.

[Rellimarual]

2 hours ago, GiddyGuy said:

Well I don't really think they're short on money since they're working on five different games all at the same time.

This is exactly why they *would* be short of money.

[watermelen671]

3 minutes ago, Rellimarual said:

This is exactly why they *would* be short of money.

Not necessarily. Usually dev companies ensure they have enough money for development before they start their project, and when they need more, they host events like The Forge. 

[Rellimarual]

9 hours ago, watermelen671 said:

Not necessarily. Usually dev companies ensure they have enough money for development before they start their project, and when they need more, they host events like The Forge. 

That's not the same as saying they have money to throw around. Of course they're not going to hire people they can't afford to pay, unless they are terrible business people.

[Toros]

On 11/7/2017 at 4:53 PM, EuedeAdodooedoe said:

@Toros @xxVERSUSxy No, this is not "Pls implement SW, Klei, PLS!"

Toros and @GiddyGuy, how would this be less player-friendly/anti-consumer though? You'd get what you pay for when you host your own world and possibly a bit more if you play on somebody else's server. I find it interesting why you're all so hostile towards this idea, but at the same time, love the idea of the game being flooded with cosmetics.

My thought was to have this for RoG too, but if not for RoG, then for whichever following DLC that MAY be coming in the far future for DST.

It's a worse deal than we currently have.  Why would you suggest a worse situation for the player?  The current idea is that Klei will do events with purchasable skin packs (it looks like they slipped in more lore and features with forge, so it's not unreasonable to think this will let them fund continued development of DST) to secure funding.

[Cpt. KatKit]

Don't like the idea especially because I want more players to play with not less.

[EuedeAdodooedoe]

On 09/11/2017 at 1:31 AM, Toros said:

It's a worse deal than we currently have.  Why would you suggest a worse situation for the player?  The current idea is that Klei will do events with purchasable skin packs (it looks like they slipped in more lore and features with forge, so it's not unreasonable to think this will let them fund continued development of DST) to secure funding.

Well, it's worse depending on how you look at it. Some of the skins they've made are quite cheap with not much effort put into them. That's the result of having skin-reliance. And this ruins the game's aesthetic and may even encourage in-game gambling. And you can't switch or limit off certain skins in the game if it's ruining the aesthetic for you, that's something forced on your server if a player comes in to use them. Graphics matter for a game, it's part of what makes it art, and if games are art, then skins are stickers, part of which can make the whole thing look uglier than it normally would be or the sticker looking out of place as something that should be peeled off but can't be.

That's why I think encouraging to pay for decent content without splitting up the players with those who have and haven't got the DLC, with just a few relatively minor restrictions, and to encourage future single-player DLC being ported to DST would be a better idea than having a bunch of skins, part of which ruin the aesthetic due to being cheap, easy and quick to make.