Don't Starve Togheter isn't free?

[fimmatek]

When DS was created, the devs said that it is a single player game and won't have any multiplayer extension, so they designed and coded it with that in mind. However, we did get DST and it became a huge success, but for it a huge part must have been recoded and redesigned. Chris1488 already said the problem with the shards, and there are a lot of others. The challenges, monsters, resources must have been adjusted to many players. New mechanics were created, player ghosts for example (because the world cannot be regenerated if someone dies), or existing ones changed (in DS you skip a day if you go to sleep... now imagine that in multiplayer ). There are many reasons DST became a new game and not just another DLC.

1 hour ago, Wilkinson said:

So maybe o next sale. if this game will be still alive. 

I can't imagine this game without mods. A lot of them are mandatory, completly "must have".

This game will be alive. Unless the aliens attack the earth and create a postapocaliptic situation, the game will still be up and people will play it.

Also, you do can play this game without mods, none of them are mandatory. Why would any of them be?

11 minutes ago, Mr.Mulk said:

DS has Shipwrecked and Hamlet justifying its existence too.

And also the adventure mode, which tells a lot about the game's lore.

[CaptainChaotica]

28 minutes ago, Mr.Mulk said:

If you attempted to cut content directly from DS and paste it into DST literal shadow hands would reach out of your monitor and grab you.

Fixed that for you. 

But seriously, what other people are saying is true.  I used to think it was kind of a ripoff myself...unTIL I realised that both games were already quite different back as soon as DST went off of beta, and kept getting...differenter.  Regular DS has Shipwrecked, Adventure Mode, the caves working differently, ACTUAL PAUSING WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE MAP, and the giants work somewhat differently (I'm looking at you, Dragonfly).  AND, it's gonna have Hamlet soon.  And your damn thermal stones don't break for no reason.  : P

Don't Starve Together has tons of new/changed content, new mechanics (like smouldering instead of instantly bursting into flame, or being able to carry something in your cursor "hand" even when your inventory is totally full for just a couple "minor" examples), reworked characters...not always for the best, I'll admit (coughWillowcoughWoodiecough), a whole NEW character (Winona) and that's not even counting the A New Reign stuff, which is practically its own seperate DLC! 

And THEN holidays.

AND the Forge.

And puzzles, like Metheus. 

All that said, I did buy my version of regular DS during the legendary Steam Summer Sale(tm) where it was RIDONKULOUSLY cheap.  Steam has random other sales all the time; for example I just got a game that would normally be $15 for under $4 because I happened to catch a temporary sale _right_ in time, with only one hour left.  So check often, is what I'm saying.

I'd also reccommend playing through vanilla DS at least until you can get a decent run out of it before leaping into Reign of Giants; it'll feel like a whole different game and teach you the _basic_ basics before you have to worry about overheating and frog rain.   

...Notorious

[MondayNight]

You have original Don't Starve, solo survival experience, adventure mode. Has Reign of Giants, and Shipwrecked as DLCs atm. Will have Hamlet as well. And, probably, more over time.

Then you have Don't Starve Together, multiplayer, that actually is more akin to Don't Starve 2, but with friends. Has a lot of new, specific content: free DLCs (like A New Reign); has events - as previous posters pointed - The Forge, holidays specific themes and mobs (Halloween, Winter's Feast, Year of the Gobbler 2017, Year of the Varg 2018). A new, again free, Forge-like event will start next month. Here's a complete list of the new stuff in DST.

 

But, hey, if you really REALLY don't fancy the concept and don't wanna give it a try, refund the game(s). Buy something else after carefully reading/informing yourself about it. Is that simple. Cheers!

[EuedeAdodooedoe]

4 hours ago, Wilkinson said:

I must say, I feel confused and disapointed Don't Starve Togheter isn't a free DLC to core game like should be. 
You make me to pay double time foor the same game with multiplayer option. Erm... Is a little not fair, i guess.
I bought Don't Starve on sale a few days ago, but I just simply miss there is something else, a completly different game, stand alone product like Don't Starve Togheter. 

Can anyone explain to me, why you doing this like that? Why I had to double pay for be able to play with others?

I haven't yet read any replies, but I could bet, the following posts will say something like "oh, but it has a lot of other content that single player doesn't!".

3 hours ago, landromat said:

Because it's different game on different engine. With different content. + free content updates and events

Called it

The game re-uses a lot of the existing content. It was just easier for them to port everything to a new game and *cough*moreprofitable*cough* so yeah.

I've worked a bit with games development to know that there is indeed, a lot of ovarhaul that needs to be done when going from a single player to a multiplayer model for something. It could have been just an overhaul to the original game but each has their own opinion on it. Mine's kind of mixed.

[Auth]

Pssst. DST is basically the cost of a DLC considering you get 2 copies. Plus, with RoG content included, you could basically say one copy of DST is $2.

Believe me, if you think that this decision went by with the community smoothly, you'd be wrong. Almost immediately after announcement there was questions and already salt. There were a lot of people upset by the sheer fact multiplayer was going to exist in the first place. Seriously. (The forums literally have an emote  that apparently doesnt work anymore... before DST's announcement)

And then, oof, when it was announced it wasn't going to just be an overhaul to the base game, boy were people steamed. The same thing happened with shipwrecked. (And, as many people now know, demanding SW be just a DLC in part killed it)

However, Klei gave reasons. Believe me, their original intention wasn't to try and suck money out of people. Hence why copies were given out free to random people watching the streams, and literally everyone that owned the game got a free copy. Hell, the game comes with RoG AND another copy AND you get a free skin just for having RoG for the base game just because Klei didn't want people to feel ripped off.

If you still feel it's a ripoff, fine, I get you, I can see your point. But from my standpoint, knowing how projects like this are, I can honestly say more often than not making something from scratch is often far faster and seamless than completely redoing every little thing.

And remember what I said earlier. People still hated the very concept of multiplayer. The games are separate, and this allows both parties to be happy. Plus, this allows for Klei to make DLC for one but not have to worry about big splits in players in DST itself.

 

[csc_unit]

Guys guys! I think we lost the OP ...

[Rellimarual]

18 hours ago, Wilkinson said:

Just because I don't like, when someone force me to pay again for same stuff, because is it the same. Dosn't matter DST is constantly updated etc. Too bad a core version don't have multiplayer option. Maybe I try TDS on another sale. But still is a unfair move from Klei Entertainment.

If it’s exactly the same game, then I agree you shouldn’t have to pay twice. So don’t! You should be perfectly happy playing single player DS, since you won’t be missing anything, as it’s the same game.

If, on the other hand, DST has stuff that you can’t get in DS, then that’s what you’re paying for. In the grown-up world, when people do more work and produce something new, they get paid for it. You’re free to decide that you don’t want to pay for it, but that means you don’t get to have it.

[ZolaRay]

The op itsnt probably checkin this anymore, so don't bother imo

[Mr.Tarunio]

I to would have a problem buying a sequel to a game that has different content. sigh

[ZolaRay]

31 minutes ago, jantonio said:

I to would have a problem buying a sequel to a game that has different content. sigh

I agree, if you want a better example, Borderlands 1 and 2, both games look exactly the same, and are about the same, but those games are different and have different content

[Starlogy]

17 hours ago, ZolaRay said:

I agree, if you want a better example, Borderlands 1 and 2, both games look exactly the same, and are about the same, but those games are different and have different content

Great example, love Borderlands so much.

Another good example (that applies the multiplayer thing that the OP is mentioning) is The Escapists and its sequel, The Escapists 2. 1 did not have any multiplayer aspect whatsoever, however, 2 has the hugely demanded multiplayer. You could argue that Escapists 1 and 2 are the same game, but 2 is getting constant love with DLCs, bug fixes, etc etc.

Don't Starve and Don't Starve Together and both justifiable games that I don't mind paying seperate for. Aside from Klei literally giving out copies of DST like hotcakes, DS has so much balance and fairness for singleplayer, whereas DST is balanced for more than 1 person.