MULTIPLAYER SOON !!!

[camelot]

14 hours ago, bleeter6 said:

You realize that you're saying this while klei's not making multiplayer right? You're proving my point.

Seriously? ONI currently in Early Access man and they need to focus on current roadmap, all other ideas are distractions. And if the problem is knowing potential revenue/cost then they're not making MP right now because they can't or have no good mean to calculate that 2 numbers accurately, especially the potential revenue. Before doing some user testing/survey it's too risky for them to make it. That's where user's interest in MP could help: reduce time to conduct the testing and give them the mean to calculate risk. 

At the end of the day, the idea of if the numbers are good and still, they won't build MP is laughable, they won't do it because this game meant to be single player etc.. is laughable too. More often, they won't do it until the risk becomes acceptable. 

@Yushatak We should promote that "non-real-time non-synchronized MP" idea more often

[camelot]

5 hours ago, watermelen671 said:

 

 

What do you think this is? EA? Klei wouldn't do that to us.

 

Haha, I knew this will trigger some people. But in the context I proposed, paid users have no real advantage compare to other peoples, only enable them to have more control of their own world. And to be honest, it's a common and effective monetization strategy at this moment, I'm pretty sure you've encountered it in some mobile games.

[PhailRaptor]

1 hour ago, camelot said:

And to be honest, it's a common and effective monetization strategy at this moment, I'm pretty sure you've encountered it in some mobile games.

It's effective because it has trivial cost of implementation and there are plenty of people with poor impulse control.  The idea that players would actively be seeking out such a business model to partake in is absolutely mind boggling, as it leads to an overall poor game experience due to highly repetitive gameplay and extensive grinding.

[watermelen671]

6 hours ago, camelot said:

Haha, I knew this will trigger some people. But in the context I proposed, paid users have no real advantage compare to other peoples, only enable them to have more control of their own world. And to be honest, it's a common and effective monetization strategy at this moment, I'm pretty sure you've encountered it in some mobile games.

But this isn't a mobile game, they don't need to monetize it! There's no need to implement waiting times, as...y'know what? I have a video for this too. 

Spoiler

 

4 hours ago, PhailRaptor said:

It's effective because it has trivial cost of implementation and there are plenty of people with poor impulse control.  The idea that players would actively be seeking out such a business model to partake in is absolutely mind boggling, as it leads to an overall poor game experience due to highly repetitive gameplay and extensive grinding.

Also this.

[Queron81]

On 2.10.2018 at 12:17 PM, Kazumiya said:

Stardew Valley is a simulation game too, though they added multiplayer so... Yes yes it's not really the same but still , when you want it => you can do it xD

Stardew Valley isn't a classic simulation game, more a roleplay game with actions you make directly. There are no systems. ONI is a construction and management simulation (a type of simulation game in which players build, expand or manage fictional communities or projects with limited resources). And as someone already said, in Stardew Valley you control one single character, in ONI you manage many characters and many systems. I don't see any way of multiplayer in this game, that would satisfy the expectations of the players who want multiplayer. You can actually play the game together and plan things together, talking about it and so on. That's all you can make in this type of games, every try for multiplayer for this type of games hasn't been successfull, so nobody is implementing it anymore. I like multiplayer in games, but only in those where it makes sense.