Is Hamlet Seriously Not Part of Together?

[TheKingofSquirrels]

Klei...KLEI! WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING?!?!

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous! Did we learn nothing from Shipwrecked!?! 

Are you expecting us to buy DLC for single-player game that  you refuse to update with the stuff from Together. Nobody plays Singleplayer anymore because it's outdated...and now you are adding DLC for it. 

Are the people who make Together and Singleplayer different departments that don't speak to each other?!? Get your damn crap together guys (literally, STICK EVERYTHING TOGETHER INTO ONE GAME AND STOP SEGREGATING CONTENT)

Edit: Just to clarify, this is not about wanting to play Hamlet with other people, this is about not being able to access half a game's content because I'm on singleplayer. Hamlet is forcing me to go back to game that has half the content that DST. I want to be able to access everything in one world and not have to start a completely different game to experience ANR content (fences, Beefalo riding, new mobs, bosses, etc). THIS IS THE ISSUE. Just explaining this again, because some people seem to have trouble understanding. 

 

 

 

 

 

[NeddoFreddo]

Klei has to make money somehow. Apart from the new skins, you can't really expect for them to add everything as a free DLC to DST or RoG (Because Klei did say that they didn't want to divide players by adding paid DLC to DST.)
And singleplayer may be outdated, but that doesn't mean that Klei has to just forget about it and leave it to rot. Plus, perhaps some of the new mechanics etc added in Hamlet wouldn't work well with multiple players.

[TheKingofSquirrels]

14 minutes ago, NeddoFreddo said:

Klei has to make money somehow. Apart from the new skins, you can't really expect for them to add everything as a free DLC to DST or RoGs.

Nobody said it should be free. 

14 minutes ago, NeddoFreddo said:

(Because Klei did say that they didn't want to divide players by adding paid DLC to DST.)

But they are fine adding DLC to singleplayer...WHAT IS THIS LOGIC?!?!?

14 minutes ago, NeddoFreddo said:

And singleplayer may be outdated, but that doesn't mean that Klei has to just forget about it and leave it to rot. 

If you don't want singleplayer to rot....THEN ADD THE UPDATES FROM TOGETHER SO IT STOPS BEING OUTDATED!!!!!! Add Beefalo riding and Grass Gekkos, and everything that would work in singelplayer, there is literally no excuse!

How can you defend this?! How can ANYONE defend this?!?! This is just so absurd!!!!

[Rellimarual]

10 minutes ago, TheKingofSquirrels said:

But they are fine adding DLC to singleplayer...WHAT IS THIS LOGIC?!?!?

The logic is that multiplayer has multiple players. What happens when not all of the people who want to play have the DLC? Some will be excluded, which is the situation Klei wishes to avoid. This isn't an issue with single player because it has just one player. It's not that unfathomable.

[TheKingofSquirrels]

3 minutes ago, Rellimarual said:

The logic is that multiplayer has multiple players. What happens when not all of the people who want to play have the DLC? Some will be excluded, which is the situation Klei wishes to avoid. This isn't an issue with single player because it has just one player. It's not that unfathomable.

Ok, point taken...Servers are already thin as it is, it would suck to see them cut in half.

So what's the solution here? Because this is still a problem.

[. . .]

Isn't Don't Starve DLC like only 5 dollars? And Hamlet would be the first dlc for DST I really doubt it would divide the community, if someone doesn't have 5 dollars to buy a dlc then how do they even afford to pay for internet to play DST in the first place?

But yeah, I really wish Hamlet was for DST because a lot of content from DST isn't in DS plus now that I've known the great feeling of playing with other people I never want to play by myself again..so I will buy the DLC when it comes out to support Klei for making more future DLC but I probably will not play it since it's for DS (I did the same for SW)...

My only hope now is someone would port Hamlet to DST like how a group is porting SW to DST & that would most likely take more years for that to happen & this update "Forge" update for DST is going to be removed after a limited time they might as well not added it all then ...

[Rellimarual]

It doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me, tbh. I'd be happy to see them further developed as separate games. I still play both, mostly because SW looks so great, but also because the performance is so much better with single player. I don't think DS needs raid bosses like Toadstool, and I don't want SW in DST. I'd rather have all-new content in each. There are a few exceptions. Single player should get gates, fences and minisigns. Those are refinements that should be easy to transfer. 

Some people feel strongly that the separate games need to be different in order to preserve the impression that they tell a linear story. I don't care about that personally, but it's really important to many fans. This only annoys me when people insist that single player shouldn't be changed or added to because it is "done" and exists in the past of this story. I'm really pleased that Klei isn't taking the same attitude and will keep adding all new stuff to DS. 

[alainmcd]

1 hour ago, TheKingofSquirrels said:

THAT'S WHAT EVERYONE WANTS

You aren't "everyone".

1 hour ago, TheKingofSquirrels said:

Nobody plays Singleplayer anymore

100.000 players every two weeks will disagree with you. In a five year old, single player game, no less.

1 hour ago, TheKingofSquirrels said:

it's outdated

Isn't that the point of bug fixing and adding content?

[. . .]

4 minutes ago, Rellimarual said:

It doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me, tbh. I'd be happy to see them further developed as separate games.

But can't you imagine how great it would to have one world with all the SW, Hamlet, & DST stuff combined & being able to play with other people all at once?

6 minutes ago, Rellimarual said:

Some people feel strongly that the separate games need to be different in order to preserve the impression that they tell a linear story.

Klei could easily make this DLC for both DS & DST, then people who want it for DS get it for that & people who play DST get it for that.

Also, the majority of players play Don't Starve Together while only half or less of that number plays Don't Starve. And most newcomers would buy DST instead of DS because both the games are the same price, DST contains more content right of the bat, & playing with other people is more appealing than playing by yourself.

I really wish Klei would make DLC for DST too .

[TheKingofSquirrels]

50 minutes ago, Rellimarual said:

I still play both, mostly because SW looks so great, but also because the performance is so much better with single player.

No offence, but I don't think it's worth it just because it "looks good".

51 minutes ago, Rellimarual said:

 I don't think DS needs raid bosses like Toadstool.

Can't they be re-balanced?

54 minutes ago, Rellimarual said:

 There are a few exceptions. Single player should get gates, fences and minisigns. Those are refinements that should be easy to transfer. 

Exactly, so why won't they?

Also, Beefalo taming.

55 minutes ago, Rellimarual said:

Some people feel strongly that the separate games need to be different in order to preserve the impression that they tell a linear story. I don't care about that personally, but it's really important to many fans. This only annoys me when people insist that single player shouldn't be changed or added to because it is "done" and exists in the past of this story. I'm really pleased that Klei isn't taking the same attitude and will keep adding all new stuff to DS. 

I agree that singleplayer shouldn't be done, especially when that's what funded everything, but...The way Klei treats it, it feels like it is done, but they just wanna milk DLC from it. If they really cared about singleplayer, they would add fences or Beefalo riding.

[TheKingofSquirrels]

54 minutes ago, alainmcd said:

You aren't "everyone".

Come on...Don't you remember the reaction that Shipwrecked got?

54 minutes ago, alainmcd said:

100.000 players every two weeks will disagree with you. In a five year old, single player game, no less.

Why would you play it tho, when all the new stuff is in Together. Doesn't it make more sense just to have a closed server?

 

54 minutes ago, alainmcd said:

Isn't that the point of bug fixing and adding content?

But they are not doing that. Why haven't they added Beefalo riding or fences, or a billion things from Together, that would work brilliantly in singleplayer?

[Rellimarual]

A significant number of people who play DST play it alone. The game swallows up big chunks of time and has a learning curve that makes it difficult for many of us to set up sessions with friends, but when you try ito play with strangers you never get very far. The base game of DS was never originally designed for multiple players, so it remains a slightly awkward fit where it takes a big time investment to get to the point where you can do some of the more interesting and fun parts of the game, and it's often difficult to keep a good team together throughout. Players who want to do everything possible in the game often end up having to play solo to get there.

It can be fun to play with others but it can also be really frustrating. Say you get to hundreds of days with a particular team (or, as is more often the case) one partner. Then that player can't play much for a week or two for whatever real-world reason. Do you set that map aside until they can play again, or do you keep working on it, alone or with other people, which can make the original partner lose interest in it because it's not really "theirs" anymore? As long as anyone is playing on a map its timeline moves forward, leaving anyone who's absent behind. What if they host the game and you're really into it, but they get a new job and don't have time for it anymore? 

I enjoy both versions of the game, but if I have to choose between the devs sinking all their time into integrating SW into DST or creating completely new content for both games, there's no question which I'd pick. I want new content, not familiar content in a somewhat different form, especially since the chances are good that I'd end up playing the multiplayer version of SW alone anyway.

[TheKingofSquirrels]

7 minutes ago, Rellimarual said:

A significant number of people who play DST play it alone. The game swallows up big chunks of time and has a learning curve that makes it difficult for many of us to set up sessions with friends, but when you try ito play with strangers you never get very far. The base game of DS was never originally designed for multiple players, so it remains a slightly awkward fit where it takes a big time investment to get to the point where you can do some of the more interesting and fun parts of the game, and it's often difficult to keep a good team together throughout. Players who want to do everything possible in the game often end up having to play solo to get there.

It can be fun to play with others but it can also be really frustrating. Say you get to hundreds of days with a particular team (or, as is more often the case) one partner. Then that player can't play much for a week or two for whatever real-world reason. Do you set that map aside until they can play again, or do you keep working on it, alone or with other people, which can make the original partner lose interest in it because it's not really "theirs" anymore? As long as anyone is playing on a map its timeline moves forward, leaving anyone who's absent behind. What if they host the game and you're really into it, but they get a new job and don't have time for it anymore? 

I enjoy both versions of the game, but if I have to choose between the devs sinking all their time into integrating SW into DST or creating completely new content for both games, there's no question which I'd pick. I want new content, not familiar content in a somewhat different form, especially since the chances are good that I'd end up playing the multiplayer version of SW alone anyway.

I don't see how any of this is relevant.

I agree, multiplayer kinda sucks. I literally play DST on a closed server, just my myself...as if it was singleplayer.

So now, when this new Hamlet DLC comes...WTF am I supposed to do?

Why can't they pass the stuff from Together to singleplayer, so I can just play that, it's just so annoying!

[. . .]

4 minutes ago, Rellimarual said:

but if I have to choose between the devs sinking all their time into integrating SW into DST or creating completely new content for both games, there's no question which I'd pick. I want new content, not familiar content in a somewhat different form, especially since the chances are good that I'd end up playing the multiplayer version of SW alone anyway.

Even if people play DST by themselves that doesn't change why Klei doesn't bring DLC over to DST. Literally DST is the superior version of DS & you can play by yourself to simulate playing DS or play with others if you want too.

And Klei would not have to spend so much time in porting SW & other DLC to DST, as many modders seem to be able to do it at a very fast pace without having an entire group of workers like Klei does.

Also, if Klei really didn't want to separate the community then why are they releasing a huge new DLC for just Don't Starve? They're literally separating a huge amount of active players who only play/own DST from the new content. If it weren't for the DLC there would be 0 reason to play DS except for the fps boost which only matters if you're playing on a potato..

The only thing that would happen if Klei releases Hamlet DLC for DST is that they would make more money, people that can't afford buying it for DST wouldn't be able to afford it for DS either so this "separating the fanbase" excuse holds no water ...

[Zeklo]

Now I can't say for certain since it's not out, but the impression I get is that the way they're doing Hamlet isn't possible for DST.

Speculation of course.

[. . .]

Just now, Zeklo said:

Now I can't say for certain since it's not out, but the impression I get is that the way they're doing Hamlet isn't possible for DST.

They said multiple times DST was not possible, guess what happened later?

[Zeklo]

Just now, SuperDavid said:

They said multiple times DST was not possible, guess what happened later?

They didn't say it wasn't possible. They said they weren't going to do it.

I was there. It was the reason I joined the forums in the first place.

[TheKingofSquirrels]

6 minutes ago, Zeklo said:

Now I can't say for certain since it's not out, but the impression I get is that the way they're doing Hamlet isn't possible for DST.

Speculation of course.

Because it's a different shard world, like caves and shipwrecked...WHY?!?!?! Why can't it be just a new biome, like RoG was. People loved RoG. Did they learn nothing from Shipwrecked? I understand why Shipwrecked couldn't be blended in, with the whole different ocean and clashing themes, but this...this looks like it fits perfectly into RoG.

Ugh. This is so frustrating. 

[Mr. Despair]

6 minutes ago, Zeklo said:

Now I can't say for certain since it's not out, but the impression I get is that the way they're doing Hamlet isn't possible for DST.

Speculation of course.

Maybe, I believe that this would look weird in DST.

[Zeklo]

4 minutes ago, TheKingofSquirrels said:

Because it's a different shard world, like caves and shipwrecked...WHY?!?!?! Why can't it be just a new biome, like RoG was. People loved RoG. Did they learn nothing from Shipwrecked? I understand why Shipwrecked couldn't be blended in, with the whole different ocean and clashing tones, but this...this looks like it fits perfectly into RoG.

Ugh. This is so frustrating. 

I dunno if you've looked at the steam page for it (someone linked the pic I'm referring to) but there's a screenshot inside a building. I dunno how that works, but that screams multiplayer incompatible. Not to mention the pig ruins or whatever are its own thing entirely.

[. . .]

Just now, Zeklo said:

They didn't say it wasn't possible. They said they weren't going to do it.

Well for a group of people who is jobs is to code, make art, ect.. nothing is impossible. Literally I saw someone made a mod for DST which turns the game into freaking Super Smash Brothers, now this Hamlet DLC isn't that drastic of a change it's literally new biomes, entities, items, & probably a couple new mechanics.    Modders have already shown that even big mechanics like SW is ocean can be ported to DST.

It's literally impossible for it to be impossible for Hamlet to not be able to function with DST.

The only reason could be because it would be another shard for a world & that's not a valid excuse .

[Zeklo]

Just now, SuperDavid said:

Snip

My main worry comes from what I stated above. That's why with what info we have it looks grim imo.

[TheKingofSquirrels]

1 minute ago, Zeklo said:

I dunno if you've looked at the steam page for it (someone linked the pic I'm referring to) but there's a screenshot inside a building. I dunno how that works, but that screams multiplayer incompatible. Not to mention the the pig ruins or whatever are its own thing entirely.

That's not a bad point...

It's just...I just want everything to be in one man. I'm sorry, but I having three different worlds (one in Shipwrecked, one in DST and the other in RoG). I like long term play, and so going into a game, knowing that half the content isn't there...Well then what's the point?

[Zeklo]

Just now, TheKingofSquirrels said:

That's not a bad point...

It's just...I just want everything to be in one man. I'm sorry, but I having three different worlds (one in Shipwrecked, one in DST and the other in RoG). I like long term play, and so going into a game, knowing that half the content isn't there...Well then what's the point?

I getcha, it's off putting for sure.

[. . .]

1 minute ago, Zeklo said:

I dunno if you've looked at the steam page for it (someone linked the pic I'm referring to) but there's a screenshot inside a building. I dunno how that works, but that screams multiplayer incompatible. Not to mention the the pig ruins or whatever are its own thing entirely.

That building thing is probably when you open the door it fades to black the outside world & shows inside of the building & it has walls like how caves worlds had walls before they removed them, so it's not even a real "room".

And if this pig ruins is its own thing then as I said Klei can make it that having DLC on means you can't go to a non-dlc world, but this is really only a problem for people with bad computers & it's not legit excuse.