Pillars of Eternity Multiplayer in the works?

[Guest 4ward]

Hello, everyone. Multiplayer is not currently planned for PoE or The White March. If we do a sequel, who knows? That said, it is pretty unlikely we will do it. We have a ton of other features that would probably be more well received by the Pillars community.

And those features are ....? just curious. Also, would you guys at Obsidian think about kickstarting the inclusion of features you're indifferent about (MP, romances....) ?

[R.Alexander]

As someone who never used the mp in the IE games and unlikely to in any future PoE games, I get the resources taken away from single player argument. I did not really think about it, but with a company as small as Obsidian, I think it is a safe bet that adding mp will strain their resources. Anyway, as long as they delivered me a good rpg, I would not care if it had mp or not, but I have not really seen as high a demand for it as other features like romance.

[Rosveen]

With all that said, I won't be one of the bomb throwers if Obsidz decides to include MP in the next game. I'd figure the other side will merely have come out on top on that issue, but it would certainly cause me concern.

I probably will be, just a little. Not because I'm against MP in general,but because I'll be afraid they won't have enough resources to polish both single and multiplayer modes. We all know many aspects of PoE could use additional work, I don't want this to happen again. But if they can pull it off... Fine, sure. It's not my cup of tea (I wasn't interested in MP in the IE games either), but if it draws more people in without endangering core features of the game, why not. Just as long as it's a separate mode I'm not forced to play.

[Varana]

The kind of multiplayer that the IE games had (which wasn't exactly "multiplayer" as used today; we would probably call it "coop mode") would be nice to have in a PoE game. But "nice to have" rarely comes free, and that's the problem.

 

They could tack on a coop mode as the IE games did, with heavy issues: Apart from very fickle connection issues, dialogue in BG1 was a pain in the *** (anyone initiating dialogue interrupted everything else for everyone); in BG2, it got somewhat better (only story-critical dialogue did that, which created a whole new set of problems). It was somewhat better in IWD, because they were mostly about killing stuff and not much talking. The IE series could get away with it but if you deliver something like that today, internet multiplayer being almost ubiquitous, you get shredded to pieces. Relatively cost-effective, but also relatively sh**ty.

 

Do the same, but do it well: Takes a lot of resources, and probably doesn't bring in enough additional players to justify the costs.

 

To get people to buy the game for the multiplayer, they'd have to go fully in like Divinity: Original Sin, which has the coop mode built deep into all of the game's systems. That changes the nature of a game (I'm deeply sorry ), and I'm not sure that Obsidian and/or its customers want that.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Varana

[sku]

In all honesty, multiplayer does suck.

[macadam]

Imho PoE needs MP like a fish needs a bicycle. Let other game studios jump on that bandwagon. It may be that other games benefit from such a feature, but PoE is not such a game.

[Cantousent]

To get people to buy the game for the multiplayer, they'd have to go fully in like Divinity: Original Sin, which has the coop mode built deep into all of the game's systems. That changes the nature of a game (I'm deeply sorry ), and I'm not sure that Obsidian and/or its customers want that.

This is actually my biggest concern. Even more than resources, I'm afraid that accommodating MP will by necessity require compromises in the SP game. I guess I'm looking for a great single player game created for the PC. I'm sure that a game created for SP and MP to run on the PC, XBox (whichever), and PS (whichever) is great, but there are compromises that must be made to fit everything into one box and sometimes my mode and platform of choice will be on the losing end of that compromise.

[Mahumia]

Personally not such a fan of most versions of MP-games, as I don't really like PVP. An optional coop could be nice though. 

 

But I would be pretty indifferent about the whole MP thing: I haven't touched the MP-option of DA:I either. And I see that a lot of focus and resources are pumped into the MP, instead of the SP... I get that people like MP, but I would personally rather have primary focus on SP (DA:I shows a LOT of shortcuts due to limited resources in SP).  

[gkathellar]

 

To get people to buy the game for the multiplayer, they'd have to go fully in like Divinity: Original Sin, which has the coop mode built deep into all of the game's systems. That changes the nature of a game (I'm deeply sorry ), and I'm not sure that Obsidian and/or its customers want that.

This is actually my biggest concern. Even more than resources, I'm afraid that accommodating MP will by necessity require compromises in the SP game. I guess I'm looking for a great single player game created for the PC. I'm sure that a game created for SP and MP to run on the PC, XBox (whichever), and PS (whichever) is great, but there are compromises that must be made to fit everything into one box and sometimes my mode and platform of choice will be on the losing end of that compromise.

 

It might be nice to see an IWD-style game with co-op on PoE's modified engine at some point, but PoE itself is not the game to do it in.

[magritte]

Well, I probably wouldn't use multiplayer myself, but it's not a terrible idea for an expansion.  It's far too much work to expect as a patch, though, so they'd have to expect to generate significant revenue.  It would be interesting to see a poll of how many current players would buy an expansion focused on multiplayer.  The idea pops up often enough on the boards that some people would obviously buy it, but enough to justify the cost?

 

I wonder what percentage of people who play Divinity: Original Sin play it in pairs?  That might give you some sense of the MP potential of PoE, since the games have similar target audiences, though it's not going to be quite accurate since D:OS campaign was built for two players.

[Fardragon]

People misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was saying the games were the draw for people to support PoE, not multiplayer was the draw for those games hence the commas. I was just stating the games that were used to market this one had mp, but I never heard anyone say it ruined those games, only that it added to the experience.

The multiplayer is Baldur's Gate was so popular that it was fifteen years before anyone noticed it didn't work.

[magritte]

Personally not such a fan of most versions of MP-games, as I don't really like PVP. An optional coop could be nice though. 

 

But I would be pretty indifferent about the whole MP thing: I haven't touched the MP-option of DA:I either. And I see that a lot of focus and resources are pumped into the MP, instead of the SP... I get that people like MP, but I would personally rather have primary focus on SP (DA:I shows a LOT of shortcuts due to limited resources in SP).  

I'm not really sure that the major deficiencies in DA:I are because of multiplayer.  It might be more the focus on quantity rather than quality.  Multiplayer was just symptomatic of the fact that they tried to have every feature that any competitor game had.

[rkade8583]

What is it with you MP-lovers? Sure it kind of makes sense for games like State of Decay but an RTS-with-pause game is not the one to shoot for... also, it's been nixed by word of God. Let it go. Find a game where MP makes sense.

[Lord_Mord]

 

The multiplayer is Baldur's Gate was so popular that it was fifteen years before anyone noticed it didn't work.

 

I never had problems with it. They only thing that always confused me, was the Arena-Button. What the hell was that for? It seemed to do nothing.

[majestic]

 

 

The multiplayer is Baldur's Gate was so popular that it was fifteen years before anyone noticed it didn't work.

 

I never had problems with it. They only thing that always confused me, was the Arena-Button. What the hell was that for? It seemed to do nothing.

 

 

The Enhanced Edition actually did something with the button I think, but I never tried those so I don't really know.

 

The original button MIGHT have referred to GameSpy, a lobby/matchmaking system that many games used back in the day instead of creating their own - players needed to install the optional GameSpy client and create a login for it to work. It went kaputt a few years back and took some older games' multiplayer mode with them.

 

GameSpy only shipped with the North American release of Baldur's Gate so I have no idea if that is it.

[wanderon]

 

 

 

The multiplayer is Baldur's Gate was so popular that it was fifteen years before anyone noticed it didn't work.

 

I never had problems with it. They only thing that always confused me, was the Arena-Button. What the hell was that for? It seemed to do nothing.

 

 

The Enhanced Edition actually did something with the button I think, but I never tried those so I don't really know.

 

The original button MIGHT have referred to GameSpy, a lobby/matchmaking system that many games used back in the day instead of creating their own - players needed to install the optional GameSpy client and create a login for it to work. It went kaputt a few years back and took some older games' multiplayer mode with them.

 

GameSpy only shipped with the North American release of Baldur's Gate so I have no idea if that is it.

 

 

Enhanced edition did a LOT for MP making it available across multiple platforms (at the same time I believe)

[gkathellar]

 

 

 

 

The multiplayer is Baldur's Gate was so popular that it was fifteen years before anyone noticed it didn't work.

 

I never had problems with it. They only thing that always confused me, was the Arena-Button. What the hell was that for? It seemed to do nothing.

 

 

The Enhanced Edition actually did something with the button I think, but I never tried those so I don't really know.

 

The original button MIGHT have referred to GameSpy, a lobby/matchmaking system that many games used back in the day instead of creating their own - players needed to install the optional GameSpy client and create a login for it to work. It went kaputt a few years back and took some older games' multiplayer mode with them.

 

GameSpy only shipped with the North American release of Baldur's Gate so I have no idea if that is it.

 

 

Enhanced edition did a LOT for MP making it available across multiple platforms (at the same time I believe)

 

Well, they had to do something to justify the $40 cover price. If you want to play BG with four badly written new NPCs and an uglier UI, there are mods for that already.

[Crucis]

 

I'm with those who oppose adding MP to PoE.  Every dollar spent on MP is a dollar that isn't being spent on improving the game itself.  And that's the biggest reason for opposing MP, perhaps in the end, the only reason that matters.

 

But wouldnt that money be recouped by people buying the game due to multiplayer? So basically it would pay for itself. The only factor implementing multiplayer would take up would be time. It'd take time away from improving single player by implementing multiplayer.

 

 

But the thing is that adding MP does NOT add any new content (be it new areas, etc. or tweaks to classes and items, etc.).  And if you don't add any new content, then you're not going to get a lot of the existing customers to pay for MP. 

 

Also, the game was intended from the start to be a solo game, not an MP game.  And the people who contributed to the kickstarter campaign did so under that assumption.  IMO, I think that it'd be better if the game stayed true to its solo gaming roots, rather than waste resources on something that adds no new content to the overall package.

[wanderon]

 

 

 

Well, they had to do something to justify the $40 cover price. If you want to play BG with four badly written new NPCs and an uglier UI, there are mods for that already.

 

 

I don't recall paying $40 altho I would not have an issue doing so - I bought it specifically to be able to play right out of the box more or less, without a laundry list of mods that have to be installed in a particular order many of which that are no longer supported etc etc. I still have multiple copies of both BG & BG2 on disk (somewhere) so I certainly didn't "have to" buy it nor was I disappointed that I did.

 

Yes it is certainly evident that it was not done by the original team but I enjoyed playing it none the less and may even go back to it at some point if I tire of PoE or just want a BG fix.

[alexis13]

No!

Why? whats your problem? how is it effecting you at all? there is a big demand for it.

 

Just because you don't want others to be happy doesn't mean they shouldn't.

 

its like saying chocolate shouldn't be made because you personally hate it, get a grip of reality and get out your own ass, how rude.

 

If you don't want to play it thats perfectly fine, I can respect that, but many people do and it was a much loved part of the old BG games and ESPECIALLY the old NWN2 game, infact it was so popular many many servers were made for it back in the day and there are still some up today.

 

Have some respect for other people besides yourself.

[alexis13]

 

surely it can't be hard to add some online? 

A line of code here, new interface there... I'm sure it's something Josh could put together during his lunch break.

 

You know man seeing as I've put some code toghether myself for certain things I know a bit abotu this.

 

Sure im very lost when it comes to online creation, but I say I've more than you.

 

Its merely allowing peopel to connect online through lan (not even their own servers) get two games to connect one people to be able to use their own companions in another game and its just basically a copy of the single player.

 

Independant modders did it for skyrim, it cant be THAT hard for a pro company.

[alexis13]

I . . . just, why?

 

Why is MP so critical for a purchase for people in this type of genre? I mean, I really don't see the appeal.

 

PoE is a story-driven, character interaction focused CRPG. What possible benefit would there be to adding Multiplayer, and how would it even work considering the nature of the Companion characters and battle system?

 

I mean, what would MP PoE look like?

 

I hop into someone else's world, where my PC, Eder, Aloth, Durance, Sagani, and Kana team up with another person's PC, Eder, Aloth, Durance, Grieving Mother, and Hiravias so we can double team Xaurip mobs in Caed Nua?

 

OK, setting aside the fact that we've now got a bunch of doubled clone characters - how does the battle system work in real-time online? When I pause to issue commands am I on a timer? It pauses the other player's game too, right? How many more enemies do we have to add to fights to make them not totally steam-rollable with 2 different party's on them at once? 4 times as many enemies?

 

Or is it just an arena mode so I can take my level 12 team of heroes against your level 12 team of heroes? Like, that's not even that bad of an idea if there were to be PoE MP, but is that REALLY so appealing an idea that it becomes a make or break decision on whether or not to purchase the game?

 

I just really don't understand the "MP or no purchase" mentality I guess. Like, do you need MP in Telltale Adventure games too?

Are....are you kidding me?

 

god it really is ignorance thats putting people off.

 

No it works like this, one person creates the game (one of their saves) and you make your custom char like normal and join their world and campaign as one of THEIR companions in their team.

 

Then you travel, have fun, talk about the world, role play, talk about items all your classes and walk down the streets of the cities and comment on the wonderful area's talk, both of you also role play with ur companions.

 

Maybe do a solo run of POTD but with ur friend to share the challenge, learn from each other and talk about your abilities, just play the game toghether on one of your campaigns and have fun.

 

no.....have you never played bg multiplayer? its where you join THEIR team and u are in one of each others worlds.

Edited August 12, 2015 by alexis13

[alexis13]

No!

Can you actually give me a reason?

 

Or are you just some miserable old man who wants to spite others like in your picture?

 

Seriously you've just been blatantly rude to me, why shouldn't I be to you?  Give a VALID reason or stfu.

 

If its "I hate other people sharing my world" its not valid.

[wanderon]

 

 

surely it can't be hard to add some online? 

A line of code here, new interface there... I'm sure it's something Josh could put together during his lunch break.

 

You know man seeing as I've put some code toghether myself for certain things I know a bit abotu this.

 

Sure im very lost when it comes to online creation, but I say I've more than you.

 

Its merely allowing peopel to connect online through lan (not even their own servers) get two games to connect one people to be able to use their own companions in another game and its just basically a copy of the single player.

 

Independant modders did it for skyrim, it cant be THAT hard for a pro company.

 

 

The question is really not how hard it is (altho it is certainly difficult to do well) the problem as I and many other have pointed out is every snippet of resources it takes to do this are resources taken away from the single player game. The one they asked our funding for and told us would NOT include MP or consoles. 

 

So yes my considered opinion can indeed be summed up in a single word - NO! Sorry if that offends you but it's likely no more than adding MP would offend me.

[alexis13]

 

 

 

surely it can't be hard to add some online? 

A line of code here, new interface there... I'm sure it's something Josh could put together during his lunch break.

 

You know man seeing as I've put some code toghether myself for certain things I know a bit abotu this.

 

Sure im very lost when it comes to online creation, but I say I've more than you.

 

Its merely allowing peopel to connect online through lan (not even their own servers) get two games to connect one people to be able to use their own companions in another game and its just basically a copy of the single player.

 

Independant modders did it for skyrim, it cant be THAT hard for a pro company.

 

 

The question is really not how hard it is (altho it is certainly difficult to do well) the problem as I and many other have pointed out is every snippet of resources it takes to do this are resources taken away from the single player game. The one they asked our funding for and told us would NOT include MP or consoles. 

 

So yes my considered opinion can indeed be summed up in a single word - NO! Sorry if that offends you but it's likely no more than adding MP would offend me.

 

Lol thats it right there "but it's likely no more than adding MP would offend me." for what reason? thats you don't like it.

 

They told us there would be no consoles, the multiplayer part was told later and MUCH after.

 

Also all the games they have worked on have actually been the more praised multiplayers of the DnD games, NwN2 having the largest multiplayer community at the time of all the games (IWD, Bg1/2) it seems to me you just got something against it as the "!" displays a hidden anger that you are not telling about.

 

I dunno what your problem is with it and you clearly arn't gonna tell, if you want to take others fun away out of spite then fine, but don't pretend to be just about it.