This is how I even found out they were making the game, so pretty good news. Never got around to playing the other one they released, though.. Or finishing the first.
this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
143 points (98.6% liked)
Gaming
19998 readers
51 users here now
Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules:
- 1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
- 2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
- 3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Nor should it be.
My pitchfork was out and my torch was almost lit but I've stowed both for the time being.
Subantica really was one of those games that just grabbed me, where I played eight hours and could have played more. I hope the next one is more of the same, expands on the building aspect and gives us another great big mystery.
I hope Subnautica 2 is better than BZ. The original was so good, just was missing co-op with friends.
A core part of the first game is how isolated you are though. I don't usually say this with survival crafters, but for me coop would take away more than it would provide
You don't have to play co-op, but I wanted co-op so badly. I just want more good, ideally LAN co-ops, they are a dying breed.
I just want more co-ops in general. They, and the racing genre, are two things that are dying that I'm sad to see go.
There is a mod that enables co-op for Subnautica. It was a pretty fun, but when I played it a few years ago, it didn't really add anything, it was just that you could have two people going through the story together and harvesting resources etc.
My thing about it is designing for both an isolated feel and a cohesive co-op may be impractical, and I'd prefer they focus on the part of it that makes it really stand out. There are also things like how do you progress world events, can either player trigger them, do they have to be in the same area together, etc which all adds design overhead.
I also want more good co-op games they're a lot of fun. Personally I don't think this is the right series to target for it though, but also idk what direction they're taking it so co-op may fit well with the new one.
They literarily didn't need to change a single thing for me. Exact game just let a buddy forage and build with me. It would be amazing and relaxing!
All the more reason to keep it "quite" and expansive like the first game.
BZ was so noisy and tiny. That, combined with other players would be terrible.
I think OG Subnautica could be fun with a Co-op mode. But any more players than that would ruin it.
I always enjoy a game solo at first, then do co op with friends. It was really fun solo. But I'd like to create a giant underwater farm with friends, and have various seamoths and other vehicles to use with buddies. The multiplayer mod works, it's just buggy as mods are.
First I've heard of that term, and after looking it up, I like the term Game-as-a-Service way better.
Seems like a perpetual fee if you want to keep playing. I guess I'm missing something, but I think I'd rather pay a monthly fee of I dunno $10/month to play, if there is a $0 cost to install the game.
So to be clear, none of this $60 game purchase and a $10/month subscription, it's one or the other. For most games that are decent, I get into binge playing and beat the game within a month anyway and then never play it again. I win in this scenario, since I'm not coughing up ton of cash.
For exceptional games, I generally reinstall maybe 1-2 times a year and do another playthrough, which means after 3-6 years then I'm in the hole. The other huge case where I'd lose out: Playing more than one game in a given month. I typically have 2-3 games installed at a time to mix things up in a given month, which would mean being out in the hole way quicker. There's also the being a "patient gamer" and buying shit on extreme sale, which I'd be fucked by GaaS too.
So I suppose I'd rather than buy my games outright, and say fuck that rent bullshit.
The great thing about buying a game vs a service is that pricing tends to stay the same, subscriptions start out as compelling deals but can soon skyrocket, beyond that subscription tend to be with the publisher apposed to a single product so you'll mostly pay more to access more, then we are left with the Netflix, Prime, Disney plus issue of multiple subscriptions at inflated prices for products we aren't interested in using.
Things like DRM is also an issue, want to play your subscription games without networking? I doubt it'll be possible.
Personally I am focused on avoiding the subscription hell scape that has been pushed so hard recently.
I think I'd rather pay a monthly fee of I dunno $10/month to play, if there is a $0 cost to install the game.
Maybe Xbox gamepass is for you.
I'll just wait a year or two until all bugs are ironed out, buy the game for $10 on sale without DRM or get a crack to own it.
I like the idea for AAA games that I know I like. I play sf6 daily and have played sf5 for years. However, id probably stop of ot was that cost monthly as it would seem poor value, knowing my habits. Saying that, I pay for ps+ monthly for online play. I'm considering getting a steam deck on the future to cancel that subscription.
I've also heard it called "evergreen".
Which is funny, because they're not built to last.
Will it work offline though?
They are still being vague about the monetization (it does seem like it will have MTX) and I'm am completely certain that designing it with co-op in mind is going to ruin the singleplayer vibe and progression. Hopefully I'm proven wrong though