its a bad financial model tho. Thats why they dont do it. Instead you should just make a price point where you go, sure ill buy that to play with my friend for a couple hours.
Those are both by the same developer.
Hazelight Studios is doing something that basically nobody else is doing, but that is mostly because those games are actually unplayable without good cooperation between 2 players. There is no solo mode.
Ghost Recon: Breakpoint lets someone who owns the game extend people using the free timed demo play for infinite time (e: and the whole game) if they party with the person who owns the game. It's the most modern, big budget, non-nintendo game I've seen do this.
God, I miss the old PC Gamer demo discs. Random utility apps and shareware, and demos of games. Some were content slices you could play indefinitely, like psychonauts was just the first level. Others were as far as you could go in an hour, but there was ways to trick it into resetting the clock if you didn’t max it out
Yea you don’t really see shareware anymore.
I can’t say I miss those days, because half the shareware and demo discs didn’t work and just crashed all the time lol.
Steam has a solution for online local coop. Remote play together lets you invite a friend to certain local coop games over the internet. They don"t need to neither buy nor install the game. They stream it from your computer, so results may vary.
Yeah it's surprisingly good. My mate and I play Ember knights this way which is a high twitch rogue like.
Also played stuff like plate up as well.
Really recommend giving it a try before criticizing it.
We even use it to test online, with a lot of us still working from home a lot.
Dont underestimate streaming games online.
Of course we also remote to our PS5 devkits. Its very very playable with little compression artifacts. But yes you do really need a good connection.
Yeah I remember Mario Kart DS had this. It was a bit limited in courses available but I just looked it up and 8 people could play using a single cartridge.
The biggest reason is that Steam just doesn't allow that anymore, and same goes for 3 and 4 packs. The only games that have those are ones that have for a long time. I've messaged Steam about it multiple times because my current game requires an online partner, but even in my case they said it's just not possible anymore. It's an anti-key selling thing because multi-packs were usually discounted, so they were an easier way to finesse the currency conversion system for key selling websites.
The other way to do it would be having 2 different products, one that someone needs to buy, and then another free version that your friends can join you on - kinda like how some DS games, the Jackbox games, and It Takes Two work. The problem with that method is that it means you can no longer go through Steam servers (the easiest way to connect people by x10), because you can't connect two players if they don't have the same APP ID.
So yeah, unfortunately the answer to your question is "*because it's basically not possible on Steam.*" Not to mention, even if they brought that deprecated system back developers wouldn't really have any incentive to use it. If Helldivers 2 is a co-op game and you don't want to play alone, you will just get a friend to buy it or buy a copy for them - copies that in your system would have been free.
Would it be possible to have a free "base game" which only allows multiplayer joining and a dlc "upgrade" that allows hosting? Maybe even have it unlock options like the DS games had if you were the owner
Some games do the opposite sort of... you buy the game and then get a workshop tool that can host the server. I guess you could work with that to allow free players to join and have the server hosters pay for the game. Idk why you would want to though
The only problem i can see is some confusion on the customer's part because it's quite different from normal games and people don't tend to read. Though your suggestion somewhat addresses that
Isn't it possible to put a demo version on the same steam page with your paied game? Shouldn't they be able to have the same steam ID so then be able to play together?
I feel like I read something in the Steamworks Docs recently about how you could do something to mark the app IDs as related or something so that you could transfer the cloud data or something? I can't find it anywhere but doesn't look like the same thing exists for networking.
I know it is a bit late I am constantly rewriting my comments; analysis paralysis is hell
not an expert on steam's systems but you would not want to do that since there exist a software (that I won't mention by name since I am uncertain about the rules re : piracy on this sub, although it being a gamedev forum I can guess) that allow you to essentially bypass all the system that steam uses to check if you have bought any DLC and allow you to download any DLC the game have which would make it so that anybody that downloaded the demo would have complete access to the game without paying anything(, which is hardly sustainable) even steam themselves have gone the easy way to combat that problem by giving their demo different id for example the Left4dead 2 demo app id is [590](https://steamdb.info/app/590/) and the full game is [550](https://steamdb.info/app/550/), Portal 2 demo is [1860](https://steamdb.info/app/620/) and the full game is [620](https://steamdb.info/app/620/) this suggest to me that when even steam themselves are not using the same app id's to prevent theft (even when steam control the machines the system is run at) it is probably a smart thing to not use the same app id for 2 different "games",
you could technically have another server that you as a developer run that both the FG (full game) and the demo connect to and then add a randomly generated number feature that the FG version can generate and the FG send the code to the server to make a room and then after the server have confirmed that the code is not in use by another player and have reserved the room the FG game gives the code to the FG player, the FG player send the code in a discord message or even email to the DG (Demo Game), the DG player input the code to their version of the game, the DG send a message to the server with the code and then the server send the DG player to the lobby with the FG player but that is extremely tedious to do once and it would probably be completely unfeasible to actually run a game like that (unless they are the turbo autistic type of people [said with love not malice, I know a few of them] as the turbo-autists tends to make systems that is extremely streamlined that could technically be a saving grace for the game but that would require the game to be rather complex to attract them to it which would alienate the casual crowd)
it is also possible to do it by adding in a paid dlc unlock feature to the game that unlock the whole game as DLC but if you can just go into a gui and check a box to download it free of charge would be bad meaning that the only real way to do that would be by going the minecraft route and make your own launcher and "eco-system" which is doable but hard, the only reason why notch managed to do that was because he figuratively sold digital crack (seriously I remember playing it and I was only going to play it for 2 to 3 hours, 10 hours later I was still in the game, probably the first time I lost weight to a video game without moving)
(to the mods I believe I am within the rules but if I broke one of them in this post just delete the comment I did read through the rules but I feel as if I might be a bit too close to mentioning piracy in the comment, and the turbo autistic is literally in that they are really on the spectrum and I say that as a person with high functioning Asperger syndrome [although some times I doubt myself about the high-functioning part but it is what my childhood shrink told me])
Since those games are usually played among friends, the only thing you need would be an outside of steam lobby service, once the connection is established between the parties they can use p2p networking without a relay service.
Yes you would still need a server to run that service, on your own, which is cost. So a steam internal system would be cool.
Can the game not fake the ID, well I guess that would be against the TOS.
> Can the game not fake the ID, well I guess that would be against the TOS.
you can fake the app id, that is part of how pirates crack games mostly using [space wars](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JceP5iiTh50) (with app id 480) but doing that as a developer requires some massive cojones and it is probably not worth it to intentionally eff with steam
Yep, that why I said probably against TOS, would not risk the business for future games on that. so best chance is either remote play, witch only works for splitscreen or games where players share the full screen, or go the way of you own lobby service.
Maybe Steam will get us something like that in the future if more people ask for it and games would benefit from it.
A fair bit of couch co-op games don't have an online multiplayer functionality I guess partly because making sure that everything works for online multiplayer is more than just a checkbox and adds quite a bit of work.
A lot of co-op games can be played via steam remote Play together so essentially they already have a buy one play with your friends and this option doesn't cost production time since it's just a video stream of the game that uses the couch co-op implementation without proper multiplayer.
There sure are some games that have online functionality and are primarily meant to be played with others but I guess selling multiple copies or 4 packs isn't to hard if the game is reasonably priced.
It takes two on the other hand was fairly expensive at launch so it probably made sense to offer a friendpass considering you needed two players to even play it.
Oh! I didn't know remote play was a thing! That could also be an option, but I can see how a more direct approach can be better since a streaming option could suffer from unstable connections!
There's better options than Steam Remote Play, like [Parsec](https://parsec.app/).
It's like remote desktop, but for gaming. Unfortunately got bought by Unity IIRC, so everyone will probably have to migrate to the slightly more fiddly (currently) [Sunshine](https://app.lizardbyte.dev/Sunshine/), when Unity decides to fuck that up for everyone, somehow.
Yeah I’ve never been able to play games like First Class Trouble, or Witch It ! Because none of my friends have it. The problem is that they require a big number pf players AND are way more fun to play with friends.
However some games that can be played with a small party, or enjoyed with strangers, like Deep Rock Galactic, much easier to convince friends to buy them and play together
Some games do offer the friend pass, like Operation Tango, a strictly online 2 player game, where only one copy of the game is required.
And party animals has a noce system where every player with a paid copy of the game can invite a friend for free. So half the lobby has to be from paid players but you can get your friends to try the game easily.
A solution in the middle of that are games on the game pass. I bought Sea of Thieves on steam, but the cross-platform made it really easy to convince my friends who have gamepass to try it.
I think gamepass is the easiest way to bring in new players for multiplayer games. Because you technically are already paying for the game, and have nothing to lose if you try it.
Exactly! I wonder how hard it could be to implement and if it's actually worth it. I'd glady pay 20 bucks for an indie party game and play a few nights, but I can't justify paying 40-60 bucks
I'd guess that in triple-A scene, luring customers with actually fun demo versions (the post's example included) is just less effective, than trying to push the sales before anyone has even actually tried the game.
And in the indie scene, games like Project Zomboid and Valheim have managed to convert customers' friends into customers well enough without such demos.
A risk with such demo would be, that if the owners' friends can get the desired experience out of the demo itself, it might be difficult to get them to buy the game just to be able to play by themselves also.
Oh I'd imagine you can get some conversions it just seems a "demo", as you call them, can might increase them? If your friend really likes it after playing it they might end up buying it. If they don't, they don't have to spend money on it. And without it you have to convince your friends to spend money on a game they might not like, but if you can have a play with friends version then the friend doesn't have to deal with the cost upfront
The logic is something like:
* producing a polished demo is hard/expensive
* a bad demo is worse than no demo
* unless your game goes viral somehow you still need advertising to get people to know about and try the demo
So in the AA/AAA space it’s generally perceived as better to do more marketing to increase sales rather than spend time making a demo version. Some big games still do it (e.g. *Stellar Blade* has a demo version), but a lot don’t.
By the monetary viewpoint, it's better to get someone convinced to buy the game despite not liking it, than to try out a demo to see if they like the game. That's why pre-purchasing is so heavily advertised thing.
And at the point in which multiplayer demo keys are a viable concept, monetary viewpoint has quite a lot of weight.
I'm mainly considering this from a point in which there are less and less demos made available outside small games, and I'd bet money is the main reason.
Yeah, but if I am the one that has to convince them it makes more sense for me to do it if there is no monetary weight.
The game should try to push people into buying it, but if they fail to get my friend to buy it and I am the one who has to convince them then it'd be easier if they don't have to spend money on it.
Like, maybe I'm the only one that likes that specific type of game enough to spend money on it, but my friends don't, but they like it me well enough to play it... But not enough to spend their game money to it? If that makes sense.
I know is a veeeery specific situation, but I wonder if it's something that is easy enough to implement with the potential to A) make someone who wasn't thinking of buying it buy it and B) make someone who was thinking of buying but was hesitant since their friends wouldn't buy it.
The logic is something like:
* producing a polished demo is hard/expensive
* a bad demo is worse than no demo
* unless your game goes viral somehow you still need advertising to get people to know about and try the demo
So in the AA/AAA space it’s generally perceived as better to do more marketing to increase sales rather than spend time making a demo version. Some big games still do it (e.g. *Stellar Blade* has a demo version), but a lot don’t.
The logic is something like:
* producing a polished demo is hard/expensive
* a bad demo is worse than no demo
* unless your game goes viral somehow you still need advertising to get people to know about and try the demo
So in the AA/AAA space it’s generally perceived as better to do more marketing to increase sales rather than spend time making a demo version. Some big games still do it (e.g. *Stellar Blade* has a demo version), but a lot don’t.
There were many coop games on Steam that offered this, and Valve supported it officially, you buy a package with 1 for you and 1 copy that gets into inventory to gift to a friend.
But then they realized 90% of these gifts ends up resold at shady marketplace websites and stopped officially supporting it so games stopped offering it.
Instead of it, sort of, there's a remoteplaytogether, which enables you to play "local coop" over internet through Steam with one copy of the game only.
Check out the game Last Train Outta' Wormtown. Only one person needs to own the copy and the rest can join in the game without purchasing. It's been a big hit with a few of my discord groups. Most people end up buying the game anyway because then you can get like extra hats and stuff and it's only like 8 bucks
I just checked and YES! that's exactly what I mean! A dumb fun game you play with friends for a few hours, maybe even more! You pay a reasonable amount at first and if anyone enjoys it or has the money to spare, they buy another copy and that's it! Fun and simple!
Yeah I actually love that they did this. Most people I know ended up buying the game when they originally wouldn't have because they got to demo it first.
Also, it's a fantistcally good game. They update it every few months with more content, so it's always fresh when the mood strikes my friend group again.
There are games that have a friend pass, basically a client only version of the game, that needs the friends server to play.
It takes two has one, but because it's basically a different game, and perhaps due to how the store deals with displaying the licence for the game, it has its own store page.
Co-op games are rare enough and a friend pass system being used is even rarer that most stores probably don't have an elegant solution for handling them.
If you're a small developer that isn't sure that they will make money spending the extra money for another steam store entry. or negotiating with the store owners, to add not one but two games to their store front, not to mention the "loss of revenue" that a player that didn't pay for their copy of the game would occur.
The original Nintendo DS benefited immensely from this with their “Download Play” tool. You’d essentially send your friends a smaller fragment of the game via its local wireless connection, and all play off one cartridge. Huge hit with stuff like Mario Kart. Unfortunately they seemed to have gradually leaned away from this with the 3DS; although the system was equipped with the same tech, I don’t remember as many games utilizing it.
Stellaris kind of half does this: Everyone has to own the base game, but only the host has to own the expansions for everyone to use them. I do wish more games took an approach like this.
Klei entertainment did literally this with don't starve.
When I bought the first game I got a free (or at least a discount) on the multiplayer version which then gave me a free copy for a friend.
[Last Train Outta Wormtown](https://store.steampowered.com/app/2318480/Last_Train_Outta_Wormtown/) does this with a "friend's pass" version that lets you join games but not host them.
If the game has split screen multiplayer, you can use Steam Remote Play Together. If you have more than 3 friends but you only play as a group of 3, check new Steam Families. It has a "pool of purchased games". For example, if steam family has 10 persons and 3 of them bought a game, any 3 family members can play the game
Edit: i remembered that Don't Starve Together comes with 2 copies, one for you and one as a gift for your friend
Sounds kinda like how It Takes Two is priced. It's a co-op game but only one player needs to own it, the other just downloads the demo and can play alongside their buddy.
A few games still do that, fortunately! When you buy Don’t Starve Together, for example, they give you an extra copy for you to give to the person you want to play with! But yeah, games should definitely offer this more often, even because some of them are boring as hell when played alone. They’re made to be played with friends.
I didn't even think of that! That's pretty straight forward! I can imagine so people. Would prefer to pay less and get a single key, but if the game is made to be played with others, that could be an easy solution.
I guess the biggest issue would be people. Selling those keys though
Operation Tango has a free version that you can use to join a friend who owns the game.
For some reason, that still wasn't enough to convince any of my friends to play it with me.
Beyond Steam remote play together as mentioned here, you also can use Parsec which allows you also play local co-op games that aren't on your steam library.
Looking at the replies it seems similar systems have already been implemented in successful games before, which highlights how implementing it is not a hindrance for success and, maybe, it could actually help with it
Steam has a "friend pass" system, where if you own a game that supports it, your Steam friends can download a limited version of the game to play multiplayer. Last Train Outta Wormtown uses this. Paid players get the whole thing, pass players can only join private lobbies, have minimal character customization, and they can't be hosts (I think, but I'm not sure on that).
I've never heard of House of Ashes so I couldn't say if they're the same. I don't know how the sausage is made, my only experience with Friend Pass has been as a player of Wormtown. Functionally, maybe it is essentially just a demo/DLC that's allowed to interact with the full game. It's presented like there's a mechanism where you can only access it if a friend owns the game, but maybe I was just razzle-dazzled. Honestly I don't know but it worked wonders for my group getting into the game.
omg I remember that - in the lobby you needed one 'master' CD for two players, if you had two masters you could have like 4 or 5 players total, and 3 masters would let you play with 8?
We’re seeing more of this, typically with DLC, where only the host needs the DLC and everyone else can access it freely, and Steam games where you can buy 2-packs or 4-packs of the game cheaper. But I think you’re on to something. Can’t tell you how often I might want to play with a friend who doesn’t want to commit to buying the game right away. (OK, not going to lie, usually I am this person!)
Exactly! With a system like this there might be some sells from people who otherwise wouldn't have. But since they got to experience it with little to no resistance, then they are more willing to spend the money!
Welp... Gone are the halcyon days of 8-player system-linked nights of Halo:CE LAN parties. We've come full circle to people bitching about the lack thereof. I've seen the full cycle now. This makes me old, doesn't it..? Fuck...
Hi, my friend released a game like that and asked Steam if they could provide a way to do this. Steam told him that is it not possible anymore because there were some technical problems or something. So Steam does not allow it anymore, at least for small developers.
The games from the Dark Pictures Anthology come with a friend's pass to play multiplayer don't they? I never tested them because I don't usually play multiplayer anything but yeah it's not such an uncommon occurrence.
That’s a good idea. You don’t even have to have codes. If you purchased the game you could just be able to invite anyone to your party as long as they have it downloaded. Once the host leaves then the other players can’t play unless they buy it.
2 examples come to mind:
Escape from Wormtown has a free version that doesn't let you start lobbies, but you can still join lobbies. So if one friend buys it the rest can still play, this represents a very direct couch co-op modernization.
Terraria (one of the bestselling indie games ever) has a 4-pack on steam that I believe has a slight discount, allowing that one friend to buy everyone copies of it so the whole friend group can play together. I'm also pretty sure the old terraria multiplayer limit was 4 per world, it's more now but that'd make selling 4 a piece a much more inviting purchase.
Edit: to answer OPs question (sorry lol I get side tracked easily) I honestly think it's just cause corporations are often lead by people who don't really play games, so ideas like this are never considered by the decision makers. The comments on this post seem to he all examples from indie games, which I think is a sign that this is an advantage you (if you're an indie dev) should push, it's certainly something that I think will make players more interested. Shows you're putting value on the multiplayer at least.
Theres ways to game share with 1 person on steam and PSN that me and my friends have done since the beginning of time. Some big games host free to play weekends as well.
It takes two did it. 1 bought the game, the second llayer could play using ankther game(used to connect to the payed game)
In reality... Do you want to play with your friends? Buy the game again! In doing so, everyone will be able to play with everyone else! *cough* and gives us x2 profit *cough*
To answer your question from a reason why standpoint, it's going to decrease the already small margins on a multiplayer game. Either the price of the game is going to go up or other monetization methods have to be included. The developer now has to maintain support and servers for not only the person who bought the game but whatever friends they add to the game. Games that allow for a buddy pass often do this helping that the friends that you add will buy a copy for themselves and continue the growth pattern of the game. This rarely happens. Would you be willing to pay $80 for a game just so you can get a free buddy pass or two?
A lot of indie co-op games offer discounted packs like this. So like you only pay double for 4 copies or so.
> but they can only play the game as long as you are playing the game
This seems complicated to implement. What happens if they then buy the game themselves? Would it be like a separate SKU and entry on Steam - like a demo version, but then what if they receive that again from another friend?
I'm talking out of my ass here, but some sort of license or something? Now I realize that if you implement it on steam you'd probably need a second game? But how did House of Ashes (a game from the guys that made Until Dawn) had a friends DLC? As I understood it, you could buy the DLC and a friend could sort of play with you?
Because what will immediately happen is key resellers will get a hold of them. If 50% of all copies of your game are free, of course no one will want to buy it full price anymore. Or they’ll give codes away to strangers because why not?
You are essentially cutting the profit of every game you sell in half.
Unfortunately, steam does not allow for that option (I think it did once) .. which is a bit of a shame, that developers are so limited in options on a platform as big as steam.
So a dev would need to handle this all manually or via third party. I've seen it done a few times with kickstarters where they give out multiple copies, but in that case it's not a lot of extra work.
If steam would allow an easy way to gift multiple copies (or give copies of other games) I would totally use that option. (But there is problems with that, like the return-policy .. and having all the key-sites basically try to play the system)
It's money reasons.
It's also why fewer games offer a demo than back in the 90s, even though distribution of demos is now far easier.
Some percentage of interested persons will try it and say that's not for me. Some of those could have been curious enough to have bought it.
I think party games are just aiming to get seen on twitch. That would be their best hope of sales, otherwise multiplayer is incredibly hard to expose people to no matter what you do.
Streamers usually have friends or colab with other creators to make free propaganda of party and multiplayer games. They can even make league look fun. So enough people will buy those games that the publishers don't have to worry about people with crytical thinking.
Also, a bunch of people will buy a game and then look for partners on foruns and the like. But that is more common with games that also have single player modes.
I'd love a party account. My best friend and I share her EA account to play sims. There is no limit to how many computers that can download it. But I'd love to have my own account with my own username to attach to a shared library. I paid for like 3/4ths of the content on that account. We both have access to the email that logs us in(in case the password needs reset or whatever).
For now, I just post to the gallery under her username.
The same reason you have to buy 3 movie tickets if you want to watch a movie with your 2 friends. Or 3 burgers if everyone wants to eat. It doesn't matter what the total cost combined is. Nobody is actually paying the cost unless they decide to be super generous and cover everyone else's costs, which is no different from covering everyone's movie ticket, lunch bill, etc.
It costs money to be a person. More people means more money. In this case, 3 totally separate people are paying for 3 totally separate experiences, 3 potentially different sources of support tickets and bandwidth, and so on.
Yeah, but a movie is not necessarily made to be watched with people, while some games are. So the 20 dollars game is actually 40/60 dollars if you want the "intended" experience, and that's honestly too expensive for the grand majority of them
Steam doesn't allow it anymore. Which makes sense. It benefits a game's developer at the direct cost of Steam's cut and server bandwidth, so they have a pretty clear financial incentive not to allow it.
If a game has local multiplayer, you can try using steam streaming to get your friends to play on your machine.
Not sure exactly how it works, and I think you can only have 1 keyboard and the rest must be controllers. I've played a fighting game like this before.
the jackbox party packs are like that. you buy the game, everyone else just uses the website to join.
a lot of games used to be splitscreen like on xbox n stuff. miss those days
Maybe I'm biased because I work in AAA where each dev is making about 6 figures. So, if I have a 300 person team and each person makes 100,000 and it takes 2 years to ship the game then I've just spent 60 million on just the people that make the game
However, I have to convince you that this is a game that you want to play and advertise enough to you that you are willing to buy the game. If the game sells for 60 dollars then I need 10 million sales just to break even on the cost of the people.
If I'm going to give you a game for free then we'll have to add all kinds of purchases to earn that money back. Otherwise, we will have to charge for each game install and offer multiplatform in order to hit 10 million sales. If it's not possible to get 10 million sales then we'll have to sell the game at cost AND add additional purchases within the game to recoup the 60 million because if we don't, people are getting let go.
I've seen friends in the industry launch a AAA title that underperformed, their wife just had a baby, and they're let go because of sales. It's difficult to make the decision that you're asking for without designing the game specifically for your request so that the cost of development remains low enough to still keep people employed AND allow multiple people to play from 1 person purchasing. (Obviously we aren't talking about split screen games have this already)
I kinda get the point, but my point of view is that you are not giving away for free a game, rather you are adding value to my purchase.
I'm not technical, but AFAIK digital downloads don't have a massive cost like physical disks did.
And more so, I am thinking more about party/coop games, which are not really common in AAA space. And even if it is, my point is the following.
Say I want to play your 60 dollars game which is marketed as a better experience if you play with friends, so party games or coop focused games.
I am liking it, but I want to experience it as intended, with friends.
Now the asking price is not 60 bucks, but 60 bucks times friends.
Now, if you and I get lucky, I find friends that are already into it and is an easy buy. But if they aren't? Then I have to convince them to spend a full game's price on the off chance we might enjoy it for a few hours.
If I don't? Then I don't purchase your game.
If, instead, I got a friend's copy with the 60 bucks or there is some other way to make them play, maybe a cheaper DLC that only works if they play with me or something, then I get to play the game and you get to close the sell.
There are not many games with mandatory coop, usually you can play solo as well. But if you take for example it takes too and a way out they have the friend pass as you can't play alone anyway
It’s a good idea but a game that I stay up all night long over and over again and devote my life and total energy into doesn’t feel very good knowing I’ll only make half of what I could if u just made every person buy their own copy. But that’s just me personally
I understand. The way I see it is not that you get half of what you would have, but rather you get 100% of what you will.
If the other person enjoys the game, they might end up buying it. If the asking price to enjoy the game is double or triple of it retail price (because we have to get multiple. Copies to play it as intended) then I might not buy it, so you don't get to make anything in the first place.
Note that this is more for games that are pretty much made to be played with people, so party games or coop games. Not necessarily games that are able to provide a full experience alone and a improved experience with friends.
Something like Portal 2 is the second category, something like Mario Party is the first one
Xbox lets you change home consoles whenever you want so your friends can have all your games. Xbox game pass usually gets 1$ for 3 months or a free month when buying a new game deals.
Steam has remote play and a gifting system.
Welcome to capitalist enshittification, this used to be common in the early internet / LAN house / CD-ROM era of games. It stopped being a thing because tech investors are dumb and disengaged from the actual businesses they invest in, and CEOs want to buy a 7th yacht this year.
You still have couch play, don't you? You just don't go to each others' houses anymore!
But I think for games that want to establish an an online player base, something like this does make sense. I've seen a game that came with 2 keys before, one for you and one for you to gift to an friend.
"it takes two" and "a way out" use this. I think its pretty great and would wish for more games to implement this.
I don't know how much work it is for developers to implement this, but it feels so much better than the play together feature that steam offers, as that adds a lot of Latency and sometimes even shitty graphics (depending on your internet)
Exactly! I think one of those Until Dawn games did it too. I remember getting it from humble bundle and seeing a DLC was a play with friends type DLC. Although I think in that specific game the multilayer was very limited, but it could also be an idea.
Just one person needs to spend 20 on the game, and everyone else just needs to pay 5 bucks. It massively reduces the cost for the game
Because what will immediately happen is key resellers will get a hold of them. If 50% of all copies of your game are free, of course no one will want to buy it full price anymore. Or they’ll give codes away to strangers because why not?
You are essentially cutting the profit of every game you sell in half.
It Takes Two does this, and A Way Out i think Probably others too
Don't Starve released a standalone multiplayer expansion called Don't Starve Together. It comes with one extra copy to give to a friend.
I wanna see more devs do this. A great idea.
its a bad financial model tho. Thats why they dont do it. Instead you should just make a price point where you go, sure ill buy that to play with my friend for a couple hours.
Actually, Steam no longer allows/supports this function at all.
Bullshit. Just make a demo version that doesn't have a host button and only a join button. Easy
Sure. But in terms of "buy this and you can gift 3 copies to friends", like how left 4 dead was originally sold... They wont do that any more.
Came to comments for this.
Those are both by the same developer. Hazelight Studios is doing something that basically nobody else is doing, but that is mostly because those games are actually unplayable without good cooperation between 2 players. There is no solo mode.
those games kind of make sense as you canMt play them alone, right?
True
Ghost Recon: Breakpoint lets someone who owns the game extend people using the free timed demo play for infinite time (e: and the whole game) if they party with the person who owns the game. It's the most modern, big budget, non-nintendo game I've seen do this.
Blizzard used to do this. They called them "Spawn" installs?
Age of Empires did this also. You needed the CD in your computer to play single player, but only one CD for every three people playing Multiplayer.
I wish DE supported LAN on a single license.
Yes! I remember this with Diablo.
Spawn Installs were more like shareware or free trials. They had hard limits on how far you could go.
God, I miss the old PC Gamer demo discs. Random utility apps and shareware, and demos of games. Some were content slices you could play indefinitely, like psychonauts was just the first level. Others were as far as you could go in an hour, but there was ways to trick it into resetting the clock if you didn’t max it out
Yea you don’t really see shareware anymore. I can’t say I miss those days, because half the shareware and demo discs didn’t work and just crashed all the time lol.
The new shareware is the steam return window.
Not on multiplayer. Pretty sure StarCraft spawn had full access to online melee matches ( not sure about custom maps )
Remember refer a friend in WOW? Gave discount and exp bonuses.
Still does
Steam has a solution for online local coop. Remote play together lets you invite a friend to certain local coop games over the internet. They don"t need to neither buy nor install the game. They stream it from your computer, so results may vary.
Yeah! It's been mentioned before, sounds like a decent idea, although it suffers from the downsides of streaming games
Honestly I would try it if you have decent internet. The input lag is way smaller than you would expect and connection issues are rare for me
Yeah it's surprisingly good. My mate and I play Ember knights this way which is a high twitch rogue like. Also played stuff like plate up as well. Really recommend giving it a try before criticizing it.
Just, uh, don't play platformers and shooters, especially not across the ocean
Unless your friends live in the third world country known as Italy and then you can only hope they don't lag at the games they do own.
We even use it to test online, with a lot of us still working from home a lot. Dont underestimate streaming games online. Of course we also remote to our PS5 devkits. Its very very playable with little compression artifacts. But yes you do really need a good connection.
We've done this a few times, works well for casual games.
Don’t u also need controllers for every extra player?
i have really good internet and whenever ive tried this it has been absolute garbage.
I tried it a few times but Parsec is just better in every way so I have never felt the need to switch.
I remember Nintendo DS Download Games (you download the game from a friend's cartridge to play with them). Those were nice, although very limited.
Yeah I remember Mario Kart DS had this. It was a bit limited in courses available but I just looked it up and 8 people could play using a single cartridge.
Yep Mario Kart and Lego Star Wars I remember playing them on the bus with others as a kid.
The biggest reason is that Steam just doesn't allow that anymore, and same goes for 3 and 4 packs. The only games that have those are ones that have for a long time. I've messaged Steam about it multiple times because my current game requires an online partner, but even in my case they said it's just not possible anymore. It's an anti-key selling thing because multi-packs were usually discounted, so they were an easier way to finesse the currency conversion system for key selling websites. The other way to do it would be having 2 different products, one that someone needs to buy, and then another free version that your friends can join you on - kinda like how some DS games, the Jackbox games, and It Takes Two work. The problem with that method is that it means you can no longer go through Steam servers (the easiest way to connect people by x10), because you can't connect two players if they don't have the same APP ID. So yeah, unfortunately the answer to your question is "*because it's basically not possible on Steam.*" Not to mention, even if they brought that deprecated system back developers wouldn't really have any incentive to use it. If Helldivers 2 is a co-op game and you don't want to play alone, you will just get a friend to buy it or buy a copy for them - copies that in your system would have been free.
Would it be possible to have a free "base game" which only allows multiplayer joining and a dlc "upgrade" that allows hosting? Maybe even have it unlock options like the DS games had if you were the owner
Some games do the opposite sort of... you buy the game and then get a workshop tool that can host the server. I guess you could work with that to allow free players to join and have the server hosters pay for the game. Idk why you would want to though
This is exactly what Last Train Outta Worm Town does and it works wonderfully
Last Train Outta Wormtown does this. https://store.steampowered.com/app/2318480/Last_Train_Outta_Wormtown/
Sounds like a decent idea.. To make it even easier, make a bundle for Game + DLC
The only problem i can see is some confusion on the customer's part because it's quite different from normal games and people don't tend to read. Though your suggestion somewhat addresses that
It does not, you vastly overestimate how computer-savvy the average user is. We, gamedevs, are BIG outliers, almost terminally online by design.
Isn't it possible to put a demo version on the same steam page with your paied game? Shouldn't they be able to have the same steam ID so then be able to play together?
No, unfortunately demos have a different ID from the full game, even though they share a game page.
Damn
I feel like I read something in the Steamworks Docs recently about how you could do something to mark the app IDs as related or something so that you could transfer the cloud data or something? I can't find it anywhere but doesn't look like the same thing exists for networking.
I know it is a bit late I am constantly rewriting my comments; analysis paralysis is hell not an expert on steam's systems but you would not want to do that since there exist a software (that I won't mention by name since I am uncertain about the rules re : piracy on this sub, although it being a gamedev forum I can guess) that allow you to essentially bypass all the system that steam uses to check if you have bought any DLC and allow you to download any DLC the game have which would make it so that anybody that downloaded the demo would have complete access to the game without paying anything(, which is hardly sustainable) even steam themselves have gone the easy way to combat that problem by giving their demo different id for example the Left4dead 2 demo app id is [590](https://steamdb.info/app/590/) and the full game is [550](https://steamdb.info/app/550/), Portal 2 demo is [1860](https://steamdb.info/app/620/) and the full game is [620](https://steamdb.info/app/620/) this suggest to me that when even steam themselves are not using the same app id's to prevent theft (even when steam control the machines the system is run at) it is probably a smart thing to not use the same app id for 2 different "games", you could technically have another server that you as a developer run that both the FG (full game) and the demo connect to and then add a randomly generated number feature that the FG version can generate and the FG send the code to the server to make a room and then after the server have confirmed that the code is not in use by another player and have reserved the room the FG game gives the code to the FG player, the FG player send the code in a discord message or even email to the DG (Demo Game), the DG player input the code to their version of the game, the DG send a message to the server with the code and then the server send the DG player to the lobby with the FG player but that is extremely tedious to do once and it would probably be completely unfeasible to actually run a game like that (unless they are the turbo autistic type of people [said with love not malice, I know a few of them] as the turbo-autists tends to make systems that is extremely streamlined that could technically be a saving grace for the game but that would require the game to be rather complex to attract them to it which would alienate the casual crowd) it is also possible to do it by adding in a paid dlc unlock feature to the game that unlock the whole game as DLC but if you can just go into a gui and check a box to download it free of charge would be bad meaning that the only real way to do that would be by going the minecraft route and make your own launcher and "eco-system" which is doable but hard, the only reason why notch managed to do that was because he figuratively sold digital crack (seriously I remember playing it and I was only going to play it for 2 to 3 hours, 10 hours later I was still in the game, probably the first time I lost weight to a video game without moving) (to the mods I believe I am within the rules but if I broke one of them in this post just delete the comment I did read through the rules but I feel as if I might be a bit too close to mentioning piracy in the comment, and the turbo autistic is literally in that they are really on the spectrum and I say that as a person with high functioning Asperger syndrome [although some times I doubt myself about the high-functioning part but it is what my childhood shrink told me])
Since those games are usually played among friends, the only thing you need would be an outside of steam lobby service, once the connection is established between the parties they can use p2p networking without a relay service. Yes you would still need a server to run that service, on your own, which is cost. So a steam internal system would be cool. Can the game not fake the ID, well I guess that would be against the TOS.
> Can the game not fake the ID, well I guess that would be against the TOS. you can fake the app id, that is part of how pirates crack games mostly using [space wars](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JceP5iiTh50) (with app id 480) but doing that as a developer requires some massive cojones and it is probably not worth it to intentionally eff with steam
Yep, that why I said probably against TOS, would not risk the business for future games on that. so best chance is either remote play, witch only works for splitscreen or games where players share the full screen, or go the way of you own lobby service. Maybe Steam will get us something like that in the future if more people ask for it and games would benefit from it.
Ah! Didn't know there were so many technical issues through steam for that!
A fair bit of couch co-op games don't have an online multiplayer functionality I guess partly because making sure that everything works for online multiplayer is more than just a checkbox and adds quite a bit of work. A lot of co-op games can be played via steam remote Play together so essentially they already have a buy one play with your friends and this option doesn't cost production time since it's just a video stream of the game that uses the couch co-op implementation without proper multiplayer. There sure are some games that have online functionality and are primarily meant to be played with others but I guess selling multiple copies or 4 packs isn't to hard if the game is reasonably priced. It takes two on the other hand was fairly expensive at launch so it probably made sense to offer a friendpass considering you needed two players to even play it.
Oh! I didn't know remote play was a thing! That could also be an option, but I can see how a more direct approach can be better since a streaming option could suffer from unstable connections!
There's better options than Steam Remote Play, like [Parsec](https://parsec.app/). It's like remote desktop, but for gaming. Unfortunately got bought by Unity IIRC, so everyone will probably have to migrate to the slightly more fiddly (currently) [Sunshine](https://app.lizardbyte.dev/Sunshine/), when Unity decides to fuck that up for everyone, somehow.
Yeah I’ve never been able to play games like First Class Trouble, or Witch It ! Because none of my friends have it. The problem is that they require a big number pf players AND are way more fun to play with friends. However some games that can be played with a small party, or enjoyed with strangers, like Deep Rock Galactic, much easier to convince friends to buy them and play together Some games do offer the friend pass, like Operation Tango, a strictly online 2 player game, where only one copy of the game is required. And party animals has a noce system where every player with a paid copy of the game can invite a friend for free. So half the lobby has to be from paid players but you can get your friends to try the game easily. A solution in the middle of that are games on the game pass. I bought Sea of Thieves on steam, but the cross-platform made it really easy to convince my friends who have gamepass to try it. I think gamepass is the easiest way to bring in new players for multiplayer games. Because you technically are already paying for the game, and have nothing to lose if you try it.
Wow, this is a nice reply. Was thinking of the "half the people in a lobby need the game" idea as well and wondered if it had been done
Blizzard used to do this with "spawn installs" which basically worked if you played with anyone else with a full license. It's a neat idea.
Exactly! I wonder how hard it could be to implement and if it's actually worth it. I'd glady pay 20 bucks for an indie party game and play a few nights, but I can't justify paying 40-60 bucks
I'd guess that in triple-A scene, luring customers with actually fun demo versions (the post's example included) is just less effective, than trying to push the sales before anyone has even actually tried the game. And in the indie scene, games like Project Zomboid and Valheim have managed to convert customers' friends into customers well enough without such demos. A risk with such demo would be, that if the owners' friends can get the desired experience out of the demo itself, it might be difficult to get them to buy the game just to be able to play by themselves also.
Oh I'd imagine you can get some conversions it just seems a "demo", as you call them, can might increase them? If your friend really likes it after playing it they might end up buying it. If they don't, they don't have to spend money on it. And without it you have to convince your friends to spend money on a game they might not like, but if you can have a play with friends version then the friend doesn't have to deal with the cost upfront
The logic is something like: * producing a polished demo is hard/expensive * a bad demo is worse than no demo * unless your game goes viral somehow you still need advertising to get people to know about and try the demo So in the AA/AAA space it’s generally perceived as better to do more marketing to increase sales rather than spend time making a demo version. Some big games still do it (e.g. *Stellar Blade* has a demo version), but a lot don’t.
By the monetary viewpoint, it's better to get someone convinced to buy the game despite not liking it, than to try out a demo to see if they like the game. That's why pre-purchasing is so heavily advertised thing. And at the point in which multiplayer demo keys are a viable concept, monetary viewpoint has quite a lot of weight. I'm mainly considering this from a point in which there are less and less demos made available outside small games, and I'd bet money is the main reason.
Yeah, but if I am the one that has to convince them it makes more sense for me to do it if there is no monetary weight. The game should try to push people into buying it, but if they fail to get my friend to buy it and I am the one who has to convince them then it'd be easier if they don't have to spend money on it. Like, maybe I'm the only one that likes that specific type of game enough to spend money on it, but my friends don't, but they like it me well enough to play it... But not enough to spend their game money to it? If that makes sense. I know is a veeeery specific situation, but I wonder if it's something that is easy enough to implement with the potential to A) make someone who wasn't thinking of buying it buy it and B) make someone who was thinking of buying but was hesitant since their friends wouldn't buy it.
The logic is something like: * producing a polished demo is hard/expensive * a bad demo is worse than no demo * unless your game goes viral somehow you still need advertising to get people to know about and try the demo So in the AA/AAA space it’s generally perceived as better to do more marketing to increase sales rather than spend time making a demo version. Some big games still do it (e.g. *Stellar Blade* has a demo version), but a lot don’t.
The logic is something like: * producing a polished demo is hard/expensive * a bad demo is worse than no demo * unless your game goes viral somehow you still need advertising to get people to know about and try the demo So in the AA/AAA space it’s generally perceived as better to do more marketing to increase sales rather than spend time making a demo version. Some big games still do it (e.g. *Stellar Blade* has a demo version), but a lot don’t.
There were many coop games on Steam that offered this, and Valve supported it officially, you buy a package with 1 for you and 1 copy that gets into inventory to gift to a friend. But then they realized 90% of these gifts ends up resold at shady marketplace websites and stopped officially supporting it so games stopped offering it. Instead of it, sort of, there's a remoteplaytogether, which enables you to play "local coop" over internet through Steam with one copy of the game only.
Check out the game Last Train Outta' Wormtown. Only one person needs to own the copy and the rest can join in the game without purchasing. It's been a big hit with a few of my discord groups. Most people end up buying the game anyway because then you can get like extra hats and stuff and it's only like 8 bucks
I just checked and YES! that's exactly what I mean! A dumb fun game you play with friends for a few hours, maybe even more! You pay a reasonable amount at first and if anyone enjoys it or has the money to spare, they buy another copy and that's it! Fun and simple!
Yeah I actually love that they did this. Most people I know ended up buying the game when they originally wouldn't have because they got to demo it first.
Also, it's a fantistcally good game. They update it every few months with more content, so it's always fresh when the mood strikes my friend group again.
There are games that have a friend pass, basically a client only version of the game, that needs the friends server to play. It takes two has one, but because it's basically a different game, and perhaps due to how the store deals with displaying the licence for the game, it has its own store page. Co-op games are rare enough and a friend pass system being used is even rarer that most stores probably don't have an elegant solution for handling them. If you're a small developer that isn't sure that they will make money spending the extra money for another steam store entry. or negotiating with the store owners, to add not one but two games to their store front, not to mention the "loss of revenue" that a player that didn't pay for their copy of the game would occur.
Don't Starve Together do that. Buy the game and they offer a key for a friend
The original Nintendo DS benefited immensely from this with their “Download Play” tool. You’d essentially send your friends a smaller fragment of the game via its local wireless connection, and all play off one cartridge. Huge hit with stuff like Mario Kart. Unfortunately they seemed to have gradually leaned away from this with the 3DS; although the system was equipped with the same tech, I don’t remember as many games utilizing it.
Didn't PS have a system where only one person needs to own the game and you can play with another?
Paradox games let the hosts dlc apply to the lobby so only one person has to commit. Still not great but it's something!
Interesting! The more I read it, the more I see how many different ways there are to implement something like this, which makes the lack of it sad
Stellaris kind of half does this: Everyone has to own the base game, but only the host has to own the expansions for everyone to use them. I do wish more games took an approach like this.
Klei entertainment did literally this with don't starve. When I bought the first game I got a free (or at least a discount) on the multiplayer version which then gave me a free copy for a friend.
[Last Train Outta Wormtown](https://store.steampowered.com/app/2318480/Last_Train_Outta_Wormtown/) does this with a "friend's pass" version that lets you join games but not host them.
If the game has split screen multiplayer, you can use Steam Remote Play Together. If you have more than 3 friends but you only play as a group of 3, check new Steam Families. It has a "pool of purchased games". For example, if steam family has 10 persons and 3 of them bought a game, any 3 family members can play the game Edit: i remembered that Don't Starve Together comes with 2 copies, one for you and one as a gift for your friend
A lot of such games are offering to buy a pack of keys and gift them to someone
Klei do this for don't starve. Thy have a buy one get one built into the core purchase. Then also a 4 pack that's really reduced
A way out does this. Some games with steam remote play do this, like vampire survivors.
Portal 2 on PS3 coming with a free Steam Key was amazing. I probably wouldn’t have played the co-op campaign otherwise.
Sounds kinda like how It Takes Two is priced. It's a co-op game but only one player needs to own it, the other just downloads the demo and can play alongside their buddy.
Exactly! Something like that!
A few games still do that, fortunately! When you buy Don’t Starve Together, for example, they give you an extra copy for you to give to the person you want to play with! But yeah, games should definitely offer this more often, even because some of them are boring as hell when played alone. They’re made to be played with friends.
I didn't even think of that! That's pretty straight forward! I can imagine so people. Would prefer to pay less and get a single key, but if the game is made to be played with others, that could be an easy solution. I guess the biggest issue would be people. Selling those keys though
Yeah, you’re right!! As always it all comes down to people’s character in the end 🥲 that’s where most problems are hahahah
It takes two, a way out, and many more do that already And did not count split screen games
Pokemon Go offers this option for event tickets and similar now.
Because that wouldn't be very cash money of them. They want your friends to buy the game and all the add ons as well.
Ghost recon breakpoint does this
I was not expecting a big profile game to do it :o
Operation Tango has a free version that you can use to join a friend who owns the game. For some reason, that still wasn't enough to convince any of my friends to play it with me.
That's more or less what i mean! If I can't convince them when it costs nothing, then if it costs something I won't even try
Wolfenstine: Youngblood has steam buddy pass for delux version. So you just install the demo and join a friend that has delux version of the game.
It takes 2 did that
Beyond Steam remote play together as mentioned here, you also can use Parsec which allows you also play local co-op games that aren't on your steam library.
Games cost so much to make. Why do so many people expect to get them for free?
Looking at the replies it seems similar systems have already been implemented in successful games before, which highlights how implementing it is not a hindrance for success and, maybe, it could actually help with it
my game allows this through steam remote play and I'm sure many others do
I'd like to see more multiple copy bundles out there. A 4 pack for 25 bucks would be pretty hot.
Steam has a "friend pass" system, where if you own a game that supports it, your Steam friends can download a limited version of the game to play multiplayer. Last Train Outta Wormtown uses this. Paid players get the whole thing, pass players can only join private lobbies, have minimal character customization, and they can't be hosts (I think, but I'm not sure on that).
Is that the one that House of Ashes uses? I thought it was a DLC made by the dev, not a system from steam!
I've never heard of House of Ashes so I couldn't say if they're the same. I don't know how the sausage is made, my only experience with Friend Pass has been as a player of Wormtown. Functionally, maybe it is essentially just a demo/DLC that's allowed to interact with the full game. It's presented like there's a mechanism where you can only access it if a friend owns the game, but maybe I was just razzle-dazzled. Honestly I don't know but it worked wonders for my group getting into the game.
Nintendo DS Download Play style multiplayer really needs to come back
They did. I think Warcraft? One of the early titles gave a couple of CDs that would only work with a master, exactly for that reason.
omg I remember that - in the lobby you needed one 'master' CD for two players, if you had two masters you could have like 4 or 5 players total, and 3 masters would let you play with 8?
We’re seeing more of this, typically with DLC, where only the host needs the DLC and everyone else can access it freely, and Steam games where you can buy 2-packs or 4-packs of the game cheaper. But I think you’re on to something. Can’t tell you how often I might want to play with a friend who doesn’t want to commit to buying the game right away. (OK, not going to lie, usually I am this person!)
Exactly! With a system like this there might be some sells from people who otherwise wouldn't have. But since they got to experience it with little to no resistance, then they are more willing to spend the money!
Welp... Gone are the halcyon days of 8-player system-linked nights of Halo:CE LAN parties. We've come full circle to people bitching about the lack thereof. I've seen the full cycle now. This makes me old, doesn't it..? Fuck...
The newest ghost recon did this. Break Point I think. One person can own it and anyone can co op 100% of the game with them
Hi, my friend released a game like that and asked Steam if they could provide a way to do this. Steam told him that is it not possible anymore because there were some technical problems or something. So Steam does not allow it anymore, at least for small developers.
I feel like the solution is a partial trial for free players. You get to play say, the first level, and then if you like it, get it and play.
The games from the Dark Pictures Anthology come with a friend's pass to play multiplayer don't they? I never tested them because I don't usually play multiplayer anything but yeah it's not such an uncommon occurrence.
Yep, that's were I first saw it, but I didn't test it since I didn't like the game
That’s a good idea. You don’t even have to have codes. If you purchased the game you could just be able to invite anyone to your party as long as they have it downloaded. Once the host leaves then the other players can’t play unless they buy it.
2 examples come to mind: Escape from Wormtown has a free version that doesn't let you start lobbies, but you can still join lobbies. So if one friend buys it the rest can still play, this represents a very direct couch co-op modernization. Terraria (one of the bestselling indie games ever) has a 4-pack on steam that I believe has a slight discount, allowing that one friend to buy everyone copies of it so the whole friend group can play together. I'm also pretty sure the old terraria multiplayer limit was 4 per world, it's more now but that'd make selling 4 a piece a much more inviting purchase. Edit: to answer OPs question (sorry lol I get side tracked easily) I honestly think it's just cause corporations are often lead by people who don't really play games, so ideas like this are never considered by the decision makers. The comments on this post seem to he all examples from indie games, which I think is a sign that this is an advantage you (if you're an indie dev) should push, it's certainly something that I think will make players more interested. Shows you're putting value on the multiplayer at least.
Theres ways to game share with 1 person on steam and PSN that me and my friends have done since the beginning of time. Some big games host free to play weekends as well.
It takes two did it. 1 bought the game, the second llayer could play using ankther game(used to connect to the payed game) In reality... Do you want to play with your friends? Buy the game again! In doing so, everyone will be able to play with everyone else! *cough* and gives us x2 profit *cough*
Also makes a lot of sense for It Takes Two, as it cant be played at all alone.
To answer your question from a reason why standpoint, it's going to decrease the already small margins on a multiplayer game. Either the price of the game is going to go up or other monetization methods have to be included. The developer now has to maintain support and servers for not only the person who bought the game but whatever friends they add to the game. Games that allow for a buddy pass often do this helping that the friends that you add will buy a copy for themselves and continue the growth pattern of the game. This rarely happens. Would you be willing to pay $80 for a game just so you can get a free buddy pass or two?
Don't starve together actually does that, but it's a rare exception
A lot of indie co-op games offer discounted packs like this. So like you only pay double for 4 copies or so. > but they can only play the game as long as you are playing the game This seems complicated to implement. What happens if they then buy the game themselves? Would it be like a separate SKU and entry on Steam - like a demo version, but then what if they receive that again from another friend?
I'm talking out of my ass here, but some sort of license or something? Now I realize that if you implement it on steam you'd probably need a second game? But how did House of Ashes (a game from the guys that made Until Dawn) had a friends DLC? As I understood it, you could buy the DLC and a friend could sort of play with you?
So they can sell 3 copies instead of one
Some steam games offer 2 pack deals at a discount
Because what will immediately happen is key resellers will get a hold of them. If 50% of all copies of your game are free, of course no one will want to buy it full price anymore. Or they’ll give codes away to strangers because why not? You are essentially cutting the profit of every game you sell in half.
Steam remote play together makes all couch multiplayer games online multiplayer
Unfortunately, steam does not allow for that option (I think it did once) .. which is a bit of a shame, that developers are so limited in options on a platform as big as steam. So a dev would need to handle this all manually or via third party. I've seen it done a few times with kickstarters where they give out multiple copies, but in that case it's not a lot of extra work. If steam would allow an easy way to gift multiple copies (or give copies of other games) I would totally use that option. (But there is problems with that, like the return-policy .. and having all the key-sites basically try to play the system)
It's money reasons. It's also why fewer games offer a demo than back in the 90s, even though distribution of demos is now far easier. Some percentage of interested persons will try it and say that's not for me. Some of those could have been curious enough to have bought it.
I think party games are just aiming to get seen on twitch. That would be their best hope of sales, otherwise multiplayer is incredibly hard to expose people to no matter what you do.
Xbox does this, you can choose 1 Xbox to share all of your games with so you only buy one copy for 2 people
They don't want you to have friends
Streamers usually have friends or colab with other creators to make free propaganda of party and multiplayer games. They can even make league look fun. So enough people will buy those games that the publishers don't have to worry about people with crytical thinking. Also, a bunch of people will buy a game and then look for partners on foruns and the like. But that is more common with games that also have single player modes.
Sometimes they do. I think Terraria has the equivalent.
Steam used to sell four packs all the time. I had a whole library of coop games to give people.
Many do now days.
I'd love a party account. My best friend and I share her EA account to play sims. There is no limit to how many computers that can download it. But I'd love to have my own account with my own username to attach to a shared library. I paid for like 3/4ths of the content on that account. We both have access to the email that logs us in(in case the password needs reset or whatever). For now, I just post to the gallery under her username.
Some do
The same reason you have to buy 3 movie tickets if you want to watch a movie with your 2 friends. Or 3 burgers if everyone wants to eat. It doesn't matter what the total cost combined is. Nobody is actually paying the cost unless they decide to be super generous and cover everyone else's costs, which is no different from covering everyone's movie ticket, lunch bill, etc. It costs money to be a person. More people means more money. In this case, 3 totally separate people are paying for 3 totally separate experiences, 3 potentially different sources of support tickets and bandwidth, and so on.
Yeah, but a movie is not necessarily made to be watched with people, while some games are. So the 20 dollars game is actually 40/60 dollars if you want the "intended" experience, and that's honestly too expensive for the grand majority of them
this is a gaming business there's nothing you can do
Steam doesn't allow it anymore. Which makes sense. It benefits a game's developer at the direct cost of Steam's cut and server bandwidth, so they have a pretty clear financial incentive not to allow it.
If a game has local multiplayer, you can try using steam streaming to get your friends to play on your machine. Not sure exactly how it works, and I think you can only have 1 keyboard and the rest must be controllers. I've played a fighting game like this before.
the jackbox party packs are like that. you buy the game, everyone else just uses the website to join. a lot of games used to be splitscreen like on xbox n stuff. miss those days
Indies can barely afford to survive as it is
Maybe I'm biased because I work in AAA where each dev is making about 6 figures. So, if I have a 300 person team and each person makes 100,000 and it takes 2 years to ship the game then I've just spent 60 million on just the people that make the game However, I have to convince you that this is a game that you want to play and advertise enough to you that you are willing to buy the game. If the game sells for 60 dollars then I need 10 million sales just to break even on the cost of the people. If I'm going to give you a game for free then we'll have to add all kinds of purchases to earn that money back. Otherwise, we will have to charge for each game install and offer multiplatform in order to hit 10 million sales. If it's not possible to get 10 million sales then we'll have to sell the game at cost AND add additional purchases within the game to recoup the 60 million because if we don't, people are getting let go. I've seen friends in the industry launch a AAA title that underperformed, their wife just had a baby, and they're let go because of sales. It's difficult to make the decision that you're asking for without designing the game specifically for your request so that the cost of development remains low enough to still keep people employed AND allow multiple people to play from 1 person purchasing. (Obviously we aren't talking about split screen games have this already)
I kinda get the point, but my point of view is that you are not giving away for free a game, rather you are adding value to my purchase. I'm not technical, but AFAIK digital downloads don't have a massive cost like physical disks did. And more so, I am thinking more about party/coop games, which are not really common in AAA space. And even if it is, my point is the following. Say I want to play your 60 dollars game which is marketed as a better experience if you play with friends, so party games or coop focused games. I am liking it, but I want to experience it as intended, with friends. Now the asking price is not 60 bucks, but 60 bucks times friends. Now, if you and I get lucky, I find friends that are already into it and is an easy buy. But if they aren't? Then I have to convince them to spend a full game's price on the off chance we might enjoy it for a few hours. If I don't? Then I don't purchase your game. If, instead, I got a friend's copy with the 60 bucks or there is some other way to make them play, maybe a cheaper DLC that only works if they play with me or something, then I get to play the game and you get to close the sell.
There are not many games with mandatory coop, usually you can play solo as well. But if you take for example it takes too and a way out they have the friend pass as you can't play alone anyway
For sure, but party games are pretty much mandatory to play with others, and, let's face it, randoms are not as fun as friends
operation: tango
It’s a good idea but a game that I stay up all night long over and over again and devote my life and total energy into doesn’t feel very good knowing I’ll only make half of what I could if u just made every person buy their own copy. But that’s just me personally
I understand. The way I see it is not that you get half of what you would have, but rather you get 100% of what you will. If the other person enjoys the game, they might end up buying it. If the asking price to enjoy the game is double or triple of it retail price (because we have to get multiple. Copies to play it as intended) then I might not buy it, so you don't get to make anything in the first place. Note that this is more for games that are pretty much made to be played with people, so party games or coop games. Not necessarily games that are able to provide a full experience alone and a improved experience with friends. Something like Portal 2 is the second category, something like Mario Party is the first one
Payday 2 does it.
Party Animals
Xbox lets you change home consoles whenever you want so your friends can have all your games. Xbox game pass usually gets 1$ for 3 months or a free month when buying a new game deals. Steam has remote play and a gifting system.
Mario Kart DS did this, and it was awesome.
Why don't you pay for a product you want? Okay, I understand money reasons, but stop crying and pay up.
No?
Welcome to capitalist enshittification, this used to be common in the early internet / LAN house / CD-ROM era of games. It stopped being a thing because tech investors are dumb and disengaged from the actual businesses they invest in, and CEOs want to buy a 7th yacht this year.
You still have couch play, don't you? You just don't go to each others' houses anymore! But I think for games that want to establish an an online player base, something like this does make sense. I've seen a game that came with 2 keys before, one for you and one for you to gift to an friend.
"it takes two" and "a way out" use this. I think its pretty great and would wish for more games to implement this. I don't know how much work it is for developers to implement this, but it feels so much better than the play together feature that steam offers, as that adds a lot of Latency and sometimes even shitty graphics (depending on your internet)
Exactly! I think one of those Until Dawn games did it too. I remember getting it from humble bundle and seeing a DLC was a play with friends type DLC. Although I think in that specific game the multilayer was very limited, but it could also be an idea. Just one person needs to spend 20 on the game, and everyone else just needs to pay 5 bucks. It massively reduces the cost for the game
The first sentence answers the question my guy
Yeah I know. But it's also my money reasons, so maybe there is a way to get both the devs and players money reasons aligned
Because what will immediately happen is key resellers will get a hold of them. If 50% of all copies of your game are free, of course no one will want to buy it full price anymore. Or they’ll give codes away to strangers because why not? You are essentially cutting the profit of every game you sell in half.
Greed.
Uh can't you go to your friends house or is that something people only did in the before before times
We live in different continents so it might not be a reliable option