Following your logic they should never tease anything as long as they are working on content. So that would propably be for the next… 10 years?
Gotcha 
Damn straight! I’m pretty sure that working on a game (or any software / project) would go a lot more smoothly if you didn’t have to think about the customers (/end user).
In all seriousness, I am aware of the need to communicate with your customers (be they internal or external) in a “timely manner” about stuff (& having not done that & had it bite me in the arse).
1 Like
My 2 cents that no one wanted: not that I’m a huge game development follower, but current examples of following what the user wants and constantly teasing him (Wolcen, Torchlight 3), after several core changes we receive some half finished full mess, looks to me like the vocal gamers have no idea what they want and it’s better work in silence.
2 Likes
I didn’t follow Wolcen’s development, but were there people asking for what they got on release (bugs & the like notwithstanding)?
2 Likes
Wolcen teased the first chapter. This was relatively free of bugs. After that the mess began.
If they had the whole game tested by people in EA, like LE does, they may have seen the flaws earlier.
The sense of going into EA is not only to get some cash. It’s also to get in touch with the players. EHG wants our feedback. Else they could’ve skipped EA, made a preorder and some shiny preview videos and develop in silence.
Also I’m with Llama8. I don’t see anybody asking for the bad quality Wolcen and TL3 had / have. Don’t think it’s intended.
1 Like
I think there is a not significant correlation between a product quality and frequency / content of developers informing the community of their progress.
The two reasons why they do it:
a) keep the public interest alive (by reminding the players of progress and luring them with news),
b) getting feedback about their product.
The overhead of the communication (via forums and the like) on the production effort is negligible. Just count the number of posts with tens or hundreds of opinions and suggestions vs the number of dev’s replying to them (other than the non-commital ‘thanks, thse are great ideas, we’ll look into that’).
2 Likes
I kinda agree, but the point of b) is to improve product quality.
That is implied, yes. But it kind of depends on the feedback - if it’s all ‘ooh’ and ‘ahh’ and ‘<3’, there is little you can improve from that info 
I strongly believe the vast majority of people posting in these forums want (some more desperately than others) to improve the LE quality though, and they give useful feedback.
What the devs do with it is another story, and one mostly hidden from our sight (which is partly disappointing and partly a blessing).
1 Like
It’s basically: we see a) and we hope it’s also b) 
2 Likes
Bought the game when I did because I thought multiplayer was active(Nov 19). When my brother learned it didn’t have it then, he didn’t buy. Then i jumped on last month(august) because my brother thought we should try the game again. He paid for it and liked the necromancer but no reason to play without multiplayer. Only way my brother and I hangout anymore is multiplayer games. If diablo 4 or skyrim like game comes out with working multiplayer, we will probably forget last epoch even exists and just consider it wasted money.
1 Like
Multiplayer should be the #1 priority and it feels like a timid approach to beta test without it. It’s less about the multiplayer experience, how polished it is and how perfectly balanced the gameplay. Multiplayer is an essential and most players will get lonely and quit before delving deep enough into the game for effective testing. Also, I won’t be recommending this game to my friends solely because there is no multiplayer (I don’t care if they play it). My roommate and I ran new characters in the latest patch, then a couple hours later fired up Wolcen so we could play coop. If multiplayer isn’t the #1 priority, then I can’t image what is. Please roll out multi asap.
3 Likes
I would argue that multiplayer is the highest priority for the team. They are definitely devoting a significant amount of time and resources to it. It’s very easy to see that when multiplayer does release that it will bring a lot of new players to the game. The type of experience that these new players have during its release will probably determine their overall enthusiasm for the games release as well as how likely they would be to recommend it to others (in addition to the type of reviews the game receives).
To provide this good first impression for players you’d want to have your game performing at a fairly high level in the single player environment before introducing multiplayer as going from 1 player to up to 5 players will exacerbate any issues currently in the game. To provide this stability you also don’t want to waste development time (and money) optimizing features that may not even make it into the final game.
I’d say EHG is taking the correct approach, developing a significant amount of the content that will be in the finished product first so they can properly optimize it before releasing it to the thousands of current players and tens/hundreds of thousands of potential future customers. The last thing I want to see, and I would imagine most of the playerbase as well, would be a multiplayer launch with several issues…especially if those issues can already be seen in the single player content.
We definitely all want to have multiplayer, but no one wants to see EHG release something until they feel it is ready.
4 Likes
Man, JUST started Friday!
I got 3/4 guys that are sick of farming their gardens and we would love some multiplayer!
Still loving the game, 2 of us started, 2 of us are “curious”.
I’ll get them in here 
Anxiously awaiting Multi, but totally enjoying the single player quest so far!
2 Likes
@EHG_Mike just wanna say I am still eagerly awaiting for any multiplayer-related news/conversations 
3 Likes
Horrible, horrible, HORRIBLE, idea. I am a developer/coder. Please put some effort into a simple roll for it interface.
The post you are quoting is 2 and a half years old. It also goes on to explain that it won’t be how things are done long term.
4 Likes
Apologies, new player, I did not realize the first thread in the forum would be 2.5 years old. 
Plus I trust you all know how to do things right!!
I am only checking in on my new game occasionally and going back to PoE/D3.
I don’t want to spoil all the surprises so soon in beta.
(also a little concerned I am just walking through zones in standard with no challenge - lvl 28/Imperial Era… but I will give a pass that maybe I cleared too well and over-leveled myself in Ruined Era).
Thanks for the feedback.
Playing on recommended PC requirements and I get 5 FPS on my Necro summoner
le_graphicsmanager.ini (502 Bytes)
My CPU load is 40% and GPU 70% and still stutter and FPS drops to 5 on Monolith mapping.
I wish you good luck to set multi on this game, Big no way.
Me too! My paranoia increased recently when I got an email from Pagan Online, which has recently shutdown and become Pagan Offline. Just a reminder of how difficult a full multiplayer experience (with closed servers, trading, player economy, etc) is to deliver and maintain longterm in the ARPG space. In approximately 25 years, there have been only two franchises that have succeeded, Diablo and PoE.
I was reading over the original Kickstarter website from a couple years ago, and bumped into the PvP section. Does anyone know if PvP is still on the table for 1.0? Just curious.