Make multiplayer optional. I cannot stress this enough. Multiplayer has the potential to have a terribly negative impact on this game if it is mandatory. I will list here some main reasons why mandatory multiplayer would be a detriment:
First of all, the obvious. Griefers. Imagine your safe haven of a save being completely destroyed by an internet troll. Not everybody wants their town to be chaotic. And then there’s the issue of people purposely being mean to/killing other people’s Zois. And I don’t mean for story purposes but out of purely malicious intent.
Stress on players’ computers. Now I may be wrong about this as I’m no expert, but I get the impression that multiplayer would likely be harder on people’s computers than when it is singleplayer and inZOI is already a relatively demanding game. Those with lower-end PCs should be allowed to opt out of that.
Mod compatibility. Not everybody is going to have an identical group of mods. From experience with other online games, players would need to have close to exact mod libraries to play together without too many issues, or without mods at all. Mandatory multiplayer would destroy modding for sure.
Safety concerns. Even if just for a peace of mind, not everybody wants to be playing with other people and especially strangers for reasons listed above and beyond.
Please, please make a multiplayer mode that is optional instead of making the entire game revolve around it. Something that works along the lines of Animal Crossing or Coral Island, where you can either invite players of your choice and/or have separate saves for both multiplayer and single player modes.
But what should be another game as optional, and even sold separately, or as a DLC that you can choose to install or not according to your preferences and that in no way will interfere with your game.
The most requested features #1 more things to do in our two cities #2 more interactions #3 multitasking #4 group activities #5Online Multiplayer
It received a lot of support—both in terms of the number of comments and likes—but also many dislikes, which means there’s understandable concern. We actually believe that if multiplayer is implemented the right way, it could offer a distinct experience that complements the current single-player mode, rather than replacing it. That’s why we want to understand where your worries are coming from. Knowing this will be important so that if we do decide to pursue multiplayer in the future, your insights will help us build it on a foundation that respects any blind spots we would not have known otherwise and ultimately provide an experience that can be new and exciting for all.
I very much doubt they would make a forced multiplayer mode, as it would completely change the structure of the game. I’m more concerned that it will take away from development of the single player game, and ultimately be unsuccessful anyway. But maybe that’s part of why they’ve been hiring extra staff lately.
I feel the same. Even more so since the October update brought so many bugs and they keep on adding more and more new features instead of providing a solid core.
It feels like a deja-vu of the last Sims 4 years, when they started to throw out pack after pack and under each twitter post, the community was screaming: ‘stop adding and fix the bugs!’
I mean, they can see the player count themselves, so many players are interested in inZOI. They sold 1.5 million copies, yet only 1500 people are currently playing. After each bigger update, they come back and take a look at inZOI and leave soon after because what they were looking for isn’t there. And I fear this will also happen after full release if they keep going on like this. If they aim for full release end of next year, there will be only ~5 more updates until then. Imo not enough if they keep this up. So lots of new players might buy and players might come back because of features like cars and multiplayer and maybe even cats, but if most aspects will lack depth because there wasn’t enought time to flesh them out, it will lead to even more negative reviews - and then? Will Krafton and the investors be willing to still support inZOI? What if not?
Krafton is a triple A publisher, they should know how to keep players engaged, I really don’t understand why things don’t go better for inZOI.
I’m also in favor of keeping it optional. My daughter has discovered the game here and is starting to love it; she’s 8 now, and I don’t want other players around who might cause trouble, be awful, etc.
It never occurred to me that it might NOT be optional until someone raised this concern.
It’s definitely not the kind of game I’d want to play multiplayer.
As I said, all the additional options are fine for me, but let them be options.
I don’t think they ever planned to making multiplayer forced
I’d love a city for multiplayer like the 3 cities on the world but one specific for multiplayer and if people don’t want it, they don’t have to visit that city
Perhaps not, but negative feedback on this matter should still be expressed, mainly because in my opinion it’s very likely that by introducing multiplayer, some dynamics for single player mode will be neglected.
I understand your concerns, but a lot of games have multiplayer without it affecting the single player mode. Animal Crossings New Horizons is the most popular example that comes to mind. You can play ACNH for a lifetime wihout ever touching the multiplayer options.
To be honest, I trust what you say because you are gamers. But I haven’t seen enough of Krafton yet to say that I trust them 100%. As a gamer, my trust in Krafton will only be built up over the years. There are enough good reasons to be optimistic, but at the moment I can’t say I’m completely sure that the game will take one direction rather than another, and that’s only partly about the multiplayer factor. And yes, I am an anxious person
y’all are biased because this is what happened with sims 4, keep in mind this is not EA and they actually care about what we want, they wont neglect single player just because they also work on multiplayer
I have no prejudice I simply don’t give my trust away randomly or to someone just because “this isn’t EA”, and as far as I’m concerned I’ll say it again: I haven’t seen enough yet to trust Krafton one hundred percent. Hence the reason for my comment about optional multiplayer. If someone else makes different assessments than mine and trusts them, well, good for them.
2 things that all players associate with the concept of multiplayer: griefers and cheaters. Don’t have to go far for an example: many people hate GTA Online exactly because of griefers and cheaters.
In particular, I want multiplayer. But WITHOUT cheats, weapon. & A very smart solution would be to make both open sessions and sessions in which the host can invite by ID only those players whom he trusts. (This principle exists in GTA Online)
