I need opinions, and I know you've got them.

[Kalyyn]

Say you're considering purchasing an indie game, in the price range of $1-$5 (not yet determined). This game is a top-down action RPG similar to those you would find on the SNES console. It is for the PC.

Now, one notable feature of this game is that it requires online co-op to finish. Side quests, mini-dungeons, and world-map activities can be done solo, but all primary dungeons involve puzzles that require both players.

Is this acceptable?

As an answer to some people's questions: Yes, you can make public games, and anyone can see them and join them. Private games ask you to set a password, which you would tell to your friend.

Note that for option 4 to work, one or both players would need a gamepad, or both players would have to share a keyboard. Which sounds awful to me, but what do I know?

[Mechazod]

Well my answer is easy, I wouldn't buy it purely because it would probably only be available as a download. However if a disc version did come out I probably would get it if the co-op supported LAN mode along with online. Also I am sure someone could come up with a mod if the option is not available to control both characters at the same time similar to The Adventures of Cookie and Cream on PS2.

[Wynnyelle]

I wouldn't buy it, because I'd only want to play with irl friends, and if they aren't on or don't want to play, then that means I'm left alone and unable to progress.

[Kalyyn]

73 views, only 6 votes? I don't even...

You were willing to click on the thread, but you couldn't be asked to hit the "Vote" button? The human mind is an enigma to me.

[ComputerNerd]

The title does not help to attract the right sort of audience maybe.
I would likely not buy it, because outside of WoW/Firefall I have little interaction with other players in games, often due to an inconvenient real life.

[Ms Andry]

Note that for option 4 to work, one or both players would need a gamepad, or both players would have to share a keyboard. Which sounds awful to me, but what do I know?

That is not awful at all. I do this all the time with my GF. Having two controllers on a PC is not at all a problem. Sometimes she'll use a controller and I'll use a keyboard too.

Just because it seems like it'd be a pain to some players, doesn't mean you should limit it for no reason.

Edit: Also, to make myself clear, I wouldn't buy it without local co-op. I really don't like games that have co-op, but don't allow you to play local games.

[Lysah]

If it was easy to get people to play with I wouldn't mind.

[Deleted]

I picked #3, but it's not strictly true. It depends a lot on how easy it would be to find someone to play with. If there's a feature to just find some random person who already owns the game and is online etc, like public groups in D3, maybe. I would of course prefer to play with friends, but that would require said friends to also buy the game (not really a big obstacle at that price) and integration with, say, the steam friends list or something like that. If I have to jump through hoops, adding my friend's IP address or something silly like that in order to play with them, I wouldn't feel tempted by this game at all. Not that this matters at all since pretty much all my online friends are obsessed with D3 right now. :>

[Mechazod]

I really don't like games that have co-op, but don't allow you to play local games.

Likewise, I particularly hate it on X-Box 360 where I only ever play online very rarely and only when I have free passes, at the very least more games could at least throw in a system link/LAN mode (same with PC).

[Blackdecker]

Picked #3, but i really don't know, i will only buy if my friend that spent alo't of money with me on Steam crap that we play for like 15 minutes and quit, buy too.

[Kalyyn]

The game already has LAN play. Right now we're trying to determine if we want to remake massive portions of each dungeon to facilitate single-player, and if it's even worth it to make same-monitor local multiplayer. Believe it or not, doing that is a great deal more time-consuming than it sounds, so it's not something we're going to do if people won't actually use it.

[vizzle]

73 views, only 6 votes? I don't even...

You were willing to click on the thread, but you couldn't be asked to hit the "Vote" button? The human mind is an enigma to me.

Well maybe make the title of the thread more in line with what the content is next time.

OT: No.

[chazus]

As a game developer myself, this seems like an EXTREMELY poor choice, and something that should have been asked of people long before getting this far into development.

While co-op can be fun, there are VERY few games that are designed specifically around it, or require it. Unless the game is specifically a co-op game, like Mario Party. But even that can be done single player. Maybe consider making an NPC option for the other player.

If you want to discuss it further, let me know im pm.

[Zoukan]

It's simple really. I don't have friends. So option 3 for me.

[Skelington]

Well, if it's online then finding another shouldn't be too bad. Forced co-op would probably get in the way eventually, but if the game is enjoyable then Skelington wouldn't mind as much the first time around. A forced/exclusive local co-op would be horrible for him.