1. Wish devs (well, and pubs too, sure, all companies, its their monies after all) could do whatever they want, their ~~arc~~ art. None should put big pressure. If You want something that is not on the market, do it yourself, and prove You were right by getting more profits, ez as that (also fffff nintende for blocking such moves). 2, Wish more, publishers, who decide what they pay for on devs would not rush pure excel rectangles (profits, that's very very very only thing that they do care, nothing else at all). With they could decide to add some extra pve only game modes too, like hey, You have 95% assets made already, that cannot be too hard to add few game menu elements and switch "friendlyfire=0", can it be? Even if that gives slightly less profit per hour of work, should still be profitable overall?

Enthusiastically support including PvE.

As a Save the World fan, I support this.

IMO yes. I hate PvP, but so many games these days seem to be about trying to ease me into it. "Well what if only SOME of the enemies are players??" How about none? If the game would be fun like that, I wanna play it. If there's enough people who agree with me to make it financially viable, devs should do it, IMO.

Omg my friend and I discussed exactly this!! I just wanna kill clankers. Not play someone who has 5000 hours to game and destroy everyone lol. Not fun for me.

The devs said to this that the game before it was turned into a pvpve extraction shooter was just not fun. All of the mechanics now play into it. Its not as easy as "make pve mode"... the tension, the balancing, the goals of the game, the way you play etc. Everything is like a cog in the machine. You cant just change one value and it would still work. Arc is tuned to be a pvpve game for now. I think after launch they can for sure look at things. But its not that easy. And i personally am not a fan if people push devs too much away from their well thought through vision for a game. Same with first person. They explained the reasons for 3rd person but jet so many people still cry that they want 1st person. Its not that easy. The while game is designed as a unit. You cant just change those things because you personally prefer something to be different. Let the vision of the devs be for now. The game has not even released jet. Lets play it for a year or two and then revisit those ideas, see what could work and what not, is my opinion.

No. Devs owe you nothing. You're free to find another game though.

The PvP is the majority of the challenge of the game. If you remove that, for the PvE players it becomes Cookie Clicker and they're done in a week. And it also reduces the participation in the PvP side and damages that part of the game as well. The cat & mouse mechanic is integral to the game's success. If that doesn't work, this isn't a game.

And that's completely fine. But by the developers choosing to go that route, they just outcast the people like me that will not buy that type of game. Being said though, I find it difficult to understand why a studio would want to go that way. Like, I am the player. If I want to make the game easier on myself, then I should be able to. If I'm willing to spend money on your game, It doesn't really matter how hard it is. I get that if a game has an endgame that is heavily PvP based, that it might affect PvP by allowing a PvE only mode. But, to me, I don't really care because, regardless of their decision, I wouldn't be in that PvP area anyway. It's just one outcome is I spend money on their game, and one outcome is I don't. Many games I can see them going this route on, such as Overwatch 2 or Dota 2, but survival RPG games, I don't see the point of having that type of system for, And I definitely think they're losing money by going that route.

Yeah, more games need to be like Amazon's New World, where they kneecap their own game in an effort to appeal to the masses like you and the shareholders. Tennis would also have wider appeal if you didn't have to run back and forth so much. They should look into that.

Personally, I don't think either comparison is valid. These two items are nowhere near comparable to the original comment. With tennis if you don't move, you can't play. With the examples I gave above most of the game would remain available to the player, just in a single player environment. Survival RPG's can easily be made either SP or PvE only, Dune actually came super close, they just decided to heavily limit the end game PvE compatible areas and locked the passage via a PvP area which is why I decided to just not get it. BUT ignoring the false equivalence fallacy, if the player is willing to spend money on the game in the first place, it shouldn't matter. Even more-so when the game is basically Ark Survival on Scorched Earth with a dune skin on it and a few additional mechanics added on. There was no decent reason that the game could not allow for a PvE only mode or at least the ability to self host your servers. They said they couldn't do either under the excuse that they wanted the game to be an MMO(which arguably they failed to deliver on as well) As for New World? As a person who played it in beta(which I regretted because it's not my style game), New Worlds downfall wasn't the dev's trying to cater to everyone, it was the lack of a story/ambition to want to play. It was the same gameplay loop over and over with no drive to want to continue the story. This combined with the failure to have a decent "end game" (story line wise) at launch killed it's userbase. They promoted a very heavily PvP based cooperative system and then massively fell through on the promises. This combined with the inconsistent servers and the boring game-play elements, made player retention extremely difficult. That's not appealing to masses, that's failing to deliver on promises and making a shit game.