A lot of people keep moaning about the 4.x pricetag. A lot of people (including myself) want 4.x to be paid for, for reasons including less hackers, less kids, and a more managable community.
However, I just had a crazy idea. I’m not sure if this should be a joke cuz it’s a bad idea, but how about… 4.x Singleplayer is free. But in order to play online, you have to buy the multiplayer DLC (to pay for the servers)
Yeah I know, it’s just like what CoD did. But for some reason, in this situation, I felt like it woulf work.
Prove me wrong if you wish, I’m open to this
It doesn’t make sense for CoD, but the best survival games are generally single player to begin with. That being said, I still hold reservations until someone addresses how split-screen, LAN, private servers, and (the possible) official servers should each fit into this idea.
Already been confirmed that it will be free. About your “suggestion”, having to buy a DLC to have access to the multiplayer is by far the worst thing Nelson could do.
It was towards official servers iirc, which while sounds weird and is “untrodden territory” for most devs, I’d shill out the 5-10 bucks it would take probably.
Im okay with 4.X being paid as long as its uhhh…
i think that lan multiplayer should also be free
and i think that you should (for free btw) only be able to acces servers that can hold 10 players
i also think that if you have gold you get the multiplayer for free
that would be my suggestion
if neslon was gona make people pay for 4.x (witch he wont )
Can you please direct me to where you got this from? That would be highly appreciated
You mean .89 USD right XDDddDddDddD???
I think one of the main reasons people like Unturned so much is because it’s free. Honestly if Unturned was a paid game I would not have tried it, even if single-player was free.
This topic was automatically closed 28 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.