With successes recorded by It Takes Two, do you see developers focusing on making more quality co-op games?

[Ferdinand]

I've been a big fan of the It Takes Two game. I would also say that this game has been pretty solid in terms of good gameplay and nice story. Millions of copies have been recorded in sales and have become a popular game to play right now.

Do you wish mordevelopers focus more on making co-op games that have the story and good gameplay? Will you invest in such games?

 

[Ryan]

First coffee of the day so bear with me. But yeah, co-op done well is a different experience entirely. Valheim with my roommate Derek last year was probably some of the most fun I've had gaming — just building and exploring and suddenly it's past midnight. It Takes Two is a good shout for this. More developers should try that approach.

 

[Corey]

Valheim with Damo is probably the best co-op I've had in years. All that emergent stuff where everything goes sideways and you just handle it together. It Takes Two looks like a completely different vibe but I'd try it. Bec might actually sit down for that one.

 

[Oliver]

The commercial logic is sound, which is precisely why I'm cautious. When developers chase a successful formula the results are usually disappointing. That said, It Takes Two is a genuine design achievement — cooperative play used as a storytelling mechanism rather than bolted on for the sake of it. If that model prompts studios to build from the ground up around co-op rather than retrofitting it onto an existing template, then there's a reasonable argument for optimism. I wouldn't hold my breath, but it's possible.

 

[Ferdinand]

The commercial logic is sound, which is precisely why I'm cautious. When developers chase a successful formula the results are usually disappointing. That said, It Takes Two is a genuine design achievement — cooperative play used as a storytelling mechanism rather than bolted on for the sake of it. If that model prompts studios to build from the ground up around co-op rather than retrofitting it onto an existing template, then there's a reasonable argument for optimism. I wouldn't hold my breath, but it's possible.

Maybe whether they can be able to build a game that is as successful as IT Takes Two might be a major reason a lot of the devs are being cautious on taking that line. It might not always go the way that they wanted in the first place.

 

[Tyler]

Apex with Jordan is probably my version of this. When co-op actually works you stop noticing it, you just notice you're having a good time. Games that build it in from the start are completely different from the ones that bolt it on. It Takes Two is in its own category though, that's not really the same genre as what I usually play.

 

[Oliver]

The worry is that publishers take the wrong lesson from it -- not 'design the whole experience around cooperation' but 'add a co-op toggle to what was already a single-player game'. Those aren't the same product. Hazelight actually understood the distinction and built everything around it from the start. I'm not particularly confident most studios will replicate that honestly rather than just shipping something with a join button and calling it co-op.

 

[Lukas]

Oliver's point is the right one. The distinction between co-op as a core design mechanic and co-op as an added mode is not subtle, but I suspect it gets lost in most board meetings. Worth noting that Satisfactory is an interesting counter-example -- not built exclusively around co-op, but the factory-building loop accommodates it well enough that it feels intentional. That said, I would agree those cases are the exception. Hazelight understood what they were making and built everything accordingly. Most studios will not replicate that.

 

[Tyler]

Lukas mentioning Satisfactory is the right example. It works co-op because the building loop scales -- you're not both doing the same job, you're each covering different parts of something bigger. Apex is the same thing from the shooter side. When co-op actually works you stop noticing it because everyone's doing what they're supposed to. Games that just patch in a co-op mode never feel like that because the base design wasn't built around it.

 

[Ferdinand]

Lukas mentioning Satisfactory is the right example. It works co-op because the building loop scales -- you're not both doing the same job, you're each covering different parts of something bigger. Apex is the same thing from the shooter side. When co-op actually works you stop noticing it because everyone's doing what they're supposed to. Games that just patch in a co-op mode never feel like that because the base design wasn't built around it.

That's the point. Satisfactory had that structure where both players are focused on doing different tasks in the game and that was the way the game made it fun for both parties.