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

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.

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.

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.

Yes, because gamers turn into scum whenever PVP is involved.

Extraction shooters "needs" PvE-only mode as much as Dark Souls "needs" an easy-mode.

It's not a case of if they should offer exclusive modes. But you should get what you paid for. And you're paying for PvPvE extraction shooter. If they add a PvE-only mode down the line, fantastic, but their main focus, should be to create the best PvPvE experience they can in accordance to their vision of what they want the game to be.

No matter how much you playtest your game, there's gonna be "unexpected features", balance has to be tweaked, exploits have to be removed. They're gonna have their hands full for at least 1 year after launch before they can even think about adding additional modes.

I don’t want to tell others what to do with their art, but I would certainly appreciate that. For every PvPvE game if they replaced the human opponents with NPCs I would probably be happy. I avoid PvP games. There is enough toxicity in the world without willingly subjecting myself to something that has been specifically created to generate toxic situations and behavior.

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?

Yes. People suck. The only tolerable multiplayer is LAN, or multiple controllers connected to the same device, possibly with split screen.

My experience with PvPvE games is they tend to be incredibly toxic, with some people just trying to get started, and others picking on them for fun.

I have several friends who vow not to play PvPvE games again after bad experiences in games like Last Oasis and Worlds Adrift, although they were interested in playing both of those games in a PvE format.

Personally I find the extra danger from considering other players “another type of enemy” to be interesting. But also those types of games tend to breed to most toxic communities.

They don't /have/ to, but I will say if they don't it removes any chance of me ever buying it.

I was up and ready to buy Dune launch week, but then I noticed there was no full PVE mode and I had no way of creating a PVE environment by self hosting or by other means. This blew all interest I had in the game.

To me it makes logic sense that a studio that offers a PvPvE should offer a PvE experience as well. The framework is basically already there, and in some cases won't even require more resources to do. In the case of Dune they could easily have made PvE use the same servers, but have players marked as PvE invisible to other players not in the party, or give them a ghost effect to people not in PvE mode so they know not to try and fight them.

Any studio in my eyes refusing to acknowledge the casual non-pvp group are just throwing money away. I have easily dumped 100$ into both Ark SE and minecraft with how many times i've purchased them for different platforms, and these are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I would have never have bought either if they lacked the ability to go PvE only.

Sure if it's either limited progression/loot, or seperate progression entirely. People will just farm on low risk PvE missions for high tier resources and upgrade to end game gear. I'll be honest, I'm not sure how Sea of Thieves handles this.

The Arc (name of the robots) can be challenging but they are also easy to pick off at range. Maybe if the arcs were stronger in PvE? This then defeats the purpose of appealing to an even more casual crowd. People were already calling for Arc nerfs.

The devs originally pitched this game as a co-op PvE game akin to something like Helldivers 2. Their monetization model is practically the same to HD2. They decided to swap to PvPVE claiming it just wasn't fun though many speculate Nexon, their publisher/owner, had a say in it. I have doubts Nexon influenced the gameplay but Nexon is Nexon afterall.

From my experience playing the tech tests and latest server slam, it's real easy to avoid PvP and only fight the Arc if you so choose. You'll run into players eventually but I've had an easy time making friends with strangers. Last server slam had more PvP due to limited upgrades available.

I'm not opposed to a PvE only mode if it meant the game is still playable after the servers shut down.

Enthusiastically support including PvE.

A game doesn't have to offer anything, if they can offer modes without compromising on their artistic integrity good for them otherwise just make the best game they can without requiring they cater to the largest demographic.

No. Games can offer whatever modes they want.

That said, I probably won't play a game without a decent PvE mode, because I generally prefer playing solo. So if they want my money, they should offer it.

Literally can only be improved by it. The only people it hurts are people who want to do PVP with players who don't want to do PVP, and I'd rather that kind of scumbag not play the games I play in the first place

Absolutely they should. PvPvE is great but its way too intense and sweaty for a long session.

It's complicated, but I think no. But maybe they could have certain maps where it's PVE. I've recently played the pve only fork of The Cycle Frontier, another pvevp extraction shooter that got shut down a few years ago, and the pve only mode is considerably easier, to the point where the tension from the full game is not present. So a game designed to be PvEvP would probably feel soulless without part of its intended game design.

Not sure if they "should". But: not every gamer can play PvP. Some people have deficits and illnesses that prevent them from even having a slide chance against human players.

You want that your game can be played by people, regardless of physical condition, or by the elderly (and in sense of games this means 30+ sometimes)?

Than yes , yous should provide such a node of you already have some vE in there. Of course , multiplayer games are multiplayer games.

But this is the same conversation like "should games have an easy mode"

I personally would love to play for example the eldenring series, but I can't. I am physically not able to play the game with the required precision. And let me tell you, seeing arguments like "learn to play" are hurtful.

So, maybe consider this side in further arguments

Everyone has already given great answers, so I’m going a bit off-topic. I recommend checking out Forever Winter for a PvE experience similar to Arc Raiders. Read the reviews, try it, refund under 2 hours played if it’s not for you

No, a game should be what the devs decide to make. That said, it can cut off a part of the market. I'm another one of those folks who tends to avoid PvPvE games, without a dedicated PvE only side. This weekend's Arc Raiders playtest was a good example. I read through the description on Steam and just decided, "na, I have better things to do with my time." Unfortunately, those sorts of games tend to have a problem with griefers running about directly trying to ruin other peoples' enjoyment. I'll freely admit that I will never be as good as someone who is willing to put the hours into gear grinding, practice and map memorization in such a game. I just don't enjoy that and that means I will always be at a severe disadvantage. So, why sped my time and money on such a game?

This can lead to problem for such games, unless they have a very large player base. The Dark Souls series was a good example, which has the in-built forced PvP system, though you can kinda avoid it for solo play. And it still has a large player base. But, I'd also point out some of the the controversy around the Seamless Co-op mod for Elden Ring. When it released, the PvP players were howling from the walls about how long it made invasion queues. Since Seamless Co-op meant that the players using it were removed from the official servers, the number of easy targets to invade went way, way down. It seemed like a lot of folks like to have co-op, without the risks of invasion.

As a longer answer to this, let me recommend two videos from Extra Credits:

• Bartle's Taxonomy
• Balancing an MMO

These videos provide a way to think about players and how they interact with games and each other.

No, games should be able to be designed around PvEvP being an integral element of the game.

That said, personally, I'm not going to play a game like Arc Raiders or Sea of Thieves if it doesn't have a PvE only mode where I am capable of making all the same progress as the PvEvP mode, because I am not even remotely interested in PvEvP. Every game is not meant to be for me though. I love The Finals, but I can look at Arc Raiders and go "not for me" and ignore it.

Dont get me wrong, I love Embark and a fully fledged PvE only mode would immediately get me very interested in Arc Raiders, but I see no reason I should be personally catered to for every game release. I don't even have enough time to play all the games that come out that do cater to my gaming interests.

I agree with the other comments. "Should" kind of frames this as a necessity. It's not - no one gets to dictate what's in the game except for the developers. But I will have a hard time without a clean PvE mode, especially if the game wants to be both PvE and PvP.

Why? Because in PvE you are dependent on the community of the game. And sometimes it's great, but sometimes it can really suck the fun out of a game. Having the option to chill and not interact with anyone can be great of you don't wanna gamble on the community, especially when you wanna play to decompress after a work day.

They don't have to, but having one would significantly increase the chances of the genre being successful.

All of the games in the genre that don't have a PvE mode see high success for less than a year before player numbers fall below 10k average players. The only really exception is Tarkov, which is basically the Fornite of the genre, except it actually was the first of the genre unlike Fortnite.

ARC Raiders should have one in particular because it was originally supposed to be a coop PvE game, and was forced into its current genre by Nexon.

Not at all.

I miss the old days when people weren't so insanely entitled. Developers can make whatever game they want. People can play it if they want to. That's how the relationship works.

Pretty sure Lazerpig made a 20min rant video about this exact topic, specifically regarding why Sea Of Thieves sucked as a result of its forced-PvP for PvPers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGWOgMcMJ8c

I will say I would have loved mmos to be online/offline. You should be able to enjoy your electronic asset purchases after the game is gone. Thats not really what you asked though but to add to my non sequitors I love when its all. Go play another game and then months later its. why does no one play this game whining.

Up to the devs. There's no objective should or shouldn't it's just a matter of opinion. Would it be nice? Yea. I get not wanting to play a game where you have to worry about coming into conflict with other players. I don't like those types of games either. I also don't buy them.

"Should they?" No. Games are a form of art, and they have no obligation to be anything more than what they are.

That said, if their goal is to reach as many players as possible, they will miss out on a (likely) growing demographic by excluding PvE, especially if the framework is already there. Many people have no interest in duking it out with sweaty tryhards, and even if a game is lucky not to have those types, there's still people who make it their mission to grief others whenever possible.

So I don't think they "should," but it's shortsighted not to.

No. They have a vision and implementation that they want to balance and trying to shoe horn another game mode isn't exactly easy for them to try and balance while attempting to maintain the core game.

The game was originally planned to be a PvE only game, but the game wasn't fun according to the data by their playtesters

There's work that is involved in properly making and balancing and creating content for a different mode. You design the entire game around how you play it, in those case PvPvE. So no, they shouldn't. And neither should devs be forced to make a game they don't want to make. If you remove the PvP from the game as-is, you will lose out on a lot of what the game is supposed to be, and the interactions and moment-to-moment gameplay you have. Not to mention you're gonna split the playerbase which is rarely healthy for a multiplayer game.

There's a reason PvP is included, and that's because it a straight up impossible to implement the sort of dynamism and unpredictability PvP adds.

There's not a lot of games like Arc Raiders, and it is the kind of game that I want. Not every game is, or should be made, for everybody. That's how you get the sort of environment of undifferentiated AAA games where they all look and play the same all designed by committee to appeal to the greatest amount of possible to earn as much as possible

I think it would be a nice thing to include as not everyone wants to interact with other players if they don't need to. But I don't think it should be an obligation.

It sounds like a concept that I could enjoy, but I probably won't play it if there isn't a PvE mode. I play video games so I don't have to interact with people. But I'm not going to buy it knowing there isn't a PvE mode and then complain that there isn't one.

Depends on the game. If it's a good fit, go ahead and add it, but if it's not, it's better for a game to focus on doing one thing well than two things poorly.