and i know loads of people who refused to buy it or regreded buying it because it lacked co-op

Hopefully if they don't do we will see a mod that does it in the near future, i know there is some sort of skyrim multiplayer mod in the works.

i said CO-OP not Multiplayer 2 diferent things

and just because the co-op feature is there dosnt mean you have to use it why complain because people are requesting what they want?

Having someone take over your current companion would be perfect.

The only needed change would be either VATS goes to real time, or both players are slowed down for balance.

Zone changes/quest turn ins could be done by the MC only.

Co-op, which is a form of multiplayer, would mean wasted resources that could have been poured into the single player. Not every popular game needs a tacked on co-op multiplayer. There are plenty of companies like Ubisoft who specialize in tacking on co-op and multiplayer to every game.

You do realize they can work on different things at the same time, right? It's not always the same studio... We have ESO, but FO4 was still made. We got FO:NV even though Beth was making FO4. We got ME3 MP (Which is still played today mind you, years after support for it ended) AND we got a fantastic single player. Like the other guy said that too about Fallout Shelter, and I highly doubt they had to scrap features from FO4 to make time for Fallout Shelter... More than one thing can be done at a time.

Again, it's an extensive feature that absorbs development resources.

The only way I could see co-op working, is if it just let you take control of the active follower of someone. They'd only be able to use stuff you give them or the characters have stock, and be unable to intereact with things in the environment people or harm them unless they're already hostile.

Again, those are still resources that could be dedicated towards the single player. Better that Fallout Online be a completely separate entity like Elder Scrolls Online.

That way they can dedicate ALL resources strictly towards the multiplayer fans, and not disrupt fans of the franchise who just want the best 'lone survivor' experience possible. Besides, Fallout is popular enough to have a stand alone, multiplayer game with co-op, PvP anyway. Maybe even include an MMO story if you wanted.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can see you don't understand. I don't feel like trying to explain it today.

Implementing co-op or any other form of multiplayer always takes away resources which could put into singleplayer experience and its very existance always has an impact on the singeplayer.

I honestly don't see the point of the settlement building thing in this game if there isn't any co-op. That being said, the husband-wife thing sets it up perfectly, but I really doubt that there's going to be co-op, unless that's one of the big secrets that Todd hinted at.

The point is, the coop will either be a bad tacked on gameplay element that adds nothing.

Or it will take away resources and elements from the single player experience which is just as bad..

No coop = win-win

NO!! I am talking about CO-OP not and online game its its VERY DIFFERENT i dont want online i want a co-op that is linked or the same as SP and in my opinion they ruined ESO by making it online and not a co-op like people wanted, it feels nothing like the other elder scrolls or skyrim yes the graphics are good but its not what people really asked for

How would it be possible to design and implement a multiplayer component that is fully realized, well-balanced, and complimentary, without changing the core experience that players have come to expect from a Fallout game?

resources this company clearly has as NeferiusX already said they are working on other games at the same time so they have the resources the only issue that is truely there is TIME

by making the SP that you would expect them to make first and then adding the CO-OP means its only the presence of an extra player that is chancing the experience for you if you dont like that experience then dont play the co-op but there's no reason it shouldn't exist. if well thought out and planned correctly it would be an excellent feature even if no one answer is what you want to hear dosnt mean it couldn't work game devs are used to making decisions and inventing new ways around things but telling people simply NO DO NOT DO IT is not going to get things done or new new feature that could make a great game even better

Maybe it would have been a good trade off, if they had diverted resources there they wouldn't have done a voiced pc or dialogue wheel which so many people dislike.

A few corrections here.

ESO was made by Zenimax Online. A different studio. Had no effect on Fallout 4.

New Vegas was made by Obsidian. A different studio. Had no effect on Fallout 4 (or Skyrim for that matter)

Those other games are developed under their own entities and have a return investment from an independent resource pool of manpower, time and money and even different companies all together.

Any CO gameplay for FO4 will slave off the base game.

That was entirely my point.

as the game is expected release is nov 10th the base game is done so most resources will be free or diverted to patches and DLCs and it is possible to patch in CO-OP and any other features they like in to the game because they developed it so they know how to code in anything they want they just need a reason to do it thats ALL that stops them and time

The base is never done and it's not like they are all just sitting around and looking for stuff to do. As development of the base game evolves to a point where team members are reduced to allow the initial workings of the next game.

It doesn't matter "when" it's implemented or developed to be implemented. It's still drawing from the same source. Albeit labeled DLC or otherwise.

EDIT :

Your best hopeful is something done under a completely different company, like was used for ESO and FONV. Alas, the closest that may come will be FOO.