Limbo Co-Founder Says Developers Need to Stop Listening to Players – And He’s Got a Point

The Former Playdead Boss Has Strong Opinions

Dino Patti, co-founder of Playdead and executive producer on Limbo and Inside, gave an interview in December 2024 covering his new company Coherence, the Stop Killing Games movement, and ongoing legal battles with his former studio. But the most provocative take came when discussing game development philosophy: developers need to stop listening so much to their communities. In an industry that constantly celebrates player feedback and community-driven development, Patti argues that too much listening destroys original vision and produces mediocre games designed by committee rather than bold creative statements [web:1109][web:1146].

Patti left Playdead in 2016 after Inside’s release following what he describes as a “fallout” with co-founder Arnt Jensen. He walked away with a reported 7 million dollar package and founded Coherence in 2017, a company focused on making multiplayer game development accessible to small teams and solo developers. Coherence recently launched version 2.0 of its networking tools, which power the online co-op mode in Vampire Survivors and aim to democratize multiplayer development the same way Unity democratized general game creation [web:1109][web:1110][web:1130].

The timing of the interview is notable given the intensifying legal dispute between Patti and Playdead. His former studio sued him in June 2025 after he posted about Limbo’s development on LinkedIn, claiming he gave the false impression he played a significant creative role in the game. Playdead also removed Patti’s name from the credits of both Limbo and Inside years after release, which Patti says violates their separation contract [web:1134][web:1135][web:1144].

Why Developers Should Stop Listening to Players

Patti’s argument against excessive community feedback centers on protecting original creative vision. When developers constantly adjust their games based on player complaints and suggestions, they risk creating incoherent experiences that try to please everyone and satisfy nobody. The loudest voices in gaming communities don’t necessarily represent the majority, and players who enjoy something rarely shout about it as loudly as those who want changes [web:1145][web:1148].

The issue becomes particularly problematic when different players want contradictory things. One group demands more difficulty while another finds the game too hard. Some want complex systems while others prefer streamlined simplicity. Developers who try accommodating all feedback end up with games pulled in ten directions at once, losing the focused vision that made the concept compelling initially. Patti saw this firsthand at Playdead, where Limbo and Inside succeeded precisely because they committed to specific artistic visions without compromising based on what hypothetical players might prefer [web:1104][web:1107].

This doesn’t mean ignoring feedback entirely. But developers need to filter noise from signal, distinguishing between legitimate technical issues that need fixing and subjective preferences that conflict with creative direction. The best games often feel uncomfortable or challenging at first, only revealing their brilliance after players adjust to unfamiliar mechanics. If developers immediately change everything players initially dislike, they eliminate the possibility of those delayed revelations happening [web:1138][web:1139].

The Creative Vision Problem

• Community feedback represents loudest voices, not majority opinion
• Different players want contradictory changes to the same systems
• Design by committee dilutes focused creative vision
• Players often dislike unfamiliar mechanics that become favorites after adjustment
• Developers lose confidence in their own creative judgment
• Games become safe and derivative rather than bold and original
• Best experiences often challenge player expectations rather than confirm them

Coherence 2.0 Makes Multiplayer Actually Possible

While Patti advocates less player input, he’s simultaneously trying to give developers tools they desperately need. Coherence launched version 2.0 in November 2024, representing a major upgrade to the multiplayer networking platform. The company’s mission is making online features accessible to developers who previously avoided multiplayer due to technical complexity and cost. Patti describes it as doing for multiplayer what Unity did for general game development: democratizing access through user-friendly tools and eliminating barriers [web:1109][web:1110][web:1130].

The platform’s most visible success is Vampire Survivors, which used Coherence to implement online co-op after years with only local multiplayer. Getting a game with hundreds of enemies, dozens of weapons, and chaotic on-screen physics working smoothly across networks seemed nearly impossible, but Coherence’s technology solved the synchronization challenges. The collaboration demonstrates how the right tools can enable small teams to accomplish what previously required dedicated network engineers [web:1149][web:1161][web:1164].

Coherence 2.0 features flexible hosting options combining peer-to-peer connections with cloud hosting fallbacks, ensuring seamless multiplayer without requiring players to configure settings. Indie studios earning under 200,000 dollars annually get full features for free, while larger teams use flat-rate Pro licenses. Cloud hosting operates on prepaid credits that don’t expire, and client hosting takes only 3 percent revenue share after games earn over 15,000 dollars quarterly. This pricing structure makes multiplayer financially viable for projects that couldn’t afford traditional server costs [web:1130][web:1161].

The Stop Killing Games Movement

The interview also covered Patti’s perspective on the Stop Killing Games movement, which campaigns to prevent publishers from shutting down online games and making them unplayable. The movement gained momentum after Ubisoft shut down The Crew in April 2024, completely removing the racing game from players’ libraries. Activists argue publishers should provide offline modes or private server functionality when discontinuing online support, ensuring games remain accessible after official servers close [web:1162][web:1159].

European publisher group Video Games Europe opposes the movement, claiming requirements to maintain playability would make live-service games prohibitively expensive and curtail developer choice. They argue sunsetting games is financially necessary for many studios and that forcing continued support would harm the industry. The group also raised concerns about privacy for user data and liability for illegal content on private servers [web:1159].

Patti’s position, given his work on Coherence, likely emphasizes that technology exists to solve these problems without imposing unreasonable costs on developers. Coherence’s entire business model revolves around making online features affordable and accessible. If small indie teams can implement multiplayer using Coherence’s tools, major publishers can certainly provide sunset plans allowing games to function after official support ends. The technical barriers publishers claim are often overstated compared to the actual development work required [web:1109].

The Playdead Lawsuit Gets Messy

Running parallel to Patti’s current work is an increasingly public legal battle with Playdead. In early 2024, Patti posted on LinkedIn about Limbo’s development, including what Playdead’s lawyers called an “unauthorized” image of co-founder Arnt Jensen. Playdead demanded over 73,000 dollars compensation for the post, which Patti claims represents the latest in nearly a decade of similar demands since his 2016 departure [web:1147][web:1144].

The studio followed through on threats by filing a lawsuit in June 2024, claiming Patti’s LinkedIn post falsely suggested he played a significant creative role in Limbo’s development. Playdead’s position is that Jensen handled creative direction while Patti focused on business operations and project management. By discussing development specifics, Patti allegedly misrepresented his contributions and violated agreements from their separation [web:1134][web:1135].

Patti counters that Playdead removed his name from Limbo and Inside credits years after both games released, violating the separation contract that specified how he should be credited. The original credits listed him prominently as CEO and executive producer. Current versions either remove his name entirely or bury it in generic acknowledgments. Patti argues this credit erasure constitutes breach of contract and an attempt to delete his contributions from the studio’s history [web:1144].

What the Fallout Says About the Industry

The Playdead dispute illustrates how messy departures can become when creative partners split. Patti and Jensen built the studio together in 2006, collaborated for a decade, and created two of indie gaming’s most acclaimed titles. But whatever caused their fallout in 2015-2016 has festered into a legal nightmare involving trademark disputes, credit removals, and public mudslinging through interviews and social media [web:1104][web:1146].

Patti maintains he’s on speaking terms with 98 percent of Playdead employees and that the conflict is specifically with Jensen and producer Mads Wibbro, now the studio’s COO. All communication since his departure has gone through Wibbro or attorneys rather than direct conversations with his former co-founder. That breakdown in personal communication allowed resentments to calcify into legal positions rather than resolving through negotiation [web:1104].

The timing of Limbo and Inside’s removal from GOG in July 2025 adds another layer of speculation about whether the lawsuit affected the games’ availability. While no official reason was given for the delistings, the timing coinciding with active litigation suggests possible connection. Both games remain available on Steam and other platforms, but their GOG removal raised concerns about whether the legal battle might eventually impact broader distribution [web:1134][web:1135].

From Limbo to Coherence

Patti’s career trajectory from celebrated indie developer to enterprise software CEO demonstrates the diverse paths available in gaming beyond making games. After leaving Playdead, he co-founded Jumpship and executive produced Somerville, a cinematic puzzle platformer that launched in 2022. While Somerville received mixed reviews compared to Playdead’s work, it showed Patti could apply his production expertise to new projects and teams [web:1102][web:1110].

But his primary focus became Coherence, founded in 2017 with chief technical officer Tadej Gregorcic. The company addresses a genuine industry problem: multiplayer remains technically intimidating and expensive for small developers despite being crucial for modern gaming. By creating tools that handle networking complexity behind user-friendly interfaces, Coherence enables solo developers and tiny teams to experiment with online features that previously required dedicated engineering resources [web:1109][web:1121].

The philosophy mirrors what Unity co-founder David Helgason, who serves as advisor to Coherence, accomplished by making game engines accessible to non-programmers. Before Unity, creating 3D games required significant technical expertise. Unity democratized development, and Coherence aims for similar disruption in multiplayer networking. Whether it succeeds at that scale remains to be seen, but early adopters like Vampire Survivors demonstrate the platform’s viability [web:1121][web:1129].

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is Dino Patti?

Dino Patti co-founded Playdead in 2006 and served as CEO and executive producer on Limbo (2010) and Inside (2016). He left in 2016 and now runs Coherence, a multiplayer networking platform, while executive producing games like Somerville.

What is Coherence?

Coherence is a multiplayer networking engine and platform that makes online features easier to implement and scale. It provides tools allowing developers to add multiplayer to games without deep networking expertise, with free access for indie studios under 200,000 dollars annual revenue.

Why is Playdead suing Dino Patti?

Playdead sued Patti in June 2024 after he posted about Limbo’s development on LinkedIn, claiming he falsely suggested playing a significant creative role. Patti counters that Playdead violated their separation contract by removing his name from game credits.

Why does Patti say developers should stop listening to players?

Patti argues excessive community feedback dilutes creative vision and produces mediocre design-by-committee games. Different players want contradictory changes, and the loudest voices don’t represent the majority. Developers need to trust their vision rather than constantly adjusting based on complaints.

What games use Coherence technology?

Vampire Survivors is the most prominent example, using Coherence for its online co-op mode launched in 2024. The platform powers the game’s networking despite hundreds of enemies and complex physics interactions.

What is the Stop Killing Games movement?

A campaign demanding publishers provide ways to play online games after official support ends, such as offline modes or private server functionality. It gained momentum after Ubisoft shut down The Crew in April 2024, making the game permanently unplayable.

Did Dino Patti direct Limbo and Inside?

No, Arnt Jensen served as creative director on both games. Patti’s role was CEO and executive producer, handling business operations, funding, team building, and project management rather than creative direction.

Why were Limbo and Inside removed from GOG?

GOG announced removal in July 2025 without providing reasons, but timing coincided with Playdead’s lawsuit against Patti. Both games remain available on Steam and other platforms.

The Creative Vision Versus Community Feedback Debate

Patti’s stance on player feedback represents one pole in an ongoing industry debate about how much developers should listen to their communities. On one extreme, you have studios that essentially crowdsource design decisions, implementing whatever gets the most upvotes on Reddit or Discord. On the other extreme, you have auteur developers who ignore all feedback and ship exactly what they envisioned regardless of player response. The healthy balance lies somewhere between these extremes.

What makes Patti’s perspective credible is that he proved it works. Limbo and Inside succeeded commercially and critically by executing focused artistic visions without compromise. Neither game tried to please everyone or accommodate diverse playstyles. They presented challenging, uncomfortable experiences that some players loved and others bounced off. That polarization reflected confident creative direction rather than weakness, and the games endured precisely because they committed to specific visions.

But context matters. Patti’s philosophy applies most cleanly to single-player narrative experiences where the developer’s vision is the product. Live-service games, competitive multiplayer titles, and ongoing Early Access projects need community input because player experience is the product. You can’t balance competitive games without understanding how players actually use systems. You can’t improve live-service retention without knowing what frustrates your audience. The question isn’t whether to listen, but what to listen to and when.

Coherence’s existence demonstrates Patti understands this nuance. He’s not telling developers to ignore all feedback. He’s warning against letting community noise override creative instinct and produce bland, safe games that offend nobody and inspire nobody. The most memorable experiences often challenge players, introduce unfamiliar mechanics, and trust audiences to adapt rather than immediately accommodating initial discomfort. That requires confidence in your vision and willingness to risk alienating people in pursuit of something genuinely original. Not every developer can pull it off, but the ones who do create the games people remember years later.