PUBG: Dednet Wants Roguelike Imbalance to Fuel Its Multiplayer FPS Chaos

PUBG: Dednet is taking a notably confrontational approach to multiplayer shooter design. Rather than making every encounter feel even, controlled, and carefully protected from unfairness, the upcoming FPS is built around the possibility that one combatant may arrive with a substantial advantage over another. That tension is not being treated as an accident to eliminate. It is central to the game's identity.

Creative director Dave Curd has described Dednet as an effort to spread "the gospel of PUBG," though not simply by repeating the battle royale structure that made the series such a huge phenomenon. The new project applies some of PUBG's unpredictable, high-stakes energy to a smaller-scale multiplayer loop powered by roguelike progression. Its core pitch is blunt: death is only the beginning, because every run can feed into the next one.

Set in Cascadia, a gritty region inspired by the Pacific Northwest of the 1990s, Dednet also carries a rougher visual personality than players may associate with PUBG. Graffiti-styled details and colorful environmental touches accompany a game that is being framed as an edgier relative rather than a conventional sequel chasing the exact same formula. But the biggest distinction is not cosmetic. It is the willingness to let power differences emerge over the course of connected matches.

Every run is meant to change the next fight

In a traditional battle royale, the reset after a loss is part of the appeal. Players return to a fresh match on broadly equal footing, then scramble for gear and positioning all over again. Dednet is designed to make that familiar cycle less clean. A player who continues a run becomes more powerful, regardless of where they placed in a prior match, creating a persistent sense of momentum that can carry from game to game.

For useful background on this topic, read Gladio Mori Reaches 1.0 on PC, PS5 and Xbox Series X|S With Crossplay and Console Mods.

That means a capable player beginning a fresh run could potentially encounter a less mechanically gifted opponent who has accumulated a greater collection of advantages. Curd's point is that this scenario complicates the usual understanding of competitive balance in an interesting way. The stronger shooter may still win through superior aim, awareness, and decision-making, but the player deeper into their run has a real chance to overturn that expectation.

Dednet's intended variety comes from those changing circumstances. Instead of every match beginning with the same competitive assumptions, players can meet at different points in their respective progressions. One person might be on their first game; another might be entering an eighth match with a much more developed set of tools. That friction can produce surprising outcomes, sudden reversals, and the kinds of stories that are hard to engineer in systems where fairness is interpreted strictly as symmetry.

Curd has characterized the potential for these combinations as effectively infinite. The claim is not that every match will be unrecognizable from the last, but that roguelike progression gives the multiplayer experience many more moving parts. Builds develop, advantages stack, and the relative state of two opponents can be very different whenever they collide.

Dednet is not trying to be safe

The design philosophy behind that structure is intentionally risky. Curd has said Dednet is aimed at players who are tired of games feeling too safe, a statement that places the project at odds with the modern expectation that multiplayer shooters should constantly smooth over frustration for newer or less successful players.

There is an obvious trade-off. A system that allows snowballing can create exhilarating comebacks and memorable underdog victories, but it can also make an inexperienced player feel as if they were defeated before a firefight even began. Dednet's team has already seen that response in earlier versions of the game.

At one point, the gap was apparently severe: a veteran player could have several powers while a newcomer had none. When those players met, the result could be punishing enough that some new users simply bounced away from the experience. That reaction is understandable. A shooter lives or dies on whether players believe they have a meaningful chance to learn, adapt, and eventually win. If the first few sessions instead feel like repeated collisions with opponents carrying built-in advantages, the roguelike hook may not have time to take hold.

The developers have therefore sought to put more control around the imbalance without abandoning it. Dednet gives players five powers that activate at set intervals during a match. During phase one, players are intended to be relatively close in strength. As the match moves toward phase five, the differences become much more visible, especially when players with longer streaks of runs enter the equation.

This structure creates a rising curve of danger. The early game offers more of an opportunity for direct gunfights without overwhelming power gaps. Later, the game increasingly lets the accumulated progress matter. Players on a fifth, sixth, or even longer run can become a major threat, while those earlier in their journey have stronger reasons to take action before the match reaches its most chaotic stage.

Conflict matters more than cautious survival

That escalating power model is also meant to influence behavior. Dednet does not want players to conclude that hiding is the optimal way to survive. Curd has said the team paid close attention when players began avoiding fights, treating that as a warning sign rather than a successful strategic outcome.

The goal is to encourage conflict, chases, and what Curd calls shenanigans. In practical terms, that means the game wants competitors to use their powers aggressively, chase opportunities, and create unpredictable exchanges instead of slowly waiting for everyone else to make a mistake. The longer a match continues, the more dangerous it may become for players who have not developed as many advantages. That pressure can make decisive action feel attractive rather than optional.

It is a different rhythm from a battle royale where passive play, safe positioning, and patience can be dominant tools. Those elements may still have a place in Dednet, but the game's stated priorities lean toward speed and momentum. The match is one part of a larger session, and the session is where the roguelike build begins to matter. Losses are not merely failures that send players to a lobby; they are intended to become part of a longer push toward a more powerful character state.

That loop resembles the appeal of a particularly punishing arcade challenge. A loss can sting, yet it also creates the urge to queue again, improve the run, and seek a better result. Curd compared the sensation to a spicy chip that is difficult to stop eating after the first bite. It is an apt metaphor for a design that expects some discomfort and wants that discomfort to create momentum rather than abandonment.

An ambitious test of player tolerance

Whether that philosophy succeeds will depend on a difficult balance of its own. Dednet needs the disparities between players to be meaningful enough that long runs feel valuable, powers feel exciting, and unexpected victories feel possible. At the same time, it cannot make early runs so punishing that newcomers decide the game is only enjoyable after surviving an unpleasant initiation period.

The phase-based approach suggests the team understands that concern. Keeping the opening portion of a match closer to even may give every player room to participate before the more dramatic power swings begin. It also gives skilled newcomers an avenue to prove themselves. A better gunfighter can still prevail, even if their rival has the benefit of a deeper run, and that possibility is essential to maintaining suspense.

Still, Dednet is unlikely to appeal equally to every multiplayer audience. Some players prefer ladders, matchmaking systems, and modes that minimize external advantages as much as possible. Others enjoy the disorder created when preparation, persistence, and a little luck can turn an otherwise ordinary combatant into a major problem for the lobby. Dednet appears to be firmly pursuing the latter group.

That makes it one of the more unusual attempts to extend PUBG's legacy. Instead of treating the battle royale's clean reset as sacred, it asks what happens when a player's previous efforts continue to echo through future firefights. Instead of avoiding asymmetry, it organizes matches so that asymmetry grows over time. And instead of rewarding a purely cautious approach, it wants combatants to embrace the mess.

PUBG: Dednet is therefore a bold experiment in making multiplayer volatility part of the progression loop. Its Cascadia setting, gritty 1990s-inspired style, and roguelike power system all support a game built around repeated attempts, mounting pressure, and the possibility that the next opponent has arrived with far more to lose--or far more ways to hurt you. The question is not whether the idea will be chaotic. That seems guaranteed. The real question is how many players will find that chaos irresistible rather than exhausting.