My friends and I recently finished our usual multiplayer games, and we’re struggling to find something new. What are the best co-op games available right now for a group to play together?
The annoying catch is that several of the best co-op games only support two players, so your group size matters more than the genre. If there are exactly two of you, Split Fiction is probably the easiest recommendation right now. It keeps changing mechanics before they get stale and is built entirely around cooperation. It Takes Two is still worth playing if you missed it.
For three or four players, I’d look at Helldivers 2 for chaotic sessions, Deep Rock Galactic for stronger class teamwork, or Remnant II if you want a tougher campaign with builds and boss fights. Monster Hunter Wilds works well for a group that likes grinding gear, although its multiplayer setup can feel more complicated than it needs to be. Baldur’s Gate 3 is the best choice for a long RPG campaign, but only if everyone can play fairly consistently.
If your group wants something less demanding, PlateUp! is easier to keep returning to than Overcooked because you build and improve the restaurant between runs. Valheim, Palworld, Minecraft, and Terraria are better for groups that want a shared world where people can make progress at different times. Just decide who will host before everyone gets invested, since save ownership and server access can become a nuisance.
My short version would be Split Fiction for two players, Helldivers 2 for immediate action, Deep Rock Galactic for repeatable four-player sessions, and Baldur’s Gate 3 for a proper campaign. Before anyone buys anything, check the player limit and crossplay support for your exact platforms. That eliminates a surprising number of otherwise good suggestions.
Set a hard limit on how much commitment the group wants before anyone buys. For quick four-player nights, PEAK is cheap, easy to start, and built around short chaotic runs. For a longer shared campaign, Abiotic Factor supports up to six and gives you survival crafting without feeling like another empty open-world grind. I’d avoid Baldur’s Gate 3 unless your schedules genuinely line up, because waiting for the full party can kill that campaign fast.
Realistically, platform compatibility will narrow the list faster than genre. If your group is split across PC and consoles, Warframe is a solid free option with four-player squads and broad cross-play, though its early-game systems can be confusing.
Avoid games that punish absences.
@stealth_script is right about setting a commitment limit, but the bigger problem is usually progression gaps. A campaign may support four or six players on paper, yet become awkward when one person misses two nights and returns underleveled, lost in the story, or carrying starter equipment. I’d favor games built around separate missions or runs unless your group has unusually reliable schedules.
Phasmophobia is a good middle-ground pick for four people. Matches are self-contained, cross-platform play works across PC and current consoles, and an inexperienced player can still contribute without understanding every system immediately. The catch is that learning ghost behavior eventually becomes a large part of the game, so anyone expecting pure horror may lose interest once it starts feeling like detective work.
For five players, Ready or Not deserves more attention than it usually gets. It supports five-person squads and crossplay between PC, PS5, and Xbox Series systems. It is slower and less forgiving than Helldivers 2, though. If your friends ignore plans, sprint ahead, or get annoyed by restarting a mission after one bad decision, this will expose that immediately. I would only pick it if the group genuinely wants tactical cooperation rather than a shooter where everyone happens to share a lobby.
If everyone is on PC and you have up to six people, R.E.P.O. is an easy low-risk trial. The physics-based item hauling gives players an actual reason to coordinate, while the short-run structure means missing a session does not wreck an ongoing campaign. Just remember that it is still an Early Access game. It has more rough edges and less long-term depth than something like Deep Rock Galactic, so I would treat it as a game-night option rather than assume it will become the group’s next six-month obsession.
I’d be more cautious about starting Baldur’s Gate 3 than the earlier replies suggest. Scheduling is only half the issue. Four-player dialogue choices, inventory management, and different opinions about where to go can make a session crawl. It is excellent with patient friends, but a poor replacement for casual multiplayer nights.
My practical approach would be to try one session-based game first: Phasmophobia for mixed platforms, Ready or Not for a serious five-person group, or R.E.P.O. for a larger PC group. If people are still asking to play after three or four nights, then consider committing to a shared-world or story-heavy game.
Realistically, your group probably does not need another 100-hour progression system. You need a game everyone can install, understand, and start playing before the usual half hour of troubleshooting kills the mood.
That is why I would not rush into Grounded 2, Abiotic Factor, or another shared-world game unless your friends specifically want base building. Those games create chores. Someone gathers materials, someone rearranges storage, and someone logs in two weeks later asking where everybody moved the crafting bench. Grounded 2 is still an Early Access/Game Preview commitment anyway, so expect changes and unfinished areas rather than a clean campaign.
For three players, Elden Ring Nightreign is the obvious missing recommendation. It is built around three-person runs, gets to the action faster than regular Elden Ring, and gives you a clear stopping point each night. The warning is simple: if one friend hates repeated failures or learning boss patterns, do not buy it for that group. It is cooperative, but it is not relaxed.
For four, I would go cheaper and less fashionable:
Risk of Rain 2 works when you want combat immediately and do not care about a campaign.
Left 4 Dead 2 is ancient, but that barely matters once four people are yelling over each other. On PC it is still an easier group purchase than plenty of newer games.
Sea of Thieves is good when your group enjoys creating its own problems. It is much less appealing if everyone needs constant upgrades and objective markers to stay interested.
Ultimate Chicken Horse is the better answer when people claim they want cooperation but clearly enjoy ruining each other’s evening. It is easy to rotate in between larger games and does not require anyone to remember a build, quest log, or crafting recipe.
I agree with @redlabedge that R.E.P.O. and Phasmophobia fit unreliable schedules, but I would not assume either becomes your permanent game. Horror co-op often turns into comedy once everyone understands the trick, and the novelty can disappear quickly. That is fine. A game does not need to occupy six months to be worth playing.
My blunt recommendation is to stop searching for a single replacement for everything. Pick one repeatable action game and one low-commitment party game. Nightreign plus Ultimate Chicken Horse for three people, or Risk of Rain 2 plus Phasmophobia for four, gives you somewhere to go when half the group wants progression and the other half cannot be bothered.
Nobody’s asked how your group actually talks to each other. That decides more than platform or genre does. Half the games listed here fall apart if two of your friends play with no mic. Phasmophobia, Ready or Not, Helldivers 2, Deep Rock all assume constant chatter. If your crew is the type that jumps into a Discord call and stays there, great. If people prefer to lurk quietly and just react, you want games that survive silence, and that list is shorter.
The stuff that works muted or half-muted tends to be the physics chaos and the run-based shooters. Risk of Rain 2 is fine with barely any talking. Left 4 Dead 2 mostly runs on instinct once everyone knows the maps. Deep Rock technically wants coordination but you can carry a quiet player easily. Anything tactical like Ready or Not is the opposite, one silent guy wandering off and you replay the room. @redlabedge already flagged that game as unforgiving, and I’d stretch that further: it’s not just skill, it’s the comms dependency that punishes casual groups.
On the horror-turns-to-comedy point from @nanocloud1188, I half agree. Phasmophobia does lose its scare factor once you learn the ghost tells, no argument. But calling that the endpoint undersells it a bit. Once it becomes detective work, some groups actually enjoy it more, because it stops being about jump scares and starts being about arguing over evidence. Whether that’s a downgrade depends entirely on who you’re playing with, so don’t write it off just because the fear wears off.
The thing I’d genuinely warn about: don’t buy anything at full price for a group until you’ve confirmed everyone will show up for session two. The graveyard of co-op purchases is full of games everyone was hyped about on night one and nobody launched again. Sales and refund windows are your friend here. Grab one cheap chaos game first, see who actually returns, then spend money on the bigger commitment once you know your real player count instead of your hoped-for one.
If I had to pick blind for a mixed group, I’d start with something that works whether people talk or not, hold off on the tactical and story-heavy picks, and let the group’s own habits tell you what to buy next.