Multiplayer Web Poll

from GalCiv2 Forums
Its running about 2:1 against.

Frankly that doesn't surprise me, but what does it mean for the future of MP?
18,635 views 21 replies
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Perhaps that people don't want to pay $20 for multiplayer alone? I wonder what the results would have been if:
a) The envisioned price was $10
b) The envisioned price was $0
c) The expansion, at $20, was to contain more than just multiplayer
etc.
Star Control: Origins
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
My problem is not the price, but just as FrogBoy said, no one to play against. I'd hate to see the rest of the budget go into multi player and nuver use it, and it would take a lot of the budget.
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Yes, well we can only work with the question as SD phrased it.

Though from reading some of Brads thoughts on the issue, it does seem as though he is not particularly interested in creating extra content and tieing it to MP, but who knows?

I don't think the price really matters that much (unless it were >$40), if you don't want MP you won't pay for it, if you want it, you'll pay for it.

It would have been interesting to see feedback on how many would want it at $0.01 though
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I voted against, not because I'm against mulitplayer, but because $20 seemed a bit much for nothing more than just a multiplayer mode.

If there was a decent amount more added to GC2 than just multiplayer, than I would've voted yes.

Or if the envisioned price was $9.95 I would've voted yes.

If the envisioned price was $14.95, I'd consider it, but would need some time to think it over. I'd possibly vote yes.
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I voted for it, just because it would be cool, and it's losing so badly. I'd rather see the first expansion focused on extra SP content before they work on MP, personally.
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I really don't care for MP, so unless it was "free" (the beer one), I wouldn't buy it.
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Can't stand multiplayer, purely because it's so rare to get a good game, people deliberately disconnect when they think they're going to lose. Even if it was free, I'd rather the development money went towards new content, since I'm not going to use it no matter what.

Bah humbug!
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I voted for it. While I'd like to see some added SP features in an expansion, I'd be willing to drop another $20 for MP support. I am one of about 8 people who are currently playing, with 5 more or so 'looking into it', and MP would be a great feature for us.
Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I voted for it so I can play with my family and friends over a LAN connection (or internet if they get it). Since we're friends I don't think people would disconnect, especiallyif they are sitting behind me in the same room. I just want to be able to play my friends over LAN.
Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'm never for "tacking on" MP if it wasn't originally part of the game. I have played MP games since about 1990 and to tell you the truth, the "weenies" out there really get on your nerves.
Here's what a typical game would be like for you:
It's you turn and you're doing your best to get your moves done. In your opinion, you are one of the faster players, meaning you don't really take too long to hit the TURN button.

Then you see this on the chat screen,
"...hit TURN, you friggin No0B..."
"...hit TURN, you friggin No0B..."
"...hit TURN, you friggin No0B..."
"...hit TURN, you friggin No0B..."
"...hit TURN, you friggin No0B..."
"...hit TURN, you friggin No0B..."
"...hit TURN, you friggin No0B..."
"...hit TURN, you friggin No0B..."
"...hit TURN, you friggin No0B..."
"...hit TURN, you friggin No0B..."
"...hit TURN, you friggin No0B..."

So you figure you'll just beat him in the game and teach him just who the No0B is. There you are, about to conquer his last planet and , "friggin laggin no0BL3R..." then, "OPPONENT HAS DISCONNECTED".
Reply #13 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I have to agree that in my expereince MP is not worth the extra effort. But then, i am not a big fan of trying to find opponents that can play for 20-30 min at 5:30 AM on weekdays. Just not worth the effort for me...

The Schu
Reply #14 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Leave multiplayer to FPS games,where they belong.We want all the effort to go on singleplayer A.I and features, aka Spying.The people have spoken.
Reply #15 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
It seems I recall Brad saying that simply adding hotseat (or maybe LAN) wouldn't be that difficult, but I am under the impression that that is not all that many MPers want.
Reply #16 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I voted yes.
In my opinion the game won't suffer at all with some multiplayer options. I would definately pay for a suite of MP features.
People saying the game should never have multiplayer because their experience's with MP has sucked, I feel sorry for you. Screaming that it doesn't belong based on that soley alone seems very narrow minded to me, I think your opinion is unfortunately biased to that bad experience.
If in your opinion MP is only about connecting over the internet to a matching service and then getting the crappiest element of online players you've ever had, you really shouldn't form your opinion about MP on that alone. There's more going for it than that.
You really need to experience games in LANparty/Hotseat/PBEM as well, to know the whole range of fun to be had in MP. Galactic Civilizations can work with some MP options, whatever they could end up being.
Multiplayer options should be considered seriously. There is a big market for MP gaming, afterall.
Reply #17 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'd do it. Going to LAN with friends this weekend, and will probably give Civ IV a shot. If GalCiv2 had MP, you can damn well bet I'd be pushing for it instead!

-HM
Reply #18 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I voted yes, simply because anything that Stardock releases for Galciv II, I will purchase! Pretty lame, I know, but that's how it is! I just want to give my support. I mean, I have donated $20 over paypal for lesser programs. Stardock deserves my pizza money as much or more than any other company. I probably won't play multiplayer that much, and would rather have SP content, but I would pay $20 for any expansion.
Reply #19 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Its not really who wins the vote. Its going to be is there enough saying yes to justify Stardock spending the resources/capital to make it.
Reply #20 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
People saying the game should never have multiplayer because their experience's with MP has sucked, I feel sorry for you. Screaming that it doesn't belong based on that soley alone seems very narrow minded to me, I think your opinion is unfortunately biased to that bad experience.


I hear that. Though I would say that GC2 should never have MP anyway, and I've had good MP experiences, but its as Brad says, if you have a good group then its not an issue, if you don't...

And for many people, they simply do not have the time to invest in MP, yes, even in PBEM, which takes up months normally. My feeling all along has been that MP is great for some people, but they have a plethora of games to chose from already, games designed around MP even. GC2 is not this game, it was never intended to be this game, and therefore any time/money from SD spent chasing the MP market is ultimately doomed to a small reward and alot of grief as the new MPers start clamoring for their own pet MP options/tweeks/whatever.

It is foolish to take a great SP game and try to hammer it into a great MP game. The design choices have to have been there from the beginning. That said, if SD adds simply MP features for PBEM or Hotseat, whatever, I won't gripe either, but I don't think that basic level of attention will make for a great MP experience anyway.
Reply #21 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Multiplayer's really the only feature I'd consider paying for in an expansion. I dont think there's anything else that could add enough to the game to make it worth more money