PS. I didn't know Politics meant Domestic Politics only. I would have voted for Diplomacy instead.

That's not the case... however the current Stardock team gathering data has only placed POLLS within this singleplayer fishbowl of existing customers instead of gathering data from new potential customers outside the singleplayer fishbowl. That's almost as bad as going to a democratic rally and hosting a poll to determine the current opinion of a republican president or vise versa.

I think you have specious reasoning. A lot of us play multiplayer games.  I play Rise of Legends regularly multiplayer. I love RTS games multiplayer.  I don't think there is this great divide.

But it's irrelevant because the sales of GalCiv II so far exceed our expectations and THAT base, regardless of whether there's some extra "untapped" market, is more than big enough to justify future titles without multiplayer from an economics point of view.  The only justification for mulitplayer would be for reviewers.

If that was true the basic information would have been released... heaven knows we've heard everything else.

Since our other games are multiplayer and we have a pretty good idea of how many people used that feature compared to the # of units sold, I can say fairly confidentally that the multiplayer population is not that large when it comes to strategy games in general and turn based ones in particular.

I think the main problem with your analysis NT is that you think there is some huge gulf between single player gamers and multiplayer gamers.  Perhaps the next poll should ask that question and see what happens.

At the moment the battles just look like bouncing ship screen savers and that doesn't pass muster, not for me. Bring on the tactical battles.

You should change the camera view. The only reason they look like they're bouncing is because in the default view the camera zooms in and out constantly which gives the illusion that the ships are "bouncing".

Which is exactly why the poll shouldn't be on other websites. There are many SP gamers who do not spend a lot of time online. There are lots of people who don't have internet access at all. Any online poll outside of this site would unfairly skew the results in favour of MP gamers.

Indeed. One might argue that the poll already favors multiplayer gamers since it's on-line.

I realize some people just don't want to accept the word of someone who's been making multiplayer games for over a decade and plays multiplayer games constantly on-line telling them that the market for multiplayer turn based strategy games isn't that hot when compared to the cost to implement it decently. But it really isn't.

Every feature has to be looked as how many units more will it sell and how much would it cost to implement.   I think GalCiv III will have multiplayer in it btw.  But I really wish the multiplayer advocates would quit being so militant and certain.  Unless one of them has a few commercial multiplayer PC games under their belt, I don't think they are in any position to argue from a position of authority.

Some quick thoughts:

I don't want tactical combat to drag me down into the weeds, if I don't want to go there. I suppose I'll want to skip tactical for when opposing fleets are not closely matched. I view tactical options as an opportunity to gain that extra edge against similar strength opponents.

The ability to withdraw and the ability to damage critical systems (and later repair) would add an interesting dimension to combat.

"Aircraft" carriers - maybe I can save some hardpoints when designing short range fighters if I don't need big warp engines. Also, you get to "invest" in your big ships, like starbases.

Formations.

Homeworld's combat interface was really smooth.

I voted for multiplayer -- bear with me, I'm not on my soapbox -- while internet gamers who quit when losing annoy me too, I think GC multiplayer would be a really fun way to teach my kids strategy gaming -- ganging up on a diabolical AI, etc. I'm sure that I'm squarely in the minority here.

Thanks for listening.

Oh... and Terror Stars!

I'm not trying to advocate multiplayer here, I have dialup which means I really can't multiplay anything, But I would like Hotseat or PBEM. My girlfriend and I play Civ4 Hotseat and my brother (who lives several hundred miles away) likes to play using PBEM (he only has dialup too). Hotseat and PBEM would be nice, but I like that the dev team is focusing on stuff that will benefit everyone. So I will be happy with whatever they decide to do.

A lot of us play multiplayer games. I play Rise of Legends regularly multiplayer. I love RTS games multiplayer. I don't think there is this great divide.

There isn't a great divide... don't recall anyone saying a great divide does exist. Some gamers play games only using the Singleplayer functionality, some gamers play games using both Singleplayer and Multiplayer, and some gamers play games only using Multiplayer functionality.

But it's irrelevant because the sales of GalCiv II so far exceed our expectations and THAT base, regardless of whether there's some extra "untapped" market, is more than big enough to justify future titles without multiplayer from an economics point of view.

The Pepsi corporation could also easily survive by making just Pepsi, but like most companies they search for untapped markets and thus eventually came the creation of Diet Pepsi. Future titles without multiplayer is perfectly acceptable, however as a successful software product evolves any company should identify and try to capture untapped market areas. Stardock may choose to never release a Diet Pepsi(-multiplayer-) version of their game which is fine as the untapped market will be find another outlet Diet Coke. A Hotseat and PBEM multiplayer download would satisfy most multiplayer gamers which is 1.5 slots since the multiplayer functionality is almost working now.

The only justification for mulitplayer would be for reviewers.

We know 33% of this singleplayer fishbowl are willing to pay for multiplayer functionality based on a previous poll. This alone clearly shows it would be for more than just reviewers. When someone finds an activity they truly love whether it's fishing, gambling, hunting or playing a computer game it's only natural to want to share the fun activity with family and friends. It's always more fun doing these activities with family and friends. I'm sorry to see you don't love the game enough to not want to play with family and friends.

I really dislike the tactical combat stuff. Please don't waste ur time and money on that. I'm more into the greater picture, the macro stuff. Give me more diplomacy and politics instead! Rather than spending my time on boring tactical battles, I would prefer to decide on strategic issues eitheir domestically or universal. As an economist, I would also prefer to have more economics in the game. Perhaps something with strategic resources for certain weapon types. Keep up the good work guys. We all love it!

Poll? There was a poll? Is it over? Do you assume that everyone who plays the game checks this website daily? Probably only a small percentage check it at all, let alone daily. This is a confusing way to determine what players would like. Why not send an email to all registered users?

I just stopped playing the game because i've become bored of playing the same old thing every time over again. I guess since their is no hope at all for multiplayer, due to the fact that its obvious Frogboy never played TBS multiplayer, that i'll have to go over to SE5 when it comes out. Thanks for telling me beforehand before i spend money on an expansion. Multiplayer is incredibly popular for these types of games and is worth the money. Up until they stopped making turn based strategy their were whole sites and communities based on this, which Space Empires will cater too. Too bad their not a big company with a decent budget, but i'll still play that as I wont be facing the same AI over and over again, boring.

really dislike the tactical combat stuff. Please don't waste ur time and money on that.

Hes right, its fits into a sequel only as they have will to completely change the concepts of this game for it to fit. It doesn't fit into this type of game, they would have to redesign this as a Master of Orion 4. It will, seriously, ruin this however they can do as they like. Its probably more worth the effort for multiplayer than tactical-doesn't-fit-into-this-type-of-game-at-all-the-way-its-designed combat.

Its kind of funny all these anti-multiplayer people, they obvious know nothing about the thing as everything they say the opposite is true. But thats what you get when a bunch of people who never play multiplayer and hate competition can rule voting for a never perfect and always eventually boring AI.

I realize some people just don't want to accept the word of someone who's been making multiplayer games for over a decade and plays multiplayer games constantly on-line telling them that the market for multiplayer turn based strategy games isn't that hot when compared to the cost to implement it decently. But it really isn't.

EA has been making games since the 80s should we accept their word?

What about Atari/Infogrames/Microprose, they see fit to put multiplayer into ALL of their strategy games and even make highly popular expansions based solely on the fact it adds multiplayer, even release a new version of Civ2 based on multiplayer. All of which were popular and competative with even real time strategy. But when you only look on gamespy i guess you dotn see that.

Stars and Space Empires (of which 5 i will be playing soon) made 100% of their profits from people who did want multiplayer. The market is their. How many turn based strategy games that you know of that are out? Civilization 4? Rome Total War? Only ONE has multiplayer, the market is their just that it isn't tapped. TBS is a dead genre, saying that its multiplayer isn't their is funny because that only ONE of the games actually has it, and on the one that is its popular as well go figure.....

People play multiplayer for these games, anyone who actually were involved in TBS multiplayer communities would see this as fact. Just because it takes a "long time" to play a game like this multiplayer doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

In fact people are making MODS for RTW that are highly popular now to add multiplayer and thats the #1 requested feature for that game. MULTIPLAYER in turn based strategy. And guess what? They SAY that multiplayer is quite possibly their #1 next feature. Also Civ 4 had an EXPANSION based on the fact it was going to have multiplayer that sells well. Who does your research?

Just because you log into Gamespy and see nobody playing Civ 4, which is probably the extent of your research on this, doesn't mean people dont play it. They get together do hotseat, direct connect, or lan games. These games are planned ahead of time, they just dont go and find random people to play with, lol.

You obviously dont know near amount of what you think about multiplayer in turn based strategy. Also this is your ONLY popular game, a bunch of small mp games with sales less than 10,000 doesn't make you a multiplayer market expert. If you did know about it you would see that their is an entire market based on strategy in these games that is actually hot. The fact that multiplayer is the #1 most requested feature in every tbs game besides this as well should be evidence enough. Firaxis saw enough in this to put a entirely HUGE effort into its multiplayer for Civ 4 and to make an expansio for Civ 3, but i guess we should trust you over Sid Meier.

BTW it gives higher reviews because people PLAY it. Which is something you obviously never did.

Someone needs to fix the poster for this board. I hate to edit the posts and type /br 50 times.

You say your not anti-multiplayer but the fact that you are against it in your flagship game for the reasons you say shows you to be. Also the fact that you use "facts" about multiplayer in strategy games that are not based on fact adds to this as well.

Here's the question: With 33% saying they'd get the MP- and Given GC'2 base, can a profitable MP expansion be made, not assuming new buyers coming in just for the MP (I don't think they'd be a huge amount) I do think a cheap, barebones, no-frills MP would be able to be implemented, especially given the cheat code already in the game. I don't know that for sure though. I do think the MP community for TBS's tends to be insular, so a gamespy lobby like deal isn't needed- just a way for them to play, they'd figure out the details. IN fact, I wouldn't be surprised if someone tries to hack the source code eventually to allow MP. The only feature out of that entire mix I didn't care for is tactical combat, but I'd be OK with that if it was just a throw-on, or if it was actually done right- which I doubt anyone can do- even you guys. I don't HAVE to use it, especially if there's no MP and the AI is still solid otherwise. I do think adding tactical combat will hurt other aspects of the game that I like more though (the same argument used against MP, and rightfully so) I do know one fact- a group of myself and 4 others would love to play MP with each other.

Kanaric: Our last game, The Political Machine, sold over a hundred thousand copies in North America alone and it had multiplayer.  Go play SE5. It looks like it'll be good and it'll have multiplayer.

I have played lots of TBS multiplayer from the original Civ expansion years ago to HOMM to SE and of course Civ 4 multiplayer.  I don't have a problem with multiplayer. 

I am simply pointing out what seems pretty obvious - people who like multiplayer are few in number but very very vocal.  When it comes time to budget in resources, we have to pick the features that will appeal to the most players that costs the least to develop.

When multiplayer can't even crack the double digit percents in a multi-thousand player poll as the #1 feature people would want to see in a sequel combined with a decade of personal experience (EA, btw, is a company, not a person) of making multiplayer games and being familiar with the numbers of sold units needed to reach critical mass for a multiplayer communiity, it doesn't make sense to make it a development focus until other, more popular features, are implemented.

 

I'm sort of wondering when the people who gripe about multiplayer here are going to figure out that 1) they don't represent the majority, and 2) playing a multiplayer, space-themed TBS would make them much happier than griping about lack of multiplayer in GalCiv2 on this site.

When we did the ship design features in Galactic Civilizations II, we had no idea how popular they'd become. I don't think anybody did.

LOL. This is the funnest comment I have read. Come on, I know Yes, I know the original Galciv back on OS/2 did not have these features and pride deamnds that you keep saying Galciv2 is not Moo. But stop being so focused on Galciv as the only 4x space game and look at other 4x space games. Ship design is a very very popular feature. Just as race design and tactical combat. MP poll not withstanding.,For makers of space 4x games, they seem to be constantly surprised at polls for features. I can see a few years from now, a blog saying "When we did Tactical combat features in GalcivIII, we had no idea how popular they became. I don't think anybody did..."

It sounds to me that people just want Master of Orion 2.5. Space civ with tactical combat, heroes and the option of multiplayer (if that's what turns you on)

Exactly. Almost all 4x space games are trying to do Moo 2.5. Almost all the fans of 4x space games want these features. Keeping this in mind, will prevent them from constantly getting so suprised at results of poll features.

When multiplayer can't even crack the double digit percents in a multi-thousand player poll as the #1 feature people would want to see in a sequel combined with a decade of personal experience (EA, btw, is a company, not a person) of making multiplayer games and being familiar with the numbers of sold units needed to reach critical mass for a multiplayer communiity, it doesn't make sense to make it a development focus until other, more popular features, are implemented.

First of all, how can you be so sure that this recent poll is representative? The first poll about multyplayer showed that 1/3 would buy an multyplayer expansion. But from the recent poll one gets the impression that MP is unimportant among the fanbase of GC2, somehow contradictive..... Secondly,if one had 2 or 3 votes the poll might have looked differently. I voted TC, if I had a second vote it would have been spent on MP. Thirdly I can only repeat what another poster on these Forums pointed out: Your basically asking a SP-Fanbase if they want multiplayer. Would GC2 attract more players(MP-Fans), if it had MP? I have absolutely no idea what it would cost to have a worldwide multiplayer service. So I can't estimate at all how big a customer base for MP you need to make it worth the effort. But: MP is not only an instant economic consideration. MP is also an investment for the future. I dare to make the equation: The larger the longevity of the game, the bigger the "legendary" status it will achieve (+ other factors). MP adds alot to longevity and therefore also can boost reputation of the game and the brand, no matter if it is economically justyfied. look! Everybody is still talking about Moo2, that game is ...I think 10 years old?? but people just can't forget that game. Well, looks like MP and TC won't ever be a part of GC2. But I want to add one more wish/request/advise to increase the longevity of this game: Add more strategy to this game please!! This is a strategy game and therefore should have alot more strategical elements in the game! Every tech you research only increments an ability you already have, but no technology ever offers new possibilites or strategies. The lack of strategical elements make one game resemble the next. You must have a hard job stardock. The gaming community must look like a whole bunch of crybabies to you, impossible to ever satisfy them lol. Well I'm finished with whining on my side and "still" hope for some changes in the future of GC2.

I was one of the people which voted for more diplomacy. I really hope you make negotiations between nations more interesting. Here are my ideas (and the ideas of others) for improving the diplomacy system. 1) Be able to ask other races to destroy starbases, particularly influence starbases. 2) Ask other races to embargo other races, make or break alliances with other races, ext. 3) Have a defensive pact. Races will not attack each other, but neither will they help each other. Should be expensive to get unless you have good relations. Should not count for alliance victory. 4) A way to tell other races about potential threats. The AI can warn me, why can’t I warn them? 5) Place a limit on how much gifts improve a relationship (if you have not done this already) 6) This might not be related to diplomacy, but the Good aliment is underpowered. One way to fix this is to increase how much Evil is despised so Evil is less appealing. In general, Good should have short term costs ad long term benefits, while Evil should have the opposite. As it is, the long term benefits of good simply are not worth the cost. This is all that I can think of for diplomacy. I hope you’ll take this into consideration.

I have played lots of TBS multiplayer from the original Civ expansion years ago to HOMM to SE and of course Civ 4 multiplayer. I don't have a problem with multiplayer.

I'm sorry to see you don't love the game enough to not want to play Gal_Civ_2 with family and friends. Hopefully one of your next projects you'll love enough to want to play with family and friends. I'm not saying every game should have multiplayer, but if you really love a successful game then there would be a growing desire to play the game with friends and family.

I am simply pointing out what seems pretty obvious - people who like multiplayer are few in number but very very vocal.

Now your first problem is your POLL was only known to gamers which visit your website... which is a singleplayer fishbowl. As I've mentioned many times your poll is the same as walking into a symphony and asking everyone seated if they would like to buy tickets to a baseball game. So please keep in mind your POLL is only gathering data from gamers which knew they were buying a singleplayer_only game !!

When it comes time to budget in resources, we have to pick the features that will appeal to the most players that costs the least to develop.

So why can't your team develop [ just ] a HOTSEAT and PBEM multiplayer since this feature is virtually working already which is 1.5 slots?? This question will probably be ignored again.

When multiplayer can't even crack the double digit percents in a multi-thousand player poll as the #1 feature people would want to see in a sequel combined with a decade of personal experience (EA, btw, is a company, not a person) of making multiplayer games and being familiar with the numbers of sold units needed to reach critical mass for a multiplayer communiity, it doesn't make sense to make it a development focus until other, more popular features, are implemented.

Multi-thousand means multiple of thousands and my last view of this poll indicated it did go over 2000 votes. Also please remember your POLL is only gathering data from gamers which knew they were buying a singleplayer_only game and then you host a POLL on this singleplayer_only game website asking about multiplayer... have you not understood my previous analogies???

...... it doesn't make sense to make it a development focus until other, more popular features, are implemented.

You wrote within your original topic that tactical combat is not going to be considered for Gal_Civ_2. This leaves virtually ONLY ONE feature above multiplayer and that is more advanced diplomacy. Take a look at your poll and you'll see that Heroes, Multiplayer, More political features and More complex ship design are all tied !! Considering your poll is within a singleplayer fishbowl the multiplayer feature is obviously the best way to bring NEW gamers to your community. Stardock won't bring NEW customers by adding more complex ship designs.

you know, you may have had a more productive poll if you'd asked what people felt the least strongly about. i voted for tactical battles, but most of the options on there were great ideas.

Another feature that was surprising to see so high was more diplomacy. The expansion pack will have more diplomacy but clearly future versions of the game should take a fresh approach to it so that you can do a lot more in that realm. Similarly, politics scored very well and by that we meant domestic politics. We've always wanted players to have to deal with a cabinet and have more political party elements to deal with. In "real life" leaders of civilizations don't get to act in a vacuum. They have to deal with domestic pressures as well. You may want to conquer those Torians but your ability to do so might be hindered by domestic issues (or intergalactic ones as well). So that is an area I could see us greatly expand on in the future. Another feature that some people wanted (that I want too) is the concept of heroes. I have a pretty good outline of the features I'd like to see in the game. The leader of a civilization should have generals who give bonuses to planets and fleets and such and that's an area we'd like to see expanded.

this kind of reminds me of how i felt, asside from the disappointment, about MOO3. it felt like they were trying to give you the sense of what it felt like to be the supreme leaders, but without having to tweak every aspect of your empire or make ever command in battle. it made me think that a political RPG would have been a more interesting way to go, where you really are but one person in the gov't, and you must rely on connections, savvy and charisma to steer your empire in the direction you want. but that's a different game.

politics, diplomacy and even heros all seem like part of the game you could develop collectively. for example, heros and diplomacy could intersect if the player negotiated in diplomatic encounters as an actual specific person (including the imperial ruler, the player, as one option). so there could be one particular hero you typically used for negotiations (except over subjects that demanded the ruler's participation). and where there are heros, there are villians, but they wouldn't have to be all within enemy empires. there could be antagonist heros within your own empire that you must deal with in different ways, from radical revoultionaries to would-be military dictators all trying to usurp your power. i guess i'm suggesting a diplomacy system based on interacting with specific individuals instead of whole empires. i don't think i've ever seen anything like that in a TBS (outside of scripted campaigns), but i think it'd be really cool.

Multi-thousand means multiple of thousands and my last view of this poll indicated it did go over 2000 votes.

Typo Correction... I meant to write: "Multi-thousand means multiple of thousands and my last view of this poll indicated it did NOT go over 2000 votes."

But it's irrelevant because the sales of GalCiv II so far exceed our expectations and THAT base, regardless of whether there's some extra "untapped" market, is more than big enough to justify future titles without multiplayer from an economics point of view. The only justification for mulitplayer would be for reviewers.

wrong. you'd also have the benefit of (mostly) silencing the MP crowd   i think your reasoning is fine. even if you lose a few sales due to lack of multiplayer, it's not like single-player sales will simply stop at some point. continuing to improve the single-player experience may help strengthen sales for years to come. MP may add some sales, but it'll also burden your company with years of extended customer support for no additional income. regardless of how accurate your estimate of the MP market is, the game has all ready been released and reviewed as single-player only, so you've probably missed your window for the bulk of initial sales.

i think it was bill cosby who said something to the effect, "I don't know the key to success, but I know the key to failure is trying to make everyone happy at once."

Typo Correction... I meant to write: "Multi-thousand means multiple of thousands and my last view of this poll indicated it did NOT go over 2000 votes."

in the english language, any number over 1 is considered plural, including decimals. so 1.001 thousand votes may accurately be referred to as "thousands of votes".

*The Following transcript follows after filtering expletives from the universal translator* You have to be F- kidding me !?!? Tactical Combat? NO F- WAY! I don't want games to take a year+ to F- finish. Not only that, screw strategy. Who care s if you can't manage even one planet, let's use our tactical prowess to dominate the galaxy.

LOL. This is the funnest comment I have read. Come on, I know Yes, I know the original Galciv back on OS/2 did not have these features and pride deamnds that you keep saying Galciv2 is not Moo. But stop being so focused on Galciv as the only 4x space game and look at other 4x space games. Ship design is a very very popular feature. Just as race design and tactical combat. MP poll not withstanding.,For makers of space 4x games, they seem to be constantly surprised at polls for features. I can see a few years from now, a blog saying "When we did Tactical combat features in GalcivIII, we had no idea how popular they became. I don't think anybody did..."

Please let me know of any other games that let you design visually the ships in a fully 3D design environment.  I am not talking about MOO or SE where you pick out a hull and assign components. I am talking about the visual - cosmetic aspect - of having a lego-like way of  making your very own ships.

GalCiv on OS/2 had ship design btw. Ship design isn't new. Being able to visually control every aspect of how it looks is what's new. That is what I'm talking about.