Id Pay For Multiplayer

Not enough other players would pay for multiplayer to make it worth the investment (there have been many polls on it, and even on one asking if you'd buy a multiplayer expansion for $20, not pitting it against other features, it lost by a 2:1 ratio). It's that simple.

I would'nt pay for multiplayer, majority rules, live with it!

One day, in the future, when the AI has been improved considerably, and Stardock grow as a company - and provided that this particular title and style of game grows - so will the need and eventual demand for multiplayer grow as well. For now though, we must live with it in its current form.

I predict that GC3 will have multiplayer but it won't be good until GCIV

GC5 (though the name will be completely different by then and Stardock will be gobbled up by something far larger) will be the dogs bollocks. (to use a colloquial saying)

I'm not a communist. (Quote)

Just a bit left-wing though, mabye?

Just a bit left-wing though, mabye?

you couldnt be further from the mark. I think Caesar had it right.

Not enough other players would pay for multiplayer to make it worth the investment (there have been many polls on it, and even on one asking if you'd buy a multiplayer expansion for $20, not pitting it against other features, it lost by a 2:1 ratio). It's that simple.

The developers have said it would be an easy change to implement. I think the game is great, but its not even close to playing with friends. In strategy or in enjoyment. The Dev said it best, that multiplayer option can keep a game on your hard drive for much longer. I just dont agree with their reasons for not including it, and hope they will change their mind. If not for GalCiv, then hopefully for their next turn based strategy game. I like the game a lot, its just lost its challenge and interest for me playing it solo.

AGAIN: according to FROGBOY, there will NEVER be multiplayer for GCII.

Maybe for GCIII.

Wrong. Frogboy said they would like to do it in the second expansion, you're thinking of tactical combat.

Kerfuffle, EVERY game Stardock does is multiplayer, Galciv being the exception to the rule. Before you go thinking they wouldn't know how to do multiplayer, do some basic background research first, so you don't sound like a fool who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Multiplayer is neither needed or wanted in this game as a whole. Get over it.

I wouldn't say that it's unwanted, just that its not a high priority.

If this game had more tactical battles(like you could decide which unit could attack which, some micro, etc) and online gaming, i would easily pay another 50$. A game without a multiplayer option, is half a game these days.

A game without a multiplayer option, is half a game these days.

True ! This game needs multiplayer. It would be incredible to confront a friend instead of AIs !

If this game had more tactical battles(like you could decide which unit could attack which, some micro, etc) and online gaming, i would easily pay another 50$. A game without a multiplayer option, is half a game these days.

No it isn't. That's just obtuse, MP is just another add-on.

i wouldnt play multiplayer because i get somewhat impatient waiting 5 min while old mate that im playing is micromanaging his empire

Turn Timers, 1997 Axis and Allies had Turn Timers!

Default 3 minute phases and 6 phases per turn. Most of the time, the turns went much faster as the players gained experience they didnt need the whole 3-minutes per phase.

It would be nice to see (for the first time) a neat looking new ship (player designed), as it comes to kill you!

And then...it would be much nicer to show say..your brother, your neat looking new ship design as it comes to kill him!

And then let him try to sue for peace.

Beat the competition! Get there first! Tradewars 2002: Tournament is coming. I'd much rather see GC take the first ground. And I would pay for it.

A game without a multiplayer option, is half a game these days.

Wow. That's so not true. There are TONS of great games single player. Problem is, in the

A game without a multiplayer option, is half a game these days.

Wow. That's so not true. There are great games without MP option currently. Of course there's also crap SP games. But then again, not all MP games are great also...

Anyway, GalCiv, in my opinion, doesn't need MP at all. Leave that for RTS's.

Yeah Civ 3 and maybe Civ 4 (I haven't played it)really sucks mp wise. GC doesn't need mp or tactical combat. If it did, it would be just another strategy game.

actually its funny to make a poll in these forums regarding multiplayer.
All of the ppl here bought the game knowing of this limitation and beeing able to live with it/not needing it for the one or the other reason.
On the other hand i know two of my friends who disregard the game because of the missing multiplayer. Ppl like them are not part of this forum.

actually its funny to make a poll in these forums regarding multiplayer. All of the ppl here bought the game knowing of this limitation and beeing able to live with it/not needing it for the one or the other reason.

On the other hand, all the people here have internet connections and have come to a forum dedicated to talking to other people about this game. I'd imagine this skews the results towards multiplayer.

On the other hand, all the people here have internet connections and have come to a forum dedicated to talking to other people about this game. I'd imagine this skews the results towards multiplayer.

Yes, but people who don't have an internet connection will never be able to buy an Expansion Pack so they don't matter.

I almost completely agree with londo_molari, except for one thing. I think that the amount of time since the game's release would hurt the feasibility of putting in multiplayer.

People who already own the game bought it with the knowledge that it does not have multiplayer, and these people accept that fact. Many people that didn't buy the game chose not to buy it because of the lack of multiplayer (I know several people who fit this description). Putting multiplayer in an expansion would make it available to everyone who has already come to terms with single player only; I doubt that many people who passed over the game the first time because of lack of multiplayer would be willing to give it a second shot just because a multiplayer expansion was created a year later.

And that's why I've given up on multiplayer for GC2.

Please put multiplayer in GC3!

multiplayer in turn-based games is boring.

And that's why I've given up on multiplayer for GC2. Please put multiplayer in GC3!

WRONG. We have given up on it because Frogboy said there will BE NO MULTIPLAYER for GC II.

GC III is something they are definately looking at doing.

I bought this game with the faith that it might one day contain multiplayer. I *will* survive if it doesnt happen.

I love the idea of multiplayer for any turn based strat game, however I am not sure how well this game would work in that mode. For one thing any galaxy larger then small takes a LONG time to play out, add in 2 or more human players and that time goes way up.

It could take weeks to finish a game and that introduces the problem of quitting, lets say you are two or three days into a game and things are really going your way, how willing is your opponent going to be to play another week or so in what is most likely a losing cause. There in lies the biggest problem with turn based strat games, they rarely get finished.

Many people that didn't buy the game chose not to buy it because of the lack of multiplayer (I know several people who fit this description).

There are many people that don't buy games because they concentrate on multiplayer, and don't deliver a good SP experience (I know several people who fit this description).