Why no multiplayer?

from GalCiv2 Forums
Me and two other friends have been waiting years after botf and moo II for another great turn-based space strategy game. The reason we love these games is because we like to network our computers and hang out and play. This is the key reason any of us buy these kinds of games. We love these games, because we like to hang out and compete. This and Galciv look AWESOME you cannot believe how excited I was when I heard about these games! Until I heard there was no muiltiplayer. What a disaster for us! We've waited years for this type of game to come out only to be shot down because of no multiplayer. I still can't believe this feature is missing, and now in galciv2 I hear there is no multiplayer. This is CRAZY in my opinion. I would give anything for the programers to take a little extra time and add in a multiplayer asspect to galciv2. Does anyone else agree?

Let's turn this thread into a "petition" and sign if you want and would use a multiplayer aspect to galciv2.

I can honestly say and with great heaviness of heart that I and my friends would not buy this game with out the multiplayer component. That's what makes these kinds of games awesome for us.

Sorry if I ranted, or if thise topic has been beaten to death already, I didn't see anything in the forums.

Senkill

P.S. Could a mod (I really don't know how these work) be made to make galciv or galciv2 multiplayer?
78,342 views 101 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top
GC2 will eventually feature multiplayer in the form of an expansion AFAIK

Their reasoning is, not everyone wants multiplayer. Multiplayer takes a lot of time to make. So let those who want it pay for it.
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
Yeah I hope that they will include multiplayer onyl because I would liek the option, hopefully it will support Hot seat and LAN. But for these kinds of games usually multiplayer isnt feasible. The design of the game is play at your own pace pretty much, as with all turn base games. So to have multiplayer, you end up with games that drag on and never get resolved. Secondly because a game is such a long time investment, you generally dont want to play if you are going to lose. Which makes it very hard for newer players to jump into it. I had bashed galciv befor efor lack of multiplayer, but then I saw that event hou I had this ability in other games, I rarely used it. Altough with such intricate ship design it be a shame not to let people have multiplayer
Elemental: Reforged
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
The issue is that the vast majority of gamers do not do multiplayer and do not care about it (like myself). Stardock has already gone on record that they don't want to spend any resources doing multiplayer now but that they may consider it for an expansion pack, but it's not definate.

But honestly, the multiplayer community is vocal, but a minority.
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
Actually there are probably more people who would play the game were it multiplayer. I know a bunch of Moo2 players who still are playing Moo2 cause there is no viable alternative for multiplay.
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
Too many games today rely on multiplayer as a crutch and skimp on the single player game because of the amount of effort it takes to make multiplayer work well.  Here at Stardock, we make it a priority to make the game a fun single player experience with replayability.  If we were going to make multiplayer a base part of the game, we would have been stuck with making a clone of GC1 with better graphics and multiplayer.  However, two of the new features, ship design and the new planetary management system, are going to be a large part of the fun factor of GC2 and would make multiplayer much more fun than it would be if it was just GC1 with multiplayer.
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top

Actually there are probably more people who would play the game were it multiplayer. I know a bunch of Moo2 players who still are playing Moo2 cause there is no viable alternative for multiplay.

Yes, there are people who like multiplayer (myself included) but they are statistically not significant.  Stardock's other PC games -- Stellar Frontier, The Political Machine, The Corporate Machine, Trials of Battle, were all multiplayer too.  But even when the games are designed with multiplayer in mind, it's a pretty small # that actually play it that way.

We do plan to make an RTS space strategy game in 2008.

Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
Multiplay is TBS games is ALWAYS a failure online. Its only VERY small groups that will play the game so its typically looked at as a waste of money.
Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top
As the staff said it can be a exp pack as with some other features they can't get in when the game is realsed
Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top
well seeing the only real way your going to play the mulituplayer is if u already know the person, and games wont over all be totally resolved (person when they started losing would just give up, and the winner wouldnt have the joy of a total annilatiion) . also a company doesnt care about the actual profit value and only reall the %. so if they spend an extra 10% of time and money into multiplayer and only sell an extra 5% its not as high % (which is the thing a comapny cares about the most)
Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top
Multiplayer? I will never play it even when it comes out.
Give me a game with replayablity, just like GC1, and I'll be as happy as I can be!
Reply #11 from Stardock Forums Top
Im in the "dont care about multiplayer" category. As Wulfer stated, replayability is king.
Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top
At all boils down to we get GC II now and latter we buy the MP Pack when they make it so we can do PBEMs, LANs and TCP/IP.

Untill then I use SMAC and SMAX for my PBEM playing.
Reply #13 from Stardock Forums Top
It certainly would be interesting to see the 1337 h4x0rz of GalCiv battle it out, but I too think that they should focus on the singleplayer aspect of the game. If it comes in an expansion then that is all right, but I probably wont be playing it much online.
Reply #14 from Stardock Forums Top
Hmmm. the SEIV multiplayer world is definitly hot. They may be a minority, I dunno, but they are the majority in online posters, beta testers, modders, and the like.
As I see it, I want this game single player or multi; if it goes multi I will probably keep looking for the next incarnation of it, if not I will probably enjoy this version and play addictively for three months or so and sporadically after that. I will say that I am completely will to pay extra for a down-the-line multiplayer expansion, as long as 1) it adds more content than just multiplayer (doesn't have to be a LOT more) and 2) it isn't the price of the basic game. (I think about 50% would be fair...is that crazy?)

Know myself? If I knew myself I'd run away!
Geothe
Reply #15 from Stardock Forums Top
With quality being number one I would guess that the cost of adding any content may be to much to keep the cost of the MP Pack down to 50%.
Reply #16 from Stardock Forums Top
Thanks for your responses guys and gals. I understand the arguements for multiplayer and against multiplayer. It is my belief that there are enough people out there who would use the multiplayer feature to make it worth it. If you look at MOO 2 it is still possible to buy the game, but why is that? The game is a piece of cake on level set to impossible, so it's replayability is limited. The game only lasts because of the multiplayer option (also the fact that it's hard to find a decent TBS game like it). A games legacy can greatly be lengthened by its multiplayer option. One the simgle player fizzles, (and everyone eventually gets tired of it) the game stays alive because playing with friends keeps the game alive and fresh.

C'mon hanging out at a buddies house around 6 pm with a few beers (or cokes if you prefer) pizza on the way (or tofu if you prefer ) and computers networked sounds good no?

Senkill
Reply #17 from Stardock Forums Top
MOO2 multiplayer was less than ideal. I still play it on single player, so the replayability is still there for me
Reply #18 from Stardock Forums Top
It is my belief that there are enough people out there who would use the multiplayer feature to make it worth it. If you look at MOO 2 it is still possible to buy the game, but why is that?


Unfortunately there isn't enough people who would use it to justify the expense of doing it for the release version. It's very much a niche market, loved by a few ignored by the majority.

Btw you can still buy most games, not that many are completely abandoned. Doom anyone?
Reply #19 from Stardock Forums Top
Nobody wants multiplayer? That's a pretty lame generalization.

If we had the option for multiplayer, I'm sure we'd all only play that. About 90% of modern games feature some type of multiplayer. I think StarDock is missing out on a lot of customers because of that. Single Player is fun, but only for so long.
Reply #20 from Stardock Forums Top
Senkill youd get drunk on a friday night?... what ever... uhh in reality Everyone wants Everything... Thats supply vs demand what ever companies supply (or government) The People will buy it Some people will buy it more if it has more quality or is a lower cost its econmoics 101...
Reply #21 from Stardock Forums Top
Hi!
I'd like to add a word from another multiplayer gaming community.
Stars! is an old turn based 4x game, without eyecandies, earcandies and super-computer demands. But when it comes to multiplayer it is usually referred as the best turn-based multiplayer 4x game in existence. After more than ten years of existence there are still several hundred active players, can still be bought, and we get a few new players each month.
What I'd like to say is no matter how good the single-player AI is, at the end you'll know all its loopholes and playing with it will become boring. With live opponents there's no permanent winning strategy. If you're winning too many games that's only the sign you need to move into games with more experienced players. Since most of them have diferent playing styles, there's constant challenge and the game (almost) never gets boring.
The point: make a good single-player 4x game and you'll be famous for a year or two. Make good multiplayer turn-based 4x game and you'l be famous forever .
BR, Iztok
Reply #22 from Stardock Forums Top
Nobody wants multiplayer? That's a pretty lame generalization.


The more accurate statement is:

Only a small number of people want to play a multi-player 4x game.

The additional line would be:

Even fewer people would buy this game on the strength of a multi-player mode.
Reply #23 from Stardock Forums Top
as i countiue to say use EXPs to choose a players path for some moneys
Reply #24 from Stardock Forums Top
How can you say only a small number of people want to play a multi-player 4x game? That doesn't make sense.

What is your reasoning?
Reply #25 from Stardock Forums Top

History is our reason.  The Galactic Civilizations series is the only Windows game I've worked on that doesn't have multiplayer.  And time has shown over and over that few people play 4X strategy games multiplayer.

I remember when MOO 3 came out, hardly anyone was playing it multiplayer and that was a game that really benefitted from it since it had serious AI problems at first. 

And multiplayer doesn't come for free.  Something else gets sacrificed.

In our last game, The Political Machine, we put in multiplayer.  Worse decision ever.  A good 15% of our budget was spent on that feature and few people used it even though the game was an awsesome multiplayer game, sold lots of copies and even had a 4 page story in Computer Gaming World in which two reviewers relived their multiplayer experience.

Statistically, few people want to play 4x games multiplayer.  We will look at it for an expansion.