Hmm..
HMmm ...
HMM...
GalacticCivilizationsOnline

If GC2 had multiplayer I would never use it as I never play games online as I prefer to play against AI so I can play a long epic game in my own time and be able to take a 30 minute break if my son starts crying or im hungry

My feelings exactly.

I understand, but you have to consider all of those who are turned off by TBS games precisely because they *don't* have MP. And as anyone will admit, no matter how good an AI is, it will never be as interesting as playing against other humans. Before Civ4, I was firmly in the camp of "why bother with MP TBS games" but now I'm not so sure. I think Civ4 did a great job proving how you can create a successful MP 4X game. When SOTS comes out, it'll be another example of a game that is hopefully great fun with MP.

I like epic games too, but my feelings have always been that you find a "group" to meet weekly with and you play a single game for a long time. MP can't replace single player with these games, but it can supplement it and it can create a larger market. Like I said, Civ4 was the "proof of concept." I think we'll begin to see changes in the genre as advances in networking and game design allow people to experience multiplayer with empire games. After all, isn't that how gaming all started -- with the wargames of the 1960's and 70's?

I think in time it will be more popular. Besides, most of the Civ4 users probably don't expect it to work very well. I'm curious to see what will happen in another year or so. The fact of the matter is that playing against a computer, no matter how well programmed, is never as fun or interesting as crushing your flesh & blood buddies. There's a lot of Civ4 games going online when I log in, at least as many as I would see for games like Homeworld or HW2. I don't know, I think it's a mistake to discount the potential popularity of a truly decent multiplayer TBS. But then, I'm not an industry expert...we'll have to see how SOTS does, too.

I agree! my friends hate these type of games so AI is more conveniant anyway

The only way I would ever play multiplayer in GalCiv 2 would be if there was someway to play via email then I can take as long as I want, although I know that is pretty much impossible for a 4x game if you want to play a game in less than two decades. If someone can figure out a way to do it, I think they would make a ton of cash.

Other things I have learned from Civ 4
The Civ 4 tech tree is way too fast and getting new techs is absurdly fast, even on epic turns. Hurrah for Gal Civ 2 for making tech rate a user setting
The promotion scheme for units is a delight. Maybe an expansion to Gal Civ could use a similar idea
I love how terrain makes such a huge difference in fighting battles. Wish there was some way of emplying this in a 4x space game
GalCivs Diplomacy model is much more sophisticated and engaging than Civ's

Just my two credits

Dano

In my tests with GC2 even the very slow tech option seems way to fast for my liking.

In my tests with GC2 even the very slow tech option seems way to fast for my liking.

Have you tried medium map, 9 major and rare habitable planets?

Wow, how can anyone here say that they wouldn't use the multiplayer feature if it was available. How naive are you guys? Let's face it, multiplayer gaming adds a whole new perspective to the game. Clan battles could take a whole new meaning. The development of clans and tournaments alone would be a direct by-product of it. Like oneeyedwilly said, it adds longetivity to the game. Look at the most widely played games out there: World of Warcraft, Counter-Strike, Civ4 even; all have multiplayer.

I do understand that the devs have had their hands full and all, but I hope that they don't squat the idea of releasing a multiplayer expansion to the game. I honestly think it'll sell as much as the actual game does; if not lead to more sales when selling the bundled package.

Given the large amount of time and effort it would be to add multiplayer, I know that any development of a multiplayer experience would necessarily cause the single-player elements of the game to receive less attention. Even if you do play multiplayer now and then, 4X games are primarily played single-player, and the game would be less enjoyable for the majority of players who would rarely or never use multiplayer. Forcing the game into a timeframe that allows for multiplayer would not be helpful, either, in my opinion.

And yet, in all the polls that Stardock has ran about "would you use MP?" the response has always been less then 10% yes.

Indeed, before work began on GC2 or Altarian Prophecy, Brad (Owner of StarDock, and Lead Designer of GC) ran a poll asking if they should make an MP expansion for GC1, the survey results were very small "Yes" (around 10%, IIRC). When GC2's development started another poll was ran on what features should be included in the game, and MP got only about 5% of the votes.

Now, if you could find 25,000 people that play TBS games and would *buy*/pre-order a GC expansion that included MP, I bet Brad and his people would be happy to include MP. Heck, back during GC1, he said if only 10,000 people were willing to pre-order a MP expansion, they'd make it. But they never got more then 100 offers to pre-order such a thing, AIR.

If there was a real demand for a MP GC, StarDock would be happy to make a profit off that demad. But it just isn't there at this time. Maybe after GC2 is a break away smash hit though.

Sure it comes with a price, noone argues that. However, there are so many different people that make up the market that a limited view is imo dangerous.

Surely there were polls asking if MP were viable or required. However, look at your fanbase. GalCiv I was a single player game, so ppl would expect GalCiv 2 to be one or - even more probable - the huge majority of ppl caring about GalCiv 2 were GalCiv I players. Thus you have to ask yourself where the answers to the polls came from, especially the early polls were the GalCiv I fanbase was much more probable to even know about the game than anyone else.

Thus I say that the polls were very likely biased in that the answers came from ppl that are from their disposition single players (which the polls clearly showed) and that the MP-lovers did not answer or take part in the polls *because they were not present*. Take me as an example. I heared of GalCiv 2 middle of last year. That is because I did not play GalCiv I because of its lack of MP. And I know a bunch of ppl whose disposition is similar to mine.

So the bottom line is that you cannot really know how much incremental sales the game would have with an MP option. The ppl who loved GalCiv I will buy it with high probability. But that is no news. Some more will buy it because it looks to be a great game albeit without MP. But who can say how much more the game would sell with MP. I cannot. And just based on polls and forum answers of people that love single player games anyways, Stardock cannot say either is my bet. To take the polls at face value is misleading at best...

The metaverse is nice but you get nowhere if you cannot put in huge amounts of time. Many of the customers will work or have a family. So what are their chances to get to the top there? Nil if not less. However, a lan party with friends offers instant rewards.

My view, i fully realize, is also biased. However, that leads me again to my opening statement that the market is very diverse and just because of a few polls whose outcome (because of the ppl who most likely took part in them) I could have predicted does not a final conclusion provide.

IIrc Civ at one time had no MP either and then was somewhat pressured in providing the 'play the world' expansion. That was because the players expected MP as it was present in the prequel. Thus the fan base was different.

GalCiv could have broadened their fan base, but chose not to. Where this may lead, only the market will show.