Lessons from Civ4

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

Well if were doing a poll.

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

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.

id have to say the same thing plus i would get really mad when the other person took his or her sweet time in getting there turn done

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?

Civ 4 is proof of concept that multiplayer is probably not worth the effort.  They implemented it as ideally as possible and it's still not very popular as a % of the # of Civ IV owners out there.

 

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 just don't see the "fun" in playing hours on-line against a total stranger.  I can see the benefit for friends playing friends or something but most people don't have that luxury.

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

I agree with with no multiplayer.  Galciv 1 and 2 aren't made to be multiplayer games.  AI is a better option given the long nature of games.

 

 

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

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

Thats my biggest annoyance in 4X games, when you build an army send it to an opponents territory and by the time it gets there the units are obselete. In 4X games that has a length of gameplay option I have never selected anything but the longest

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

Honestly i like hte long game play and always figured that Civ4 went the wrong way on that one. I understand that some of the ADD folks out there who are high on caffeine needed button pushing but I think there were many conversations about MP and i think the only kind of multiplayer that would be cool would be hotseat, which isn't really multiplayer but still.

I like my games that take 2 weeks to wrap up. Even if i am only playing an hour or two at a time.

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?

Multiplayer adds longevity to a games life. When I first get a turn based game I spend the first month or 2 playing single player and learning the game. By then I have gotten a few friends interested in the game and we like to play it online. Civ 4 is still relatively new. You will see as the game ages that those still playing will start shifiting to multiplayer. I also think having multiplayer tends to allow a game to form a more cohesive long term community which in turn will encourage ongoing sales. Look at Dominions 2 and SE4 as such communities. Sure its nice to share a forum but it s more fun to be able to jump into a game with people you meet on the forums. Anyway I am buying this game. I will buy an expansion that adds multiplayer. I probably wouldnt buy another Altarian Prophecy becuase I never played the scenario or used the map editor. My 2cents.

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.

I forgot to mention how much fun a LAN party would be playing GalCiv II. It doesn't have to be total strangers who you play with; and even if it is, trust me it is a lot more intense than any AI.

I mean, all the things you guys have brought up, such as asking a race to remove ships near your planet and whatnot; all that could be accomplished via a simple chat.

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.

I would have to honestly say that my chances of using a multi-player feature in GC2 are next to nothing. Also I would say that its naive to think that a majority of the people who purchase GC2 are any different than me. Afterall the reason that GC is popular in its 4X niche is the strong single player gameplay.

If I ever want to play multiplayer strategy, I will play a game specificly designed for it.

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.

I think when players see the final Metaverse they'll see what our "long term" on-line strategy is better.

Multiplayer often fills the gap in strategy games in which the AI is "tired" (i.e. no longer interesting to play against).  But why is playing directly against other people the only other possibility?

I'd argue that the GalCiv I metaverse, which was relatively primitive compared to what we're doing this time, provided a great deal of long-term fun and replayability.

Throw in scenarios, tournaments, and updated AI and I don't think long-term playability is going to be an issue.  And if there's real demand (not just vocal demand from a handful which is what we've seen in the past) then we'll make multiplayer available too. 

After all, we do want your money. The problem is that our experience shows that the bang for the buck in multiplayer isn't really there. And loud obnoxious guys insisting that they "KNOW!!!" doesn't make it a fact.

Multiplayer comes with a price.  Next time you fire up Civilization 4 and wonder why the diplomatic trading is so strict or why the culture options are so restricted, you can thank multiplayer for that.

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.

I think legendde has a point. There was a poll about MP, but most of the participants were satisfied with GalCiv SP-only anyway (including me). The poll was made on a single player fan base, perhaps it should be repeated later with a more open audience. I'm sure many people would even pay for an MP expansion (think Civ III), perhaps this should be reconsidered. And MP features in general (be it LAN, Internet, MMORPG or a Metaverse) are growing each day - at least that's my impression. The Metaverse is nice, but you play "parallel" to other players, you don't play with them.
I'd certainly use a GalCiv-MP now, I wouldn't have done so two years ago.