Just Internet, no Hot Seat or LAN?

If the latter, definetly would pay $1. Hell, i could pay more for the latter options. Indeed, i might even buy another copy if LAN were possible.

I'm voting a "most likely no". I don't play 4x games to do multiplayer, and only one of my friends actually owns the game right now.

Not that I'm not willing to pay $1 to support the devs and keep my game up to date, but since I believe the intent of the question is to ask if I was genuinely interested in multiplayer, I voted no... because I just don't foresee myself ever playing it like that.

Now, if that question was more modding option/support... I'd be willing to pay $10... or more. That's what attracted me to EWOM in the first place.

I would pay $1 for me and my daughter to play via hotseat. If I had a 2nd computer I would buy another copy of FE and play via LAN/multiplayer.

I definitely would.

At least from what I've seen on the forums, it seems like the majority of people that play tbs games here like to play solo.  I'd pay a buck for mp easily, but it would, ofc, have to be good mp.  Matter of fact, I'd pay an extra $10 for it.  But if its offered as dlc, it would have to be good as, ofc, I'd have to get my friends in on it.

Personally, I say continue with the original mindset of no mp.  If you think about mp and all it would entail (even if you have something of a framework in place), its going to tie up resources for a feature that the minority would appreciate (and bitch if it wasn't up to spec).  Put any resource you have available into making the core game the best it can be.  Cancel that whole MP thought and refocus.  SKIP IT.

Then, if FE comes out as an excellent game, start thinking expansion pack + mp... or perhaps that's the angle you were already taking, eh.

 I don't really care about multiplayer over the internet but I would love to be able to have more than just one faction as human controlled in the startup so that I could play two or more factions in the same game. It would also allow hotseat games.

No. Without a doubt. I'm tired of every single game I buy having a half-baked multiplayer mode that took up way too much effort (manpower, money, etc) to develop.

I'd happily contribute more money to the Elemental franchise than I have (as an early purchaser), but I'd rather spend extra dollars on any number of things that are not MP.

I tend to agree with these. The only reason i really liked Civ 4 or Fall from Heaven mods (and mod mods mods) was BECAUSE of multiplayer. It was great to hang out with friends playing those games. Whenever i tried to play by myself i just got bored and uninterested incredibly fast, the simple fact of having my friend there in the world to play with kept me interested in the game long past the original life the game would have had.

Whatever you do, DO NOT CHANGE RULES, from single player to multiplayer like you tried to do with EWOM, removing tactical battles was a mistake, i also believe trying to do a competitive system is a waste (your barking up the wrong tree / wrong player base). The thing i have noticed about Stardock over the years is that you "get" or understand single player games and make them very well. but you just don't "get"/understand multiplayer

Truthfully, TBS games have never been an enjoyable experience for me in multiplayer.

Something like "Play by Email" or whatever as I could possibly see as being something I'd enjoy, but trying to play Civ IV in multiplayer was utterly terrible.  It works so much better as a single player game.

Making it DLC - as long as it's cheap - I could understand, assuming it came with a full suite of multiplayer options, tools and support.  I, personally, wouldn't buy it - but I understand that not everything revolves around me.  As long as it wasn't a ridiculous price, I think it's justifiable.

Should we get another thread going with counter bids? 

I thought about a kickstarter for Demigod 2, etc, and even suggested it to Brad. That's probably the one way it would happen at this point.  But while we see all this cool stuff on kickstarter, tell me how you'd feel if EA started doing kickstarters for its games.  I think its somewhat taboo for any non indy dev (double fine apparently the magical exception?) to launch using kick starter.  That said, SD, while its quite successful, is not EA.  I'd be thrilled to see many more games from competent studios get green lighted because of kickstarters. 

rant/

Honestly though... as gamers, I think we all just want to see X game happen.  Would folks pay for a kickstarter of a new home world?  yes.  Alpha centari?  yes.  Demigod 2 (well I would ).  Yes.  I really wish a company like sd would jump on the kick starter bandwagon.  I mean, think about it - let's say SD was not looking to fund Gal civ 3 right now.  Maybe they have it in the pipe for 3 years down the road.  Well, they could kick start the project, come up with what folks will get for X dollars, and completely fund the game.  I mean seriously - gal civ 3.  It's a no brainer for a customer funded game.  Worst case scenario for SD is that folks actually get on board and they a) hire more staff to handle it or b ) go silly arse and work yourselves to death to get whatever you are working + gal civ 3 done.  I do not imagine the world telling SD to go fug itself for launching a kick starter campaign.. and I bet Brad, with about 5 minutes of prep time, could give folks a preview of what he wants to do with gal civ 3 to post as a vid on a kickstarter site. 

Rant about to end - anyway, here's an idea.  Folks LOVED the gal civ games.  Gal civ 3 would be super exciting.  Telling me I need to shell out $50 for a game to come out in a year and a half vs 4 years down the road is a no brainer.  And I'd thank you for taking my money and making the game. 

/rant