Cut multiplayer, offer full multiplayer as DLC

I think your suggestion is in line with the Pay to Play stuff we're hearing about. Lock down the single-player and I then make the multiplayer work as DLC. Sounds like a solid plan except for those who want multiplayer right now (as advertised on the retail boxes for EWOM). I look at this way: singler player game can work without multiplayer functionality but multiplayer cannot work without single player functionality. It's all a matter of balancing resources to deliverables and prioritizing what gets done first. Let's get the game nailed down for single-players and put multiplayer as a to-do but not in the trash bin. That's my ramble of the day!

Id be annoyed at first, but you know what? As long as its quality I will pay for it.

How about offering what was advertised? I am quite sure most gamers prefer "multiplay" vs an idiot AI. Many past programs have benefitted/survived because of it.

As long as it is multiplayer that is like singleplayer, then the cost of adding it should not be too great given how much stuff would be shared resources. In theory the heavy lifting for the networking would be done by Impulse::Reactor and assuming the core game is well designed then it should be able to handle more players with little to no change.

This is why the way they are doing it now is rediculous. You should either optimize the game for multiplayer or singleplayer and not make them separate games (thus making it harder to share work between them). That is trying to please everyone and as we all know that does not work.

It was advertised for E:WoM and not E:FE.

I get the impression that adding multiplayer is more about the time required to do it than anything else. It sounds like they are busy full time just getting the single player up and running, FE is in Alpha and WoM multiplayer is all but non-existent. Maybe after the dust dettles and before they start thinking about a new title... just maybe they will find time to squeeze multiplayer in somewhere. Understandably some people want nothing to do with it, but IF the game if fun like GCII was I would play MP about 80% of the time. I would certainly be willing to pay extra to have multiplayer. Hell I would go out and buy 3 copies of GCII tomorrow if it meant I could get MP.

My interest in multiplayer in TurnBased games is very small but if done excellently and the game is good I'll play it. I play 1v1 on small maps though and since most people want to compstomp with their friends I'm out of luck.

Hell I actually agree with Mandragoran on this one, let us get a working game before we jump the mulityplayer mountain lion!! I would also rather have a Hotseat multiyplayer than what is presently offered, I might actually try it then!!

@Jeffa  

Chopping your game into little pieces to be sold separately is bad art. Expansions are one thing, DLC is another. It's hard to make good games, and nobody needs to make it even harder on themselves. The crap they are pulling with Civ5 is an outrage. I bought a half empty shell of a game and now they want me to get excited about a new civ every couple of months. I'd pay $100 for a proper Civ game any day, but I don't even want to waste my time on half of one.

I'd support this, for future titles.  Not Elemental.  Also only if the AI is truly top-notch at launch (aka GCII AI not Elemental AI).

I agree completely. I think that spending the extra time making SP amazing would only benefit a later addition MP DLC. The general problem with this push for SP like MP is that it places additional strain on SP experience. For instance, say the developers figure out a really cool set of mechanics that work great in SP but are either unfun or not workable in MP. Since the devs want to make SP and MP as closely linked as possible, the devs decide not to put in some really cool mechanics simply because it is not fun or workable in SP. While this example seems a bit far fetched, it is the undertone of most of the SP like MP arguments. In recent posts, Frogboy has said that they are doing a bunch of things for SP only because they can be done in a reasonable amount of time and would be alot of fun. Yet, the reactions to these statements from MP supporters basically state that if SP gets something MP should get it and if MP has to be nerfed then you should just nerf SP and not tell us at all.

Yes, there is that thing about what is a core feature.  Most single player games do have multiplayer included, and I now think it would be better if Stardock took a bit longer and made a SP-style co-op mode with as many features as possible from SP, and only leaving things out if it was tried for a decent time frame and didn't work out.  But certainly not "Quests are too hard, ditch them.  Tactical combat too hard, ditch it."  People are still playing AoW:SM since 2003 and it has Quests and Tactical Combat in MP Co-op - and you can have MP-Competitive in the same game.  Are you saying you can't beat an 8yo game with the resources at your disposal?  It is just a mindset/ideology which you can change if you really want to.

Best regards,
Steven.

If the price of the game was normal, personally I would never pay additionaly for a standard feature as MP.

Actually bullshit like this would make me pirate that game just to send a message.

And actually, since I bought EWoM and was promised next two expansions for free and then I would need to pay for a basic functionality like MP this would be the last Stardock game I would ever buy.

Most software developers do not have the luxury to try implementing features to see if they work, and when they do, it is usually only in the form of exploratory development. In general, this is just not feesible option as any feature that does not "work out" is a significant production loss and could jeapordize the entire prodution. To make it as simple as "Quests are too hard, ditch them" does no justice to what is being actually produced. If SD was saying that Quests were too hard to implement well so they are removing them from the entire game, it might be a different story. However, this is not the case at all.

As for you points about AoW:SM, it is always funny to hear people compare the two games, as beyond the surface experience, the two games are fairly different. With the exception of units and tactical combat, Elemental is a far deeper and richer experience in every way. Quests in MP AoW are heavily scripted static experience and are not even remotely close to the dynamic quests available in Elemental. In general, the entire AoW series had one focus for the player which was the tactical combat, and every other system is shallow, pushing the players towards the one focus which is the war game experience. Elemental has a rich research system, city management system, diplomatic system, unit customization system, quest system, etc. While these system may be far from perfect, each one has a depth that AoW:SM does not. Play a game of pioneers only in AoW SM and tell me how rich the city building game is. Wait, that right, the AI won't build new cities at all. The only advantage AoW:SM really has over WoM is simply that the game is incredibly focused on one specific experience and each iteration of the series only added mechanisms to attempt to deepen that one experience.

This is why I'm not sold on the business decision- it would force you to underprice your base game.

EWOM is $50.  Suppose the market standard for AAA games moves to $60.  You sell GalCiv III for $50+$10 MP, and people will scream gouging, sell it for $60 and they won't.

Economics assumes rationality.  Gamers aren't always rational.

Good point.  You have informed me on some aspects of games software production that I did not know before.  Thank you.

You make some good points.  And I haven't played much AoW:SM, just enough to know there are Quests and Tactical Combat in MP.  And it is true that the Quests are fixed (always the same in every map, including locations) in AoW:SM whereas they are not in Elemental.

So what do you suggest for the MP problem, especially given Alstein's comment?

Best regards,
Steven.

Honestly, Alstein is correct, sometimes gamers can be a bit wacky about these types of things. In general, you have a couple of good options. First, you could simply sell the game + a DLC for MP. Secondly, you could release the game as SP only, then later a delux edition which includes MP, as well as a DLC for MP for those who already have the base product. The first case is the one alstein is arguing against and in some ways he is right about the irrationality of consumers, though this would probably be the most rational option. The second option would use a kind of marketing trick, wherein you release a more expensive option that players don't really complain about while also giving the more rational choice one in the guises of an upgrade pack instead of a DLC.

Might have worked, if it was a new game.

There is ZERO chance I pay extra for a MP mode in Elemental that I already paid for unless I have an iron clad guarantee that it's going to be supported on-par with the SP game and not as the basement dwelling red-headed stepchild that it is right now.

If something is unfun and/or unworkable in MP, the why would if be fun and/or workable in SP? If it is because the AI cannot/will not use it but players can /will then it does not need to be in the game anyways. It would be atleast as hard to make it useable by the AI and just as unfun when it uses it against you.

However said quests are random and can have a major impact on the out come of the game, especially on small maps. That is the part the makes quest objectionable is MP. I find AoW diplomacy to be better in than that of Elemental as you can make meaningful deals such as ceeding over lands. Not as deep maybe, but it is more interesting. The largest remaining part of the MP for AoW (any version) is PBEM which does not have TC (and this is not because TC is unfun, PBEM just works better for peoples' scedules) and it quite fun.

And the AoW:SM AI can build cities, but only once pioneers have been made useful in combat by a mod.

Do you really have so much money that you have to beg to give it away OP?

I'm sorry, where exactly in my post was I begging? I think I made it pretty clear when I said "I know I'll never use it." that I'd not be interested in buying DLC that adds support for multiplayer. Great reading comprehension there.

Please don't do this, this is really dumb. In fact it's a criminally dumb suggestion and the only people who are agreeing to this are really rabid and obsessed fanboys who think these ideas are actually good ideas.

One of the huge problems with games today is how developers cut out pieces that are normally in every game, and offer them up for 10 extra dollars when the game is released. Case in point: Dragon Age 2.

I urge you to ask this to customers who don't constantly post on these forums. This is a terrible idea and I think if anyone else brought this idea up in a meeting, they would be fired immediately.

Stardock, please don't join those really bad developers who offer chunks of their games for extra money. Don't be like them.

Thank you Heyhello.

The Progress, I was pointing out the betrayal of yours and our interest in suggesting adding this as DLC.  It's a dishonest trend in the market and should not be encouraged by anyone.

An alternate argument you could have made would have been to suggest that they dedicate a team to making a proper multiplayer side so as to encourage competative play.  It could be argued that this would increase word of mouth sales and generate a wider market base.  Of course this shouldn't come at the expense of the current singleplayer resources, as that would sacrifice the integrity of the Stardock name, which, granted is a little bruised after Elemental, but by no means irredeamable.

The way you're approaching this is like walking into a Bedouine market place with 100 dollar bills popping out of overflowed pockets telling the dealers how awesome all their merchandise is and asking how much they want for it.

Betrayl? Just because most publishers have abused DLC doesn't make it inheritely a bad thing. Please leave drama out of this.

You apparently are completely missing the concept that any time and personnel put into making multiplaying is going to take away from resources that could have been put into the actual core game. If you honestly think that putting multiplayer into a TBS game that requires hours to finish is going to somehow result in an meaningful increase in sales you are mistaken.

No, the way I'm approaching this is like ordering a pizza. Why should all customers be forced to buy one pizza covered sparingly in all available toppings - toppings that many customers don't even want to eat when seperate pizzas can be produced based on the customer's actual taste. Feel like extra cheese on your pizza? Great! You can have that for a small, fair price while those who don't want extra cheese can avoid it entirely.