From my understanding. If FE is successful they plan on adding MP. They have "footholder" coding there. There's just too much for them to do with the single at the moment for them to tackle both. I just hope MP comes out as a patch, and not an expansion. I dunno if people would wait that long.

One can hope not, as well.

I'd prefer Stardock completely ignore multiplayer, which only serves 1% of its customers, and instead focus on what the game is about for 99% of all players: the singleplayer experience.

Yeah, it's an obvious attempt to pressgang the devs into action ("look how many copies you'll sell if you just add feature X"). Really, the same argument can be made in any request thread - "If you just add spells that affect the environment in your own domain, I would convince 3 friends to buy it because THEY LOVE THAT SHIT, but if it's not in they aren't interested ".

But as Frogboy has stated before, the numbers just don't add up.

lol this is a noob point of view

everyone who is an expert gamer only plays online because that what a game is, single players dont matter to competitive players

thats obvious and i still dont get how you can ignore it

and OFC everyone has TONS of online friends, i played wow, im playing lol right now and played many other online games in which i had from 10 to 50/100 ppl i played with, thats completely normal

im not saying "i could bring 100 ppl to FE" because i dont even ask them to try it (at least not at the ones i know they want to play online) but i surely know many of them would play a good online game

just as an example i had around 10 ppl with whom i played civ online

i tried to explain this point maaaaany times but even you guys who have a brain stil dont get it

actual multiplayers strategy games SUX HARD

civ 4 has been a total mess for 1 to 2 years, civ 5 for over 1 year and still isnt perfect

thats totally unacceptable for pro gamers

the only reason when you do some poll 90% of ppl dont care about online part is that pro gamers are not even here reading the poll knowing how things go

but every time a SH developed a good online game there were millions of players in a bit, instead SHs want first ppl to buy games and then to develop/fix the servers, lag, ui, connettivity

and ofc players can not accept that

this is conceptually wrong

even civ could last hours

because ai is dumb thats all

dunno if you have civ and can try online anyway if you do believe me youd get STOMPED HARD

multiplayer games do not work like a slow look around trip, they are frenetic and rushed to the top

50 60% of my civ games ended in less than 30 min and at least 20 30% were over even b4 just took a bit to make ppl surrender but they were totally over

ofc you would have to adapt a bit settings, not like its possible to play a huge map with 20 players in it

Even in League of Legends which is by definition a multiplayer online game the stats I have seen suggest about half the people don't play ranked games (potentially more if you also rule out the people who played a few ranked games and then decided not to play any more).

If you play competitive multi-player games it is tempting to think that everyone else is like you but it appears that most games which have decent single player and multi-player modes are mainly played single player.

You probably care as much about my opinion as you do about orthography, but I stopped reading everything you wrote after these "sentences" above. My guess is that other people on these forums are like-minded. You are making a number of errors in posting as you do. Firstly: Your tone is perfectly fit for a radically different target group, such as a Blizzard Warcraft III forum or MMO guild chat. Here, you will only be convincing others that you are a 14-year-old blighter whose opinion is best overlooked, even if you are not. Secondly: by expressing your viewpoints about a product you claim to have a vested interest in, and at the same time annoying those you are trying to convince, you are engaging in a performative self-contradiction. Finally, your choice of diction (calling others or their views "noob", using jolted fragments, etc.) makes any point you really want to make difficult to extract.

Even if you may be right (and frankly I have no idea, since I never made it to whatever "argument" you may be attempting to formulate), I hope that the forums here will be freed of such noob-calling soon. Please go and play a game that "expert gamers" play. I and a significant other portion of paying customers here are interested in a decent AI for a single-playing experience.

yes i agree

in fact i wasnt the one opening the thread and if you search my post my comments on multi were a small minority

i dont care either, i took the news about the lack of multi with a bit of sadness and that was it

but i cant accept ppl still stating wrong facts based on a wrong view of the world

online games are  a brute force in the gaming industry, the fact is that many many SH totally failed, even blizzard failed a lot or theyll be even more productive they already are

its a wrong assumption think you are some kind of gamer

no one is born like that, its the other way around, GAMES do create the players

wow created millions of players fond (or addicted ) to the game, its not like there were 10 millions ppl in need of wow, i started playing withough even knowing what a mmo was, i tried, i liked (for a bit) and most ppl did the same

Well i have to admit certain sadness myself. Right now I know only of one strategy that is attractive in MP and that's Dominions 3. 

The complexity of game makes it so interesting that there is still quite a good population of people playing, many years after it was release. 

I am sad also b/c MP tests you well, right now in FE basically any strategy i tried works ... I would love to fight against spear rush with my magic fellows, or vice-versa and see which strategy is better.   

TBS multiplayer is a chore.

Didn't mean to cause flaming, just thought the whole idea was suspect. With multithreading you can do alot faster MP. FE's MP will almost certainly have the best TBS MP if they are able to make it. I just have trouble finding patient players that are willing to negotiate the finer points of a non-aggression pact or wait for me to do so with another player. You have to have the whole day to play a good role play experience. Most MP players are obsessed with speed. That turns me off the concept. I might play with Heavenfall or some of the other people on the forums I have played WoM MP with. I am wary of MP gamers though. I have had bad experiences in Red Alert 3.

The problem isn't people who want MP, it's the people who insult the SP-only side. I don't think anyone here would flame or troll someone for wanting MP, as long as he doesn't start the sort of arrogant, poorly-written post like the ones ddd888 has written when contributing to this thread.

you are right

thats why online gaming is not a role playing experience (on average, i had fun with MUDs where i role played, it was very fun and addictive, but was also another era)

right now the gaming is different, ppl hardly want to emulate a real world/diplomacy, they just want to compete on a strategic level and i agree since there is not much point in doing anything else with the average random player

but ofc you could have your group of friend and you could play some different kind of game with them

i dont know really, mostly it depends on the past experience

i mean right now we all have dsl or cable right? if youd go on a pc with a 56k wouldnt you throw punches at the table for its slowness ?

its the same for games, ppl who played 123132313 matches already obviously find the first moves pretty obvious and so cant enjoy wasting time on them

its like playing a spanish opening on chess, if someone takes 10 min on third move id rather quit the game