Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.

As some people know, the initial release for Fallen Enchantress will not have multiplayer enabled. It was decided early on that 100% of the design and development focus for Fallen Enchantress would be on delivering a world class single player experience.

But after release, lots of things become possible.  Advocates of multiplayer tend to be vocal. To gauge genuine interest, how many Fallen Enchantress players would be willing to pay a dollar to support the development time for a multiplayer mode (Internet cooperative / competitive).

To vote, go to:

http://www.elementalgame.com/journals

Please only vote if you are actually in the beta (the admin poll will display what % of users are actually registered users).

Result: 60% would not pay $1 for MP DLC. 40% would.


Comments (Page 10)
on May 15, 2012

Trojasmic
Quoting Bellack, reply 134
This is true.  I read that same report.

You only read half of it.

on May 15, 2012

I don't even think the original premise of the poll is sound.  I couldn't tell you what I can buy over here for a dollar without looking up a currency converter.  Maybe a litre of milk if I shop in the right store.

Now I know that in this new age of digital downloads you can do deals at low prices and still turn a profit but come on, this is ridiculous.  If you actually expect us to think that the multiplayer is worth checking out, don't lowball us with a price like $1.

The way the poll numbers are divided, you have to consider that there's a market for both single-player and multiplayer versions.  Of course if you ask two demographics to raise their hands you're going to see that one is a different size to the other.  What exactly does that accomplish besides limiting yourself to one half of a niche market?

Fair enough, dividing your resources between two versions of a game is not the smartest move to make if you're not expecting to sell a million units.  But if customers who want a multiplayer continually get the cold shoulder, well, they'll buy an inferior product made by another developer, just to satisfy that craving for human interaction while playing games.  Even if said interaction involves being zerged over and over again and a comment like 'u mad bro?'

Sorry.  I know that mutliplayer fans aren't that desperate.  I was just being dramatic, is all.

on May 15, 2012

Trojasmic

Quoting Bellack, reply 134
Quoting Femmefatal48, reply 100

Statistics have also shown that 90% of statictics quoted by 78% of the people who 65% of the time pull 89% of the data out of 58% of their buttox have shown that 100% are made up to boulster their side of an argument 98% of the time.  

This is true.  I read that same report.

 

Yes, but that report was 60% funded by a group that dislikes statistics!

 

On off-topic, there are certainly 4X games that have Multiplayer that works well, even if it takes all day to play a game, and it would not be a negative thing to add to FE once the game itself is totally awesome. Even better, since the 3rd game is liable to be built on the same bones that we are today creating, save it for that game so it can be properly integrated and not slapped on after the fact.

on May 15, 2012

Okay then.  Here's something that would be awesome in a multiplayer game.  Instead of fiddling about with a trade screen when you're negotiating a resource trade with other human players, create an automated trade unit that you can stop and start whenever you like.  Both players will get a little bar graph which shows how equitable their trade relations have been (it may show strategic resources differently to other resources).  I know I would prefer to negotiate by voice or in a chat window, not with an intrusive window that costs me time I could have spent on my turn.

In a single-player game, it's more useful to see what the computer player has to trade before coming to a trade agreement, because otherwise they would just send you wagons and wagons of citrus fruit.

on May 16, 2012

1 dollar to prolong the interest in a product = no brainer.

 

I mean.

 

Its a god damn dollar.

on May 16, 2012

BarxBaron
1 dollar to prolong the interest in a product = no brainer.

 

I mean.

 

Its a god damn dollar.

 

To be fair its a very poorly phrased poll as others have explained in more depth earlier in the thread.

 

Though I imagine if it was something more vague like "Will you pay one more dollar to buy FE?" everyone would suddenly be super 'charitable' about that insignificant amount instead of launching the usual anti-multiplayer crusade common to this community. I think Marvinkosh a few posts up makes a very reasonable point about TBS being a niche market and going halfway may not be the best strategy as the poll shows that about half of the community active on forums would clearly enjoy working multiplayer components if they were added. It's pretty clear now that whatever the original intention the poll has become skewed as: people with an extra dollar and/or who like multiplayer in FE vs people that don't and/or are scrooges. With I think a few clever trolls valued members offering to outbid the mighty dollar amount to prevent multiplayer as a very classy third option.

on May 16, 2012

It's not about how much we would pay. It's about what else could be done with the resources and time.

It's been close two years already. The game isn't here yet. When it finally IS, hopefully I will be craving for more, "more" meaning FLYING units, SHIPS, races, spells, content. I mean, things people were expecting from the very start.

on May 16, 2012

The flying units/ships other stuff, Stardock did promise after WOM that some folks would be getting 2 free expansions.  Let the folks at Stardock get FE finished, have a few months break, then see about the 2nd XP in 2013-2014.

 

It's more important that FE gives a solid base to work from right now, and that's exactly what it's doing.

on May 16, 2012

mastroego
It's not about how much we would pay. It's about what else could be done with the resources and time.

It's been close two years already. The game isn't here yet. When it finally IS, hopefully I will be craving for more, "more" meaning FLYING units, SHIPS, races, spells, content. I mean, things people were expecting from the very start.

umm, multiplayer is one of the things people were expecting from the very start. It was listed as launch feature back when the game was announced.

on May 16, 2012

Fair point, but you see my meaning.

We're still waiting for a fully fleshed out fantasy game to begin with. 

on May 16, 2012

To put it another way:

Do you HAVE to have multiplayer, even though the game might only be half finished as a result?

Or would you prefer to see a finished game get multiplayer in an expansion?

 

on May 16, 2012

To understand what's going on in these two quotes -

 

mastroego
Fair point, but you see my meaning.


We're still waiting for a fully fleshed out fantasy game to begin with. 

and,

To put it another way:

Do you HAVE to have multiplayer, even though the game might only be half finished as a result?

Or would you prefer to see a finished game get multiplayer in an expansion?

 

 

We must also go look at the original poster's remark to remember something.  Two sentences from Draginol:

 

It was decided early on that 100% of the design and development focus for Fallen Enchantress would be on delivering a world class single player experience.

But after release, lots of things become possible.

So...all the messages from people commenting, "Don't you think you should finish SP first?"  are really kind of moot, clouding the original question based on the vote and skewing the decisions of people currently voting.  

 

Why do I say this?  Let me beat a dead horse/explain:

 

Based on the information given in the first sentence by Draginol (above) it implies that the game is focussed on SP development, and that the single player component is what is currently being developed at 100% capacity.  Zero (that's 0%) production has gone into MP at this point in time.  We have to assume that when production is done and the game has gone gold - that's when SP production has stopped until such time that DLC for it is developed or an expansion is made with more SP content.  It should be assumed that the game will be a 'fully fleshed out game to begin with' - and so you won't have to wait any longer...it will be a 100% playable game.  The game will not be 'half-baked' as people seem to imply.  Even if it were, MP has nothing to do with it because it was not made during the initial development period.

Let me reiterate this in another way:  We have to assume here that since Stardock is basically doing another run on the game they had envisioned the first time around, they have learned from past mistakes and as Draginol quoted, SP is in fact top priority while it's in development.

As we all know a game should be done when 'it's done', all other content isn't necessarily needed to play the game (yes, including MP) - otherwise there'd be alot of pissed off people waiting for more content.  If certain units/content are not in the game that were promised, I would guess that it will be in one or both of the expansions (I do not consider the MP DLC as part of either of the expansions Stardock has promised).  I'm also guessing if there are people that call a game 'fully fleshed out' only when more SP DLC comes out, well then they wait considerable lengths of time (and are always pissed) for many, many other games that are in the market place now...

Also, because a game goes gold does not mean they are not going to be supporting SP issues that may crop up going forward and then develop only for MP.  This is another wild misconception.

Finally, once the game has shipped, added DLC is just that - added DLC. It can/should be able to be used in both the SP and MP versions of the game at any time.  However, all this added content is not necessarily needed to play the original game and doesn't fix things; it only enhances it.

 

I would enjoy MP to be added as DLC content/expansion - and I support and approve my messages...

 

 

 

 

 

on May 16, 2012


BurntSoul - Excellent summary.  I totally agree with your interpretation of Draginol's request. 

I personally have no use for MP, having no friends except for my computer (my kids only play XBox), however I would be happy to pay $1 to increase the fanbase & support for what I think is shaping up to be a very good game.

on May 16, 2012

Ha!  Well, you have a friend now!  If multiplayer comes out, I'll play a some rounds of co-op with ya, chance permitting (I have a couple o' kids as well).  I guaranty you that I will be terrible gameplay wise, but I'll try my best.  Maybe I can learn some pointers from you.  

I think it's always interesting to go over/discuss the game you've just played, especially if it's been played along with someone else.

on May 16, 2012

Burntsoul, that's a lot of assuming you are doing, and I will step right into it - the assumption that on release, the game will be 100% polished, playable and done, is IMO utter fantasy and I am willing to bet money against it. Look at any reasonably complex game of today - it's never finished on release date, and support often drags on month, or even years. That is because on release, the user base is usually significantly expanded, the new users will discover new problems and bugs, will bring new perspectives and new feedback - and a company like SD will want to respond to them.