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 14)
on Jul 14, 2012

PurplePaladin
Quoting Omnax1, reply 16 I do not understand why people who do not want to play MP vote no. Question is not, do you want to play MP or not? But If you want MP, would you be willing to pay a dollar for it? I would and I would like it very much. No special modes, no different rules. Just make it work, and make it easy for people to play together. No OOS. No crashes. Allow modding for MP. Other than that keep gameplay same as SP. you are absolutely right, way better than i could say it

 

First, of course I would pay $1. 100% of people thay play multiplayer would pay $1 for MP, for sure. 60% of the people in that poll did not say "No, I will not pay just $1 to play MP", lol, of course not, they would for sure! 60% of those people voted no because they just don't play MP and don't want it in, well, because they are Hermits and haters.

What your are seeing Omnax1 is not confusing at all. These people are actually "trying" to stop MP; Saying they will pay to stop MP, even when it would not effect them in any way, and make so many people (that actually have social relationships with other gamers) happy. There's a good reason some who are so agains MP never play socially; the same reason they don't want "people" to be happy playing MP. If they have to be alone; play alone; they don't want other's who socialize to enjoy it either.

Why else would such people actually work and pay to stop others from enjoying something? Only the absolute terror that putting in MP (which is standard in most games now'a'days) might in some magical, microscopic way change ever so slightly the only thing in life that they enjoy; solitare. . .

I speak for myself for the 'no' I voted on, but I imagine a great many others share this viewpoint:

It's not the multiplayer specifically; it's the fact that Stardock would have to devote X time to the design of multiplayer, whereas I'd rather they spend that X time into making FE the best single player 5x game to ever hit the market.

For me, that 'no' vote is an easy one, because I have almost never played multiplayer in a 4x game. The few times I've tried it, it was a really boring experiance...always waiting for your opponents to make there moves.

So, to conclude, a function that I never use OR even more depth to and already great game....I choose the later. 

on Jul 14, 2012

PurplePaladin
First, of course I would pay $1. 100% of people thay play multiplayer would pay $1 for MP, for sure. 60% of the people in that poll did not say "No, I will not pay just $1 to play MP", lol, of course not, they would for sure! 60% of those people voted no because they just don't play MP and don't want it in, well, because they are Hermits and haters.

What your are seeing Omnax1 is not confusing at all. These people are actually "trying" to stop MP; Saying they will pay to stop MP, even when it would not effect them in any way, and make so many people (that actually have social relationships with other gamers) happy. There's a good reason some who are so agains MP never play socially; the same reason they don't want "people" to be happy playing MP. If they have to be alone; play alone; they don't want other's who socialize to enjoy it either.

Why else would such people actually work and pay to stop others from enjoying something? Only the absolute terror that putting in MP (which is standard in most games now'a'days) might in some magical, microscopic way change ever so slightly the only thing in life that they enjoy; solitare. . .

You seem to confuse "have no friends" with "know better then to play online with strangers and have no friends that play Elemental Fallen Enchantress who would like to play it in multiplayer while having compatible schedules".

on Jul 14, 2012

"You seem to confuse "have no friends" with "know better then to play online with strangers and have no friends that play Elemental Fallen Enchantress who would like to play it in multiplayer while having compatible schedules".

No, you seem to confuse "Would you pay $1 to have multiplayer", which every person on earth who play MP would of course say a resounding "Yes",  to "I'm voting no to keep MP out because I have no friends to play with and am affraid to play with strangers".

 
on Jul 15, 2012

Multiplayer gaming really depends on communication.  Besides the forum, how else are people talking about this game?

on Jul 19, 2012

I wonder how useful it is to ask people who play a single player game if they would want to pay for multiplayer game functionality.  It is akin to asking English speakers if they would pay extra to have the game in Russian.  The current game isn't in Russian, so, if you are playing it now, you are happy with (or adapted to) the game as it is.  Of course, if you don't speak English, then you won't buy the game.  Same goes for me in multiplayer.  If it's not multiplayer CoOp supported, then I don't buy it.

And yes, I get it, that person who is translating it into Russian could be the world's best English game designer, but I doubt it.  If they added a multiplayer coop to the game, it wouldn't be catastrophically hard, it is a turn based game, after all.  With that addition, they would broaden the user base.  The content in the game that is already created could be shared with both.  Two games / user bases for the the price of 1.2.  Much like translating World of Warcraft into Spanish added many players to the game.  Would English players pay a dollar extra for Spanish support?  Nope.  But Spanish players would pay $15/month for the feature.

Sadly, I was tricked with Elemental that they would provide multiplayer.  They sort-of provided that, much later, with crippled functionality.  Not sure still why they chose not to have tactical battles in MP --  That is why I came back to the forums to see if the current (or next) game was going to have multiplayer coop support.  Guess it isn't.  At least they aren't claiming they will.  So, +1 for honesty.  -1 from the player base.  Well, minus me and my friends that play multiplayer coop.

on Jul 19, 2012

There were/are technical reasons for no tactical battles in MP. I do agree with you that you're going to miss a lot of MP/coop enthusiasts in these polls, though, as a lot of people who are interested in that (including all my friends) don't visit the forum since it's not a game they have interest in without MP...

 

on Jul 20, 2012

Aerion Istari
No.  IMHO, TBS games are uniquely unsuited to multi-player.

Funny I have the opposite expereance. MP is a must in TBS after all TBS games have always had a MP element even before they were computer games.

TBS games are one of the best suited genra's for MP.

on Jul 20, 2012

Kongdej



Quoting taltamir,
reply 192
Children have a ton of free time though.


Not only children
Cripples too!

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Not only children
Not only Cripples

But MP gamers as well.

Meta
Views
» 71452
Comments
» 203
Sponsored Links