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 2)
on May 11, 2012

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.

on May 11, 2012

seanw3
Yes. I would also pay an additional 40 dollars if it meant I could mod MP games.

Replicators
I'd pay 20$, to make the game with a full fledged 60$ title for multiplayer.

 

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

on May 11, 2012

Omnax1
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

on May 11, 2012

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.

on May 11, 2012

I'll you pay $5 to not implement MP and spend it on making SP even bettererer..

 

on May 12, 2012

drakkheim
I'll you pay $5 to not implement MP and spend it on making SP even bettererer..

Should we get another thread going with counter bids? 

on May 12, 2012

I'd pay $1 easily.

$10 would depend on how many friends like the game (should be most)

 

One suggestion: Kickstarter it and see if you can get the money that way?  I don't think a kickstarter for this would be a bad thing.

 

I do see a number of problems with this game in MP potentially though.

 

 

 

on May 12, 2012

Alstein
Kickstarter it

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

on May 12, 2012

Gandhialf
(2) Multiplayer could prolong longevity of FE (multiplayer integrates community, which produces not only multiplayer mods).

Kinda "This !" for me - e.g., AoW:SM still got an active community b/c of that and there are still PBEM games and tournaments out there. 

Heck, I'm still playing Alpha Centauri due to that...

 

And DLC AFTER the game is finished anyways would mean that all the ppl preferring Single-player would not "lose" anything, so I don't see any reason besides lack of interest/not enough multiplayers not to try this. 

on May 12, 2012
I voted no. Multiplayer does not work well for TBS games and I would never try it. I'd rather the time be spent on cool add-ons for single player. I'd love to see a monster pack that adds new high-level monsters that are a challenge even for level 20 uber heroes. Or how about DLC that adds new wildlands. I'd pay a lot of money for stuff like that.
on May 12, 2012

I can't speak for anybody else on this, but I play a game like FE for the singleplayer experience.  I wouldn't pay the equivalent of 50 US cents for multiplayer.

 

Obviously, your flavor preferences may differ.

on May 12, 2012

I would love multiplayer. Yes I understand that some only want single (I would probably play single more often to be honest but I would play). If you want to add multiplayer in last I am fine with that.

So next expansion multiplayer, navies, dynasty... I would be very happy! (oh on the dlc front NO! Keep it mini expansions and expansions) You need that period between the game and next expansion for bug hunting, balancing, etc... please and thank ya! Take my money!

 

on May 12, 2012

I would without a doubt vote no.

I would however pay for a DLC that would bring the dynasty system WOM has.

on May 12, 2012

Absolutely definitely yes.

on May 12, 2012

Sounds like you've got yourself an idea worthy of Kickstarter!