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:

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 6)
on May 12, 2012

I voted no, because while the game is still a ways from being complete, I think it is too far along to try to force multiplayer into the design. The most I can imagine working well without creating even more design headaches is maybe hotseat play. There are enough multiplayer TBS and RTS games out there, but I haven't played a truly deep, coherent and fun single player strategy game in a long while. That's what I want to see happen with Fallen Enchantress.


I would rather see a new game designed from the start to be multiplayer, and have enough marketing resources behind it to ensure that there's a large enough pool of players for it. FE seems like the kind of game that will suck up dozens of single-player hours at a time, limiting the potential number of players available for multi at a given time.

on May 12, 2012

I vote no and wish they foruse on one at a time, beside I don't play multplay, only single player, yes, I'm very alonely man.

on May 12, 2012

I vote no, it's not about the money. You implement MP and the multi player people wont be happy anyway, since I doubt you will get it good enough without devoting significant resources and frankly it wont be worth it.

on May 12, 2012

Lol it only took me 6 years before I joined to post my first post.


Hi all:)

on May 12, 2012

Lol it only took me 6 years before I joined to post my first post.


About time!

on May 12, 2012

I generally play these types of games solo so my vote would be no

on May 12, 2012

Though it might be cool, I can't personally say I would play MP.  Now, if I was a kid again with endless time, the answer would of been hell yes. 

A more interesting survey might be would you rather pay a dollar for two more fully realized factions or sea battles or X or MP.....


on May 12, 2012

I suppose when I think about it, it's a bit pointless asking people if they want multiplayer when they haven't seen what that would look like.  A quick and dirty Let's Play FE Quasi Hotseat would really help.

on May 12, 2012

No.  I don't have enough time to play a whole game start to finish in mp.  Let alone to coordinate with someone else's life to play against them.  I think the game takes too long to play for mp to work currently. 

In my opinion - you'd have to offer a faster start option where the map is seeded with 3-4 cities of various sizes at turn 1 maybe... and tech is at a certain level...

on May 12, 2012

I would!   Not only do I like the game, but I could play with my kids.   I would pay an extra 10$ if you would add a Kali character like in MOM who could raise dead units.   


First I never post unless I'm mad.  I'm not mad this time.  Reading above made me go to the yes side.  My young daughters love looking at the monsters.  Everything to them is "spooky".  If you can nail it on the first or second try, go for it.

Now if your from my camp you know $1 is too low.  You lose some on the transaction and I have no Idea what you pay for everything else related to releasing it.  I spent a dollar today through the whole in my pocket.  My yard ate it.

If I could play the game LAN with one or two of my kids on a lazy saturday while my wife does the dishes, that would be AWESOME!

I know I'm late to the party, but that was my thought.

on May 12, 2012

I voted yes.  I'd be willing to spend about $5 to get it, but I highly doubt I'd pay more than that.

And it would definitely need Hot Seat.  The only way I ever play strategy games MP is if someone comes over for the night and we sit down to play.

on May 12, 2012

I voted yes because:  I honestly don't know if I'd ever personally USE multi-player, but sure if it's only one measly dollar to retain the OPTION to use it and make it available for all the other people who would use it: I'd absolutely pay a dollar! Even $2-3 would be a yes for me regardless of whether I ever personally used it.

If the question had been would I pay 5-10 dollars or more for multi-player, my answer would have been probably not unless a time came when I was absolutely certain I'd actually use it.

on May 12, 2012

I vote yes, and I'd pay up to $10 for the DLC or up to $20 for a more fully fledged MP expansion of sorts.  HotSeat, PBEM, LAN, Internet, Co-Op vs AI, PVP?  Hell yeah to any of it!  I welcome playing a great video game with others as opposed to alone - be it FPS, RTS, RPG and TBS.  The more the merrier!

Does it have to have the same great game play as the SP?  Yes it should be there (and of course be save-able over multiple sessions like SoaSE). 

I believe it will also need to have quick pre-sets or game modes to choose from, accommodating online matches lasting approximately 30-60-90 minutes.  Is that possible to do?  It probably can be done in multiple ways (count-down timer, smaller maps, less AI players, game speed 'faster', tactical only battles, grab certain non-faction AI areas to get a large effect that enhances your army etc...).  Will that change the flavor of the game and make people call me a blasphemer?  Yeah, probably.  But then again, they can go back to playing SP, or MP with the 'original' format.  You want to bring as many people into this (now very niche) genre as possible in order to keep it going.  Doing this and having available MP mods could do it.

PS: I would buy the MP DLC - of course - only after making sure that all those single player gamers out there are happy with the existing SP game.  We wouldn't want them to point the finger at using precious resources for MP DLC for the reason why SP isn't exactly they way they'd expected it to turn out...

On second thought, that's untrue.  I would buy the MP DLC no matter what, seeing as how you've (Stardock) already used precious resources to give your single player TBS gaming base a second game for free.  No one should be complaining now, should they?  Thank You guys, for all the hard work you do.

on May 13, 2012

Never liked multiplayer too much, my skills at games are not that good to give me any chance, and my internet is lame enough to assure me that I will have to log off mid way.

I DO know that many others adore it, so I still think it should be in.

on May 13, 2012

I'm not in beta, so I won't vote in the poll. However, I'd like to put my opinion in. I should have enough "street cred" to be granted that I'll put my money (and time) where my mouth is. If FE is a good game then I would be willing to pay:

$1-5 - For Multiplay - Yes - A trivial cost

$10 - Multiplay - Yeah, but I'm not longer happy about it.

$5-10 for Cooperative Multiplay - Yes!

For me multiplay is: LAN or Internet, and making sure that I don't HAVE to go through Steam for any of this. I want to be able to play with my friends without needing the internet. I've recently been in the wilds of the world where internet access is not convenient, simple, or cheap. I don't want anything to do with needing a persistent internet connection. I'm even willing to sacrifice my accomplishments list and all of the fancy steamworks bits. PBEM would be a nice addition, but I'd never use it. I really would like to be able to play a cooperative version of FE, working together as a team and controlling the same side would be pretty cool.