No it isn't, the question is "would you pay a dollar for multiplayer in FE".

The answer "No because I hate multiplayer" is a perfectly valid response.

If he MEANT to ask "if you wanted multiplayer, would you pay an extra dollar for it" then he should have asked that.

I play Civilization V exclusively using the Giant Multiplayer Robot these days, and it works brilliant.

So, I voted yes, but I really hope the game will have asynchronous turns, with some sort of notification system.

(Either that, or you could ask Giant Multiplayer Robot to support Elemental in addition to Civilization V perhaps?)

I didn't see a vote...I'm probably too late. However, I would vote 'no'. 4x games are meant to be played Single Player, imo....thus no need for internet connection to play the game....thus NO NEED for steam.

I would hope that if Elemental games come to Steam in some form, they don't also become Steam required, even if they do have multiplayer.  However Brad, what was that about the notify and play infrastructure that was already put in place for Elemental multiplayer?  Couldn't that be used instead of Steam for the approximately 25% of players who don't want to use Steam?

To my notes, they only run 1 voting poll at a time, so when they start a new one they hide the old
Hope the knowledge helps

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

As long as 'notify and play' means entering your cd code and BRIEFLY connecting to a server to validate before NEVER having to connect to them again...EVEN if you reinstall the game at a later date.

If it includes installing Steam, I'm not interested.

I think a big problem is illustrated in some of the posts here.  Multiplayer is probably used by 10% or less of the player base for a TBS game, and of that less-than-10% there is no consensus on the "best" way to implement it.  So for the money involved you'd only be satisfying some fraction of 1/10th of your customers.  Not worth it when you could implement something cool for the 90% instead.

By notify and play I mean you have your turn, then it notifies the next human player to have their turn, so you don't all have to be on at the same time.  I was not referring to DRM.

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

I disagree, mostly because my back makes me only really able to enjoy turn based games.
I do think TBS games are better suited for casual multiplayerneering, where the players involved sit in the same room, though, but can help me relax.

I am happy they made this poll, and atleast researched the subject, all I can ask for

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

As an adult gamer, I would agree for my own situation.

As a child, I played HOMM with my brothers and VERY rarely with friends using hot seat on the single household PC.

Children have a ton of free time though.

Also hotseat with siblings keeps them safely away from the internet.

Not only children
Cripples too!

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

No.

I have zero interest in multiplayer for this type of game.

It's odd since I grew up playing competitive board games - but I have never enjoyed competitive computer games as much as single player.

I also get sick of seeing the availability of MP as justification for weak AI in single player games (not something that's a problem with SD games).

The only computer games I play online are co-op, like minecraft with friends, aRPG like TL2, and I've been an MMORPG addict since EQLive released - but I don't like PvP in MMORPGs unless it has a grand scope with purpose like DAoC's RvR or the upcoming WvWvW in GW2 - the random gank-based garbage that passes for PvP in most MMORPGs doesn't suit me and the idea of e-sport contained in MMORPGs makes me want to projectile vomit.

Multiplayer means coop too?
Thats what id use it for anyways.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

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. . .