I voted no, How about fixing what is broken before we add more complexity. How do you plan to player match ability. And for the love of GOD , fix the end turn lock !!

Well, they might decide to only include co-op play (or play between friends only), which FE would be well-suited for.  Then player matching is not an issue.

Coop IS multiplayer.

I'd love multiplayer but currently the game doesn't stay sync'd (item/stat duplication etc) for single player saves so I'm not sure how it could survive multiplayer ones. I mean who could play an epic strategy game in a single sitting thats quite the task and time commitment! I don't really expect games that have multiplayer tacked on later to have multiplayer worth playing personally and have yet to be proven wrong.

The tactical battle parts alone seem very hard to implement for multiplayer. I mean Age of Wonders did it fine 13 years ago and even had more complex things like range, friendly fire, obstacle-hampering, sieges, destructible buildings, and up to 12 players could play at once via LAN, Hotseat, PBEM, and Online so I can see how these things are probably ancient lore by now and probably impossible to implement in a modern game. Honestly threads like these make me doubt multiplayer ever happening in a way that anyone would enjoy, you don't really see threads asking if people would like to pay extra for multiplayer on Civ forums to use the most relevant example. I've been following Elemental since WoM and after reading about the "extensive focus on multiplayer that WoM had yet no one clicked on multiplayer option much" when tactical battles (arguably one of the key parts of the game) were all auto-calc'd I simply don't have high hopes. Anyone reading the forum and seeing that probably never bothered clicking on multiplayer, I know I didn't, maybe it was patched in later but I doubt it.

That being said I would love a multiplayer mode that worked and I would greatly appreciate being proven wrong with Fallen Enchantress, Warlock, and a couple other lesser known titles which hint or promise multiplayer support post-release. Would I pay a dollar? I would pay the full price of the game is what I would pay and so would some of my friends with whom I have spent countless hours playing strategy games like Civ 4, SOTS 1, SOASE, etc with. I'm personally of the opinion that multiplayer and modding support are what keep a game alive unless you have a massive hype-wagon and yearly new releases.

I voted no because i have no interest in multiplayer for this game

State of the voting:

Would you be willing to pay $1.00 for DLC that enabled multiplayer in Fallen Enchantress?

Yes: 42%
No: 58%

344 Total Votes

I don't play 4X games online, so I voted no.

Voted no.  Not big on multiplayer.  That's what board games are for

On a side note, I would be willing to purchase DLC (if it's substantial and not just cosmetic stuff) and the expansions.

I also voted NO.

I don't see myself playing even hotseat, though I had many nice games of Heroes 3 and 4 when I was younger.

4X TBS online multiplayer is horrible. I've only played Civ 4, but it took ages to set up a game, people were ragequitting all the time because they didn't like their spawn location, because they didn't get a wonder, because they didn't get a religion... And then of course, there was very limited number of viable strategies, which wouldn't get you curb-stomped in first 50 turns.

Hah Hah 59% say NO! Solo single players WIN again. No need to implement multiplayer until waaaaaaay down the road after the game is released. It's just a waste of resources to me because I would never play it multiplayer nor did I ever care to play Master of Magic multiplayer. In fact that's what's wrong with so many games today is they add a multiplayer element to the game and then spend all their resources after the game is released trying to balance it instead of IMPROVING THE AI. I'd much rather see a solo player game with ai improvements over the years than some stupid silly multiplayer element that only a handful of people play. Statistics have shown only 2% of the gamer base out there wants and/or plays the multiplayer elements of a game. Thus, proving it's just not worth wasting the effort and resources on it.

Yes, it's kind of often if game with single and multiplayer had shortlife span than single without multiplayer. There is way too many multiplayer game out there.

Ummm wait up: If it were 9% 'yes' and 91% said 'no', then there is no contest to me.  41% 'yes'?  That's still a large number, even if it's not over 50%.  Think of it: a little less than half of all the people that voted want to see a multiplayer component.

Also, your 'statistics have shown only 2% of the gamer base 'out there' wants or plays multiplayer elements of a game' - please, where did this information come from and how does it relate to this game?  Because again, it looks like 41% of this particular gamer base wants to play a multiplayer match.

Finally, based on your 'stupid, silly multiplayer element' remark: Is the poll really a multiplayer match that you won?     Did you enjoy it?  Then you voted against what you really wanted!

Joking aside, I think alot of people that say no to multiplayer have a conditioned knee-jerk reaction to this poll because (and this is my opinion, so take it with a grain of salt):

1. They are still waiting to see a 'win' on the SP side of things with the game even though they can obviously see that FE is head and shoulders above the previous attempt, while still being in beta form.  I don't know, but this seems irrational to me.

2. TBS games that have a multiplayer component are far and few between, even though there have been positive results in this arena in the past (AoW series, Jagged Alliance: DG, MoM, HoMM series, Sid Meyer's Alpha Centauri, MOO, Civilization series).  People are still playing these games because of the multiplayer component, I might add.

3. More of the people in the poll have just naturally gravitated towards SP games in general, so the poll is skewed.

 This game is a revolutionary iteration to the original Elemental game, and we can see the quality that has come out of it, correct?  Well, I'd be willing to (and have) vote(d) a 'yes' in the poll and pay for the DLC, because these guys just did a free do-over that didn't have to be done.  Let's give 'em a round to help inject some money back into the work they did for us.  

Having a working multiplayer mode can only help boost sales of the people that already 'own' the game: if those people are venturous enough to try it, they may like it - and they can then tell their friends to get the full game for a match or twenty.  I'd be willing to bet if it's good, those new purchasers will also try out the SP version...

The other thing that is good is, people have a choice as to whether they want to buy MP or not as it's a DLC component.

Give multi-player a dollar of a chance.  Sheesh!

there arent really many strategy games with a decent multi out there tbh

anyway back to the topic id pay whatever price if the multi is good(and the base game is good too), nothing if its not

Some people haven't understood the question. They read it as I pay $39 for SP or $40 for SP+MP. I don't mind paying a $1. However, if you read it as I paid $39 for the SP and now there is a separate DLC for just $1 would you bother with the hassle of paying and downloading? What I am seeing is that most people wouldn't bother. I certainly wouldn't bother.

Just create a solid, working, interesting single player version, then care about the multiplayer. The initial decision to scrap multiplayer and create as good as possible game was IMO the correct one. People demanding multiplayer are usually very vocal, then most of them never play it anyway.