FLAME: Why have these biased polls?

WOW. You really uncovered some conspiracy here! /rolleyes

pricing such as $9.95 rather that $10.00 or $1999.00 rather than $2000.00 is a tried and true practice going back hundreds of years. So your bashing them for THAT? /rolleyes

Also, producing a 'standalone' expansion pack as opposed to adding it on to the original game costs more (proportionately).

Call Geraldo Rivera; we've got something BIGGER than Al Capones' vault, folks! x43

oh oh Multiplayer fanboy on the loose.....

Seriously, Stardock has now stated that the 8.95 option will probably be rolled into the next full expansion so they can concentrate on that .

If theh time to develop multiplayer can be justified, Stardock would do it. But it looks right now that a lot of other things are more important for a lot of the current users.

Remember, all current users are SP now, so Stardock knows it can count on a lot of current sales to pony up for the expansion pack if it improves on the SP stuff.

Let's hop they make oodles of money and feel comfortable enough to risk spending money to pay programmers to code the multiplayer stuff, or support a online hotseat type of game.

i don't understand the big deal.

i mean, really.

so it doesn't have multiplayer. and maybe it won't in the future.

okay.

what's with all the emotion?

Making it less then a full dollar amount is a common buisness practice, aside from ice cream trucks and vending machines, nothing is priced to a full dollar amount anymore.

As for the $10- $20 thing, it is differant when you think about it. The $10 would be to include it in witht he game for everyone to play. Not everyone wants it, and some of those might not buy it if the cost were more. So, they lowered the cost to get those buyers. To go back and produce it now would cost the same, but the return would not be made up from every sale, so the price goes up. Since not everyone would be contributing to the cost speant to produce it, they must charge more to offset production cost, as well as make some money.

Example: Let's say 300,000 copies of the game are sold. A ten dollar increase gives us an extra revenue of $3,000,000. That would then pay for the expenses of the game addition. (Not taking into account any drop in sales due to higher price). But, if they sold the item seperatly (which still gurentees the most of the previous sales) and only 50% of the people want it, and they still charge $10, they only come out with $1,500,000. In order to make it worth it, they must raise the price, or take a loss in profit, or possibly not even break even.

I would have gladly payed the extra $10 for built in, but they felt the cost/gain/time ratio to not be worht it. I understand, and if the $20 pack comes out, I will likely buy it (depends if my brother is still playing, so the sooner the better!)

I hope you don't see this as a flame, I don't intend it as such, mearly an explanation of a reason.

Feel free to mock me (It is a 'FLAME' post, after all).

You'll excuse me if I'd like to play with real people, rather than 'play with myself' or with AI blowup dolls.

Somebody call the WAHHHHHHH-bulance.

Stardock obviously wants to do a jewlery pack, so it presents it in the most pleasing form possible ($8.95 instead of $9). When GC2 originally was released, they indicated that omitting Multiplayer shaved approximately $10 from the price....and yet when the poll was done on MP, they asked if people would be willing to pay $20 (not $19.95 or $9.95) for the expansion. And now, Since (slightly) over 50% of the current number of people playing this game like extras for their ships, they are likely going to get their wish. While 33% of the current number of people who frequent this site have indicated that they would pay for a (overpriced) Multiplayer, and yet they are poo-poo'd as being unrealistic. Ask yourself: Which would create more sales? A jewlery pack that would let you feed Incestuously on your current customers, or a MP expansion that would satify 33% of you current clients AND encourage additional sales of the original game? Come clean, Stardock. You don't want to do a MP expansion, so please don't piss around with these transparent PR attempts.

#1 selling game -- Sims 2 add on pack -- all it does is add extras such as furniture. Price 20$.

lol.

fair point.

but i still don't see where all the emotion comes from.

it sounds desperate...

you're not that desperate, are you?

(aye, playing with AI blowup dolls does mitigate a lot of "frustration"...but perhaps your appetite is stronger than mine.)

i can't say ive seduced many "people" with a "tone" like yours in the Original Post.

maybe i'm trying to play with the wrong sort of people...?

-0.

Seriously, Stardock has now stated that the 8.95 option will probably be rolled into the next full expansion so they can concentrate on that .

I hope they are smarter than that. Almost half have stated they were not willing to pay for it so why add it to the next exapansion pack and increase the cost of it?

i dont think it'll increase the cost as much as "add value".

but that's just an assumption.

-0.

Small useless infomation side note....

The reason prices are marked to just below the full dollar (or pound here in England etc.) is so that the people who took the money for the product would have to open the till to get change, this meant it was much easier to stop staff stealing money from the company, since there would be a record of the transaction. Ok completely off the point but i love sharing useless bits of infomation

I'm with you on this Binnister. Specially on the mp-thing. They talk about 10$ and then they poll for 20$ without giving choice on how much people would buy it if it was only 10$. If the polls had any actual significance then they would ask 'cuz if the sales would be more then doubble on 10$ it would be worth it. Now they justed wanted a lot of people to say: no I won't pay 20$ you freaks! I say the poll the first day and already knew the answer. Not fair..

it doesn't make any sense.

why would SD put up a "rigged" poll in order to fabricate an "excuse" not to do MP?

really.

i'm just sayin.

wouldn't it be in their best interest to really find out the best way to increase revenue with the resources they have? wouldn't that make fiscal sense, and show fiscal responsibility?

i wouldn't mind MP; but then I wouldn't mind if Vogue hired me as a photographer either...

but I'm not gonna gnash my teeth, spit fire, and wave my fist in the air calling for a revolution.

there are plenty of other, higher stakes, issues for that kind of emotion than frikkin MP on a computer game...

but perhaps, I'm wrong...?

tell me I'm wrong.

Cry me a river, smacktard.

Somebody call the WAHHHHHHH-bulance.

Quoted for truth.

Heh.. I'm not trying to seduce anyone....when have FLAMERS had any basis in reality? I was strickly venting my spleen about a perceived 'hidden adgenda' (I think I'm better now )

Good point about the $10 extra game cost vs $20 optional expansion (I admit, I didn't think of it that way).

I think it comes down to this:

Years ago, I got Masters of Orion 2 and I loved it (it stole many a night away for many years). Now, eventhough it had 'multiplayer' I had no interest in participating in it. Time passed and my interests moved slowly but surely to more MP-based games (to the point where 90% of the games I play are MP).

Then comes the release of GC2

In my eyes, it is EASILY the heir apparent to my all-time fav MOO2, so it's a no-brainer to buy it. Better yet, eventhough it doesn't have MP, the dev's have indicated that its is likely to be added in a expansion at a later date.

But then something strange happens: After an inital rush of excitement & joy of having a wonderful game, it becomes a chore to play.

'That's ok' I say to myself. 'They plan on expanding to Multiplayer. I'm sure that they'll do that as well as they've done everything else."

But then come the Dev Journals.
But then come the bais polls.

It becomes very clear that the Dev's don't WANT to do MP if they can get away with it.

And I feel (whether this has basis in reality or no) a bit betrayed.

So their you have it. The sad, pitiful story of a SP-turned-MP gamer who is pining for his lost innocence.

to original poster, what type of MP would you want? Hotseat, EMAIL based? Surely you would not want to sit there for hours on end playing against a group of people online.

Personally I don't think a multiplayer expansion pack would be a good business idea, the fact is they've already lost anyone who would be interested in the initial release, also anyone who didn't buy the original because of it's lack of multiplayer probably wouldn't buy both the expansion and the original.

That said if they should ever produce Galactic Civilisations 3 (which they should...) or a standalone expansion, then multiplayer should be in, the one big criticism reviewers had was the lack of multiplayer, so obviously they're hinting at something...

Though personally I don't think they should focus on jewellery either, though it should form part of the package a better idea would be to focus on major gameplay innovations, like radically different civs(if it works) a la rts style, or things like terror star mechanics etc. I would definitely prefer new features to more "eye candy"

see, i think if all the people that wanted MP tried to "seduce" the devs, they might have considered it more seriously.

i mean, if you can "seduce" someone to come home with you (with all its "risks"), you can 'seduce' someone to write code for you.

and yes, theres a difference between "buttkissing" and "seduction"--if you dont know the difference, find out. i guarantee you'll be less "frustrated". (all though, in some circles the physical act of "buttkissing" is considered pleasurable...)

i'm just sayin it was possible. now, less so.

but i understand the disappointment.

Traxas, BinnisterGC2, you two act as if this kind of think is totaly unheard of and has never happened before....

Let me take you back (if either of you are old enough)....2001, Civilization III hits the shelves....But wait, I recall NO MULTIPLAYER!!!....huh, that's odd, remind you of something?

Fast forward....2002....Civilization III: Play the World expansion hits the shelves....MSRP $30.00 (That's more than $20, if either of you geniuses didn't notice)

My Point....Quit being DICKS and go play something else and quit bothering us (who happen to like the game) with your stupid thoughts.

I prefer good single player game.

How do you expect to have a good game in multiplayer in that kind of game ? It would be impossible to make a long game with the same player.

For thoses who know superpower 2, the game, the multiplayer is really fun, but it's really hard to play a serious long game in multiplayer, because you just need 1 idiot to ruin the game. (In superpower 2, you have nuke weapon so if someone start nuking other country the AI respond and thoses country with nuclear weapon too. lol, since it's 191 country playable, it's a ton of AI you know !)

Multiplayer. I've never done it before. I don't think I would want to attempt it in a turn based game. Sometimes I take many many minutes to do one turn. I'd feel kindof bad for whoever I'd be playing against. Real-time games would be good though. There's no waiting around for someone to take their turn.

How come there aren't any games like Galactic Civilizations that are real-time instead of turn-based? Is it just overly difficult to do?

I can not understand why those who want the game (AI) to be harder just don't go in and change the XML files. Just boost several or all of the attributes of the opponents (and/or set all yours to 0) and watch your butt get kicked. Or even easier, just push the Turn buttom 50 or 100 turns (on Suicidal, only takes a couple of minutes) without doing anything else and then see if you can catch up. I used this method to make HOMM3 maps harder when I had mastered the game but still enjoyed playing.

I would like to see some form of hot seat multiplayer so I could play with the kids if they are hanging out for the weekend. I think this is the easiest type to implement and I remember reading something on the forum about Cheat mode and the ability to emulate hot seat.

As to other multiplayer options, I have no desire to wait for long periods of time for someone to finish their turn, besides I play irregular at best (Maybe 10 minutes today, but 6 hours the next day, then nothing for a couple of days... so LAN/internet multiplayer would make no sense from my point of view).

Final note......Patience grasshopper(s). There will come a time when they release multiplayer, this is America and every teat gets drained dry (on the cash cow).

Cheers,
Superconductor

Though personally I don't think they should focus on jewellery either, though it should form part of the package a better idea would be to focus on major gameplay innovations, like radically different civs(if it works) a la rts style, or things like terror star mechanics etc. I would definitely prefer new features to more "eye candy"

This gives their artist something to work on. Just because they are releasing "eye candy" does not mean that they are not working on improvements with the code. I really don't think the jewelry package was meant to take the place of an expansion. SD just wanted to know if they should allocate artist resources for jewelry or assign them to another project. While I guess this poll could be considered bias as they are asking their customers, it still has nothing to do with what the programers are or are not doing. At 8.95 selling 25k copies would possibily pay for itself as the time involved is fairly small (I have not a clue as to what it would cost to produce, just throwing out numbers.) Now when you start taking about coding you have to include things such as time with a development team. As the time to produce a finished product will take longer with more people involved, the cost associated with the product will increase so there will have to be more sales and a higher price to produce a profit. As much as we would like, SD is not in business for charity.

Stardock obviously wants to do a jewlery pack, so it presents it in the most pleasing form possible ($8.95 instead of $9). When GC2 originally was released, they indicated that omitting Multiplayer shaved approximately $10 from the price....and yet when the poll was done on MP, they asked if people would be willing to pay $20 (not $19.95 or $9.95) for the expansion.

Hmm.... Just thinking, it is a accepted marketing practice to use a off amount. 8.95, 19.99, 29.99. 19.95 for an item. Thats how pricing works for many items.

Studies show that people accept it, know that the real value is, for example, 9.20,30,20 dollars, know in their mind its a pricing gimmick, but are still much more likely to buy at the magic lower number. Go figgya. The trick is people no longer think its sleezy now, it is accepted.


Maybe, Frogboy did subconciously bias the survey by rounding up the multiplayer survey cost to the real value, instead of stating the marketing price point as he did with the other surveys. It may not even have been intentional, but may have been a 'freudian" slip or poker tell.

The bottom line is he will allocate resources tfor multiplayer as a business decision. He's not going to tell multiplayer fans to go screw themselves out of spite or something. Give the guy a break.

Appreciate whatcha got for pitys sakes .... Says the guy waiting inpatiently for the 1.12 Beta.

My guess would be that there was some influence on the way they chose to ask those questions, even if at a near sub-concious level. My guess is that they are just further along with the jewlry pack idea, and yes, probably more likely to do one while the other poll was just testing the multiplayer market's waters. This game was not designed, or intended to be multiplayer. That's not to say it couldn't be added, but it was probably a major decision already passed / agreed upon by the execs, etc. So I'm not surprised if they are reluctant to go back on their decision based on whatever marketing research they had done as well as their original vision of the game having an AI that would make multiplayer unecessary.

I hope you aren't taking it as personally as it 'sounded' from your post, since I really don't think that the same poll with a $19.95 price tag would have given much different results. Not enough to change their stance on the issue at least.

There is that multiplayer hotseat cheat if you are indeed desperate, but I learned that I didn't like multiplayer for this kind of turn based game back when I had MOO2.

... with AI blowup dolls.

When you go for conquest victory, that's really what they are, blowed up.