Id be annoyed at first, but you know what? As long as its quality I will pay for it.

As long as it is multiplayer that is like singleplayer, then the cost of adding it should not be too great given how much stuff would be shared resources. In theory the heavy lifting for the networking would be done by Impulse::Reactor and assuming the core game is well designed then it should be able to handle more players with little to no change.

This is why the way they are doing it now is rediculous. You should either optimize the game for multiplayer or singleplayer and not make them separate games (thus making it harder to share work between them). That is trying to please everyone and as we all know that does not work.

I get the impression that adding multiplayer is more about the time required to do it than anything else. It sounds like they are busy full time just getting the single player up and running, FE is in Alpha and WoM multiplayer is all but non-existent. Maybe after the dust dettles and before they start thinking about a new title... just maybe they will find time to squeeze multiplayer in somewhere. Understandably some people want nothing to do with it, but IF the game if fun like GCII was I would play MP about 80% of the time. I would certainly be willing to pay extra to have multiplayer. Hell I would go out and buy 3 copies of GCII tomorrow if it meant I could get MP.

Hell I actually agree with Mandragoran on this one, let us get a working game before we jump the mulityplayer mountain lion!! I would also rather have a Hotseat multiyplayer than what is presently offered, I might actually try it then!!

Chopping your game into little pieces to be sold separately is bad art. Expansions are one thing, DLC is another. It's hard to make good games, and nobody needs to make it even harder on themselves. The crap they are pulling with Civ5 is an outrage. I bought a half empty shell of a game and now they want me to get excited about a new civ every couple of months. I'd pay $100 for a proper Civ game any day, but I don't even want to waste my time on half of one.

I agree completely. I think that spending the extra time making SP amazing would only benefit a later addition MP DLC. The general problem with this push for SP like MP is that it places additional strain on SP experience. For instance, say the developers figure out a really cool set of mechanics that work great in SP but are either unfun or not workable in MP. Since the devs want to make SP and MP as closely linked as possible, the devs decide not to put in some really cool mechanics simply because it is not fun or workable in SP. While this example seems a bit far fetched, it is the undertone of most of the SP like MP arguments. In recent posts, Frogboy has said that they are doing a bunch of things for SP only because they can be done in a reasonable amount of time and would be alot of fun. Yet, the reactions to these statements from MP supporters basically state that if SP gets something MP should get it and if MP has to be nerfed then you should just nerf SP and not tell us at all.

If the price of the game was normal, personally I would never pay additionaly for a standard feature as MP.

Actually bullshit like this would make me pirate that game just to send a message.

And actually, since I bought EWoM and was promised next two expansions for free and then I would need to pay for a basic functionality like MP this would be the last Stardock game I would ever buy.

This is why I'm not sold on the business decision- it would force you to underprice your base game.

EWOM is $50.  Suppose the market standard for AAA games moves to $60.  You sell GalCiv III for $50+$10 MP, and people will scream gouging, sell it for $60 and they won't.

Economics assumes rationality.  Gamers aren't always rational.

Honestly, Alstein is correct, sometimes gamers can be a bit wacky about these types of things. In general, you have a couple of good options. First, you could simply sell the game + a DLC for MP. Secondly, you could release the game as SP only, then later a delux edition which includes MP, as well as a DLC for MP for those who already have the base product. The first case is the one alstein is arguing against and in some ways he is right about the irrationality of consumers, though this would probably be the most rational option. The second option would use a kind of marketing trick, wherein you release a more expensive option that players don't really complain about while also giving the more rational choice one in the guises of an upgrade pack instead of a DLC.

If something is unfun and/or unworkable in MP, the why would if be fun and/or workable in SP? If it is because the AI cannot/will not use it but players can /will then it does not need to be in the game anyways. It would be atleast as hard to make it useable by the AI and just as unfun when it uses it against you.

However said quests are random and can have a major impact on the out come of the game, especially on small maps. That is the part the makes quest objectionable is MP. I find AoW diplomacy to be better in than that of Elemental as you can make meaningful deals such as ceeding over lands. Not as deep maybe, but it is more interesting. The largest remaining part of the MP for AoW (any version) is PBEM which does not have TC (and this is not because TC is unfun, PBEM just works better for peoples' scedules) and it quite fun.

And the AoW:SM AI can build cities, but only once pioneers have been made useful in combat by a mod.

I'm sorry, where exactly in my post was I begging? I think I made it pretty clear when I said "I know I'll never use it." that I'd not be interested in buying DLC that adds support for multiplayer. Great reading comprehension there.

Thank you Heyhello.

The Progress, I was pointing out the betrayal of yours and our interest in suggesting adding this as DLC.  It's a dishonest trend in the market and should not be encouraged by anyone.

An alternate argument you could have made would have been to suggest that they dedicate a team to making a proper multiplayer side so as to encourage competative play.  It could be argued that this would increase word of mouth sales and generate a wider market base.  Of course this shouldn't come at the expense of the current singleplayer resources, as that would sacrifice the integrity of the Stardock name, which, granted is a little bruised after Elemental, but by no means irredeamable.

The way you're approaching this is like walking into a Bedouine market place with 100 dollar bills popping out of overflowed pockets telling the dealers how awesome all their merchandise is and asking how much they want for it.