MultiPlay Ruins Games. I hope they never add it.

All that MultiPlay brings is Nerfs, more Crybabies, and strange Balancing issues that make no sense.

He makes a good point. If they asked "would you pay for a multiplayer expansion" it would of gotten more votes then if they put a actual price.

If they would of put $10 for it they would of gotten even more. Or if they put that other things would be included with multiplayer it would of been more.

If they said would you pay for an expansion that includes multiplayer they would of gotten PLENTY of votes.

The thing is they dont want to do it so they word it in a way to make it sound bad.

If they would of put $10 for it they would of gotten even more. Or if they put that other things would be included with multiplayer it would of been more.

We wouldn't make a multiplayer expansion pack for $10.  $20 was the absolute minimum that we would have done a multiplayer expansion. And an expansion pack that didn't just have multiplayer would be essentially a $30 expansion pack of which $20 of the value was the multiplayer and we would put in other features (i.e. $10 worth).

Multiplayer is an expensive feature. And no matter how you slice it, the demand for it just isn't that significant. We've done other polls in the past. In GalCiv I, we even listed off several features people wanted in a GalCiv 1 expansion including multiplayer and multiplayer wasn't even #1 or #2.  Similarly, for GalCiv II we asked which features would people want and listed things like ship design, play as any player, better colonization options, etc along with multiplayer and mutiplayer still ended up being a distant 3rd or 4th.

At some point, people need to accept that the demand for multiplayer is in games is overstated. And I say that as someone who plays games multiplayer all the time as well as having developed lots of multiplayer games over the years.

Multiplayer is the Linux of features. That is, it has vocal advocates but when it comes time to count the numbers, there aren't many of them.

Frogboy I wonder when you are talking about multiplayer for 20bucks:
What would there be added?

Lan/Hotseat/email/internet/other forms?
Protocolls?
Game types? (like in other games: deathmatch,CTF, or whatever)
MP-scenarios?
A way to punish slow players?
whatever?

I do believe that a multiplayer that includes new game forms/protokolls/etc.... costs 20bucks.
But I wonder how much would be a simple hotseat (this shouldnt be much, or am I that wrong?) or a Lan (well thats surly more than hotseat but without any extras that shouldnt be too much either)

We wouldn't make a multiplayer expansion pack for $10. $20 was the absolute minimum that we would have done a multiplayer expansion. And an expansion pack that didn't just have multiplayer would be essentially a $30 expansion pack of which $20 of the value was the multiplayer and we would put in other features (i.e. $10 worth). Multiplayer is an expensive feature.

That's because you're looking at an ALL or NOTHING option in regards to multiplayer. Instead of providing multiplayer as HOTSEAT and PBEM which almost work now within the game. Unfortunately your developing team only views the multiplayer if the entire package is added, some all in one swoop which means HOTSEAT, PBEM, LAN, ONLINE, extra Mulitplayer Diplomacy, messaging between players and Multiplayer Balance.
Of course going FULL MULTIPLAYER is going to take most of your developing slots... that's like telling a starving child if he can't eat the whole cow he's not getting any food in the future.
HOTSEAT and PBEM would satisfy most of the multiplayer gamers... which is 1.5 slots since it's virtually working now !

And no matter how you slice it, the demand for it just isn't that significant. We've done other polls in the past. In GalCiv I, we even listed off several features people wanted in a GalCiv 1 expansion including multiplayer and multiplayer wasn't even #1 or #2.

That is because the original game and this current game is SP_ONLY. How can you expect to get an accurate poll of ALL potential customers interested for Multiplayer when your community is SP_ONLY gamers ! As I have said before placing polls on a SP_ONLY game website and asking about multiplayer will obviously get poor MP results. It would be the same as walking into a symphony and asking everyone seated if they would like to buy some baseball tickets.

Your multiplayer poll on this website would be the same as Blizzard setting up a WorldofWarcraft poll on the official WoW website asking if gamers would be interested in a SP_ONLY expansion for $20.oo... you can be certain the results would be the same as what you experienced.
Setup a poll which is outside of this singleplayer fishbowl !

Similarly, for GalCiv II we asked which features would people want and listed things like ship design, play as any player, better colonization options, etc along with multiplayer and mutiplayer still ended up being a distant 3rd or 4th. At some point, people need to accept that the demand for multiplayer is in games is overstated. And I say that as someone who plays games multiplayer all the time as well as having developed lots of multiplayer games over the years. Multiplayer is the Linux of features. That is, it has vocal advocates but when it comes time to count the numbers, there aren't many of them.

ONE_THIRD of the community wants multiplayer... that is a significant percentage no matter how you slice the pie.
FROGBOY... if you believe your GAL_CIV_2 is so great... then increase its replay value by adding multiplayer which will also increase its gaming community. With multiplayer even a SP_ONLY gamer would have increased replay value by being able to play two nations at the same time allowing him/her to play at even the hardest difficulty.

I don't think it is really a question of jewelry OR multiplayer

I don't recognize anyone within the topic comparing or debating between jewelry and multiplayer.