This game, mulitplayer, and single player.

High Lord Turin

Join Date 08/2006

This game, mulitplayer, and single player.

When I first saw this game on the self in Best Buy I thought wow, this is awesome. I've been trying to find a good space game, something I can play with my friends and has a good single player experience. The ablilty to capture planets and construct my own ships from the hull up were features of the perfect game. Well I got home and opened it up and NO MULTIPLAYER. Well I was shocked, I mean what games doesn't have multiplayer in these days? And it was turn based to boot, not that was bad, I wanted a turn based game, but I didn't know there was any turned based game made that didn't have the hot seat option. Well I jump online as fast as possible and get on the website and I'm looking for the reason my fleets aren't crushing someone. I read that they left out multiplayer because they wanted to focus on the single player aspect of the game. Ok but it would take a novice programer to have a basic multiplayer hotseat only a day or two, if that long to add it. This means that the game's makers are stupid or lazy. I did see the poll that says people arn't interested in a multiplayer option, but as someone noted those who see the game has no multiplayer arn't going to hang around to take polls, so the poll is misleading and stopping the player community from getting what they want. I play a lot of games and so do my friends and family. They thought this game was incredable until they learned no multiplayer. You lost about 20 something sales right there. Not to mention with no mulitplayer I doubt I wil buy the expansion and neithor will all those who didn't buy the game because of the lack of a multiplayer feature. Your losing tons of sales because you couldn't be bothered to wait 2 more days to launch the game.
I didn't get on here to rant about Dread Lords, I got on here to try and knock some sense into Stardock, which will most likely not be around for long with its marketing plan. Anyway back to the game. Ok I say so they focused on the single player, I mean its got be be good right? Wrong. Not that the game its self is bad but the campaign should have been a lot better. I love the ship construction feature, the UI, the graphics, the space battles, the land battles, the planet system, the random crap, the AI, I love pretty much the entire game engine and the idea. But the campaign was a huge letdown. Why? There was almost no cutscenes, a game like this should have tons of cutscenes. Second there was having to research the same techs every mission. Are humans incapable of remembering anything? Or do we have to start from scratch every few years? And then there are the missions, invade some planets. If that was my goal I'd play customs games. I want plot driven battle, interesting adventures, etc. Not invade the planet again after researhing the same tech tree again. For someone that cutout multiplayer for single player it has the worst single player of any game I've played. If players stop with the camp half way through to play custom missions then your campaign needs a rewrite.
What Stardock has in Dread Lords is the chance to make a game that shows us that the turn based gameing genre is not dead. To show us the games like Age of Wonders II was not the last of its kind. By the way if you need a base for your mulitplayer look at this game because this is the way it should be done. Stardock needs to pull its socks up and get to work, launch a patch that gives us pvp, give us in the expansion a gripping campaign with tons of cutscenes and make it non-linear for the love of your customer base. You got a game that could make you tons of money and give your company a chance at lasting 5 years, otherwise someone will buy you out and does Galactic Civilizations III right.

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

It's hard to say. GalCiv II has done very well but games are still less than half our revenue and there won't be any new major Stardock games for a bit other than GalCiv II related stuff.

Personally I hope you do stick to GC2 stuff. I think GC2 is a very good game with the potential to be really fanatastic. I see all sorts of possibilities for $20 spin offs of the main game and maybe even some pay per month options of the game.

Actually, you looking for any investment money? Don't have much but wouldn't mind sticking a little bit in and hitching a ride.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I like the gc-II sandbox games the most. I hope GC-III's multiplayer doesn't take away from it's single-player sandbox playability.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Message to Brad:

Stop it. We like Kryo's thunder.

And for myself and the multiplayer question. I voted no in the original poll.

Currently however, I would vote yes, at least for network multiplayer, because my nephew just bought the game (and loves it too) and we could play here at home.

But as far as online multiplayer, I think it is totally impractical. Matthew, my nephew, would like to see it, but only if the game were also made real time. This type of turn based play would be too difficult to keep interesting.

He does not agree that adding in a multiplayer option, if done right, would take a mere day or two. He plays a lot of RTS online games, and would like to see a version of GalCiv take that form. But as it stands he understands well the logistics of keeping this particular incarnation of the game single player.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Elder Scrolls IV outsold it

Yeah but Oblivion outsold pretty much everything, And it didn't have multiplayer. So what's your point?

And with muiltiplayer, that's not only beating a dead horse, that's draging the buried horse out of the ground and beating it, just when you thought the dead horse could rest in peace. And besides the hours that you use designing ships, a game will last forever, besides multiplayer is something devs are supposed to leave in bloody gory shooters.

You lost about 20 something sales right there.

Holy shitty sunday! Stardocks DOOMED, 20 sales out of the millions they've already sold.

Damn dude what's the deal with ranting about the campaign, this is a stategy game, not an RPG.

Successfully updated karma reason!

lol @ this thread..

MP should be in a MP-only expansion. That way the MP fans can put their money where their mouth is and buy it, but I suspect they won't. They like it hidden amongst SP features, so SP fans help to fund it and they don't have to spend so much on something which is their personal preference.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You do understand that once the MP fans got thier way, they would just get owned by the people that have no outside lives and then those people will be the only ones playing this game online anymore.

Online Arena = Only the strong survive (or if you are an optimist, "Fortune Favors the Bold")

Successfully updated karma reason!

I like multiplayer a lot. But in turn based games, I'm going to end up playing it single player. I haven't played Civ IV multiplayer since I first got it and that was just to try it out really.

GalCiv II as a single player game: $39.95

GalCiv II as a multiplayer also game: $49.95.

We made the decision that the 95% of users shouldn't have to subsidize the 5% of players who want multiplayer.

All our other games have multiplayer. That fact seems to get lost. Heck, Stellar Frontier -- 1997, one of the first "MMO" type games ever. Trials of Battle -- 1996, one of the first FPS's that allowed dynamic adding and leaving (pre-Quake era). Those were in our OS/2 days so few people have heard of them.

Our next title, The Political Machine 2008 is multiplayer. We have another strategy game due out in 2009 which is multiplayer. Society, which isn't going to be out any time soon but is in development is multiplayer. And odds are, a future GalCiv sequel would have multiplayer but only because the player base of GalCiv has gotten large enough to justify it.

It's ultimately a cut and dry business decision. GalCiv I sold around 75,000 full-priced units and an equal # of discounted price units. IF let's say 5% (and that's being generous) of the market would choose to purchase it because it had multiplayer (and let's be clear - a major feature has to be able to justify its cost in being able to put a user over the edge of the purchase/no-purchase decision for it to be worth it).

But for the sake of argument, let's say that feature would have added an additional 10% to the market. For GalCiv I, that would only be 7,500 units. Not remotely worth it. GalCiv II is likely to do double that so that's 15,000 units. By GalCiv III you could be looking at 20,000 units more being purchased because of that. At that point, it starts to make sense.

Multiplayer could show up as a feature of a future expansion pack as well. It really depends on how well Dark Avatar does (in the sense that we have to see how much demand there are for expansion packs and what % of the GalCiv II audience we can reach).

Successfully updated karma reason!

It's just so silly. He admitted that he loved everything that was supposed to be loved about this game. The custom games are this game. You love the gameplay, so play custom games and forget about the campaign. MP only seems like a good idea, and as Frogboy said, it wouldn't have justified the cost to make it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Thanks for the feedback all. I'm sorry if it sounded more like a rant then the constructive critism I wanted. I was just trying to get across that in the current market players expect multiplayer, unless its a rpg that makes multiplayer impossible, like the Elder Scrolls games. The fact is that a game without multiplayer is half a game. Other games don't charge your for an extra multiplayer feature because its expected. Its like buying a book and having to pay an extra $20 for the last 3 chapters. Might explain why you only sold 75,000 copies.

Dread Lords isn't a bad game but its not all that great eithor. If you want to compete with the major game companies you have to do better then make average games. I knew what I was getting, ie no multiplayer, but I expected the rest of the game to be great. If it is possible to play a hot seat game by using the ctrl-shift-z cheat it can't be that hard to make a hot seat system in a patch. You said so yourself, you made Dread Lords so you could easily add multiplayer later.

You also might want to get better marketing data. You've done a few polls and you think you know what people want, but the truth of it is people who don't want to play Dread Lords in its current state arn't going to hang around and do polls. You only have people taking polls who like everything the way it is. And if every game is shipping with mulitplayer then I would say that its is a feature most people, not all, want. True some games can hold up without it but they are rare exceptions to the rule.

Successfully updated karma reason!

kryo

Join Date 05/2003

+458

The fact is that a game without multiplayer is half a game. Other games don't charge your for an extra multiplayer feature because its expected.

They do charge extra for multiplayer. They just don't tell you that it was the extra man-hours adding it that made the game cost more at retail like we do.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hmm. Am I the only one who gets offended when I'm told I'm only half a gamer? Gee, I guess I can't be a real gamer because I don't like multiplayer. WTF? I get so tired of this bullcrap. The fact is, not all games need multiplayer, and there is a significant portion of the market that does not want to play pisspoor SP games because all the money went on the MP. I want a decent SP experience, and I'm tired of funding the hobby of people who have to play online because they can't make friends in the real world.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Might explain why you only sold 75,000 copies.

Being in the top 10 retail games is an "only"? You're talking rubbish here. MP is not needed, not justified, not wanted. GC2 is not half a game, and you show your ignorance of the forum structure. You think people who want nothing new are the only ones who hang out here? Have you been here since release? Have you seen the hundreds of tactical combat posts? Come back when you have a clue.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think Brad has made it clear time and time again why multiplayer is not in GC2. He has laid out his reasonings, and like them or not, they are what they are. Polls have shown only 1/3 of the players want MP.
I myself would love to see MP in GC2 but I see Brad's reasoning and understand where he is coming from, GC2 is a great single player game because it is not a multiplayer game.

What you have managed to prove here is that MP fanatics have a loud voice, but are still in the minority.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'm not in a minority, just one of the few people who don't go, this sucks, and never take a second look. The fact that anyone except the limited group of diehards even bothers to post or take one of your worthless polls is remarkable.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Then leave. You ARE the minority, get over it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The fact is, it is a great game with or without multiplayer. No half rate game makes it to the top 10 list, and no half rate game gets the reviews GalCiv2 has had since its release.

And Stardock does not compete with the mega companies like EA. They are far and away a better company, and care more for their customers than those companies ever have.
No sw company in my experience has been so open and up front, so willing to go the extra distance, so responsive to their customers requests and needs as is Stardock.

They may be smaller, but they are not inferior in any way.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Amen

Successfully updated karma reason!

Sword of the Stars have multiplayer.

Maybe it'll be more your bag: http://www.swordofthestars.com/

However..

The fact is that a game without multiplayer is half a game. Other games don't charge your for an extra multiplayer feature because its expected. Its like buying a book and having to pay an extra $20 for the last 3 chapters. Might explain why you only sold 75,000 copies.

The first sentence is utter nonsense considering that most people never play strategy games multiplayer even if it is in there.

Secondly, other games DO charge extra for multiplayer. Civ IV is $50. Age of Empires 3 is $50. Players pay for multiplayer regardless.

Lastly, GalCiv 1 "only" sold 75,000 full priced copies. On a game that cost $400k to make, you do the math. What I think some people forget is that game development is a job. We spend X to make Y. if Y is greater than X, we're happy. GalCiv II has sold over 100,000 units in its first 90 days.

You also might want to get better marketing data. You've done a few polls and you think you know what people want, but the truth of it is people who don't want to play Dread Lords in its current state arn't going to hang around and do polls. You only have people taking polls who like everything the way it is. And if every game is shipping with mulitplayer then I would say that its is a feature most people, not all, want. True some games can hold up without it but they are rare exceptions to the rule.

You are certain people want multiplayer because...well because you want multiplayer really really badly. We are certain demand for multiplayer isn't that huge because we've been making multiplayer strategy games for a decade and know from being in the industry the real % of users who make use of multiplayer in strategy games.

But at the end of the day, in our roles as evil, greedy, soul eating capitalists, our job is to make sure the game is profitable. That way, we can drive around in our gold plated rocket cars and sneer back at the people who gave us wedgies in high school.

Multiplayer is just a feature. It has a cost associated to it and a benefit associated. We decided that the easiest way to get our Ipod equipped Segways was to put our budget into other features instead. The sales seem to bear this decision out.

Successfully updated karma reason!

High Lord Turin: I sympathize with your desire to have options added to the game. Many posters to this forum have expressed a wide variety of opinions that, in their views, would improve Galciv2. I, myself, have championed tactical combat as an added option. The poll [or polls] previously mentioned allowed forum visitors to vote for the option that they would most like added. A little surprisingly, multi-player wasn't even in the top three. Not surprisingly [to me] tactical combat was the option that came in first.

Even with that, there seems no way tac combat will be included in the game until Galciv3, if then. The point, then, is that no matter what seems like a good idea to you or to the hundreds [thousands] of tac combat supporters that voted in the poll, the final decision as to what goes in the game belongs to Stardock. It's their game, their company, their decision. It's the gaming publics decision as to whether to purchase and play the game.BTW, I continue to play Galciv2 nearly every day, and look forward to the next patch and Dark Avatar.

Successfully updated karma reason!

We made the decision that the 95% of users shouldn't have to subsidize the 5% of players who want multiplayer.

I'd really like to know where you're getting this 95-5 ratio. That seems unbelievable to me. I play a lot more single player CivIV than I play multiplayer, but I DO play multiplayer on a fairly regular basis (LAN, Pitboss, and Play By E-Mail), and I really enjoy it. I certainly wouldn't want to lose this feature.

But, hey, it's your company. You've made a nice game. I enjoy it. I just don't think that math is right. I'd like to see multiplayer made available, and I'm sure that more than 5% of your user base agrees with me (and, please, don't show me polls from this forum - I think the bias here is pretty clear).

Secondly, other games DO charge extra for multiplayer. Civ IV is $50. Age of Empires 3 is $50. Players pay for multiplayer regardless.

I bought each of those games for $40 - although I think CivIV was on sale - but I'm pretty sure you can get AOE3 for less than that. Regardless, GalCiv2 is worth the extra ten bucks. Even if you lost 20% of your sales because of the price increase, you'd still make just as much. And I really think the multiplayer option is going to bring more than a 5% increase in sales. People buy games all the time just to play with their friends. The whole reason I bought AOE3 was to play online with my brother.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

Civ IV: http://www.ebgames.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=646074

$49.99.

Age of Empires 3: http://www.ebgames.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=646084

$49.99.

That's their list prices. $10 higher than GalCiv II's list price. Every user of those games paid for multiplayer whether they used it or not.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Like I said, I think I got CivIV on sale (GoGamer.com is good like that), and while I'm not going to argue the list price with you, I'll say this much - saavy shoppers get any game cheaper.

I bought GalCiv2 - Collector's Edition at Wal-Mart for the same price as the regular version.

You're missing most of my point, though. The multiplayer addition would pay for itself.

Successfully updated karma reason!

"The multiplayer addition would pay for itself". That's your opinion, but not fact. The devs have a different opinion.

These types of discussions, while interesting, are little more than circle jerks. Every possible reason to add multi-player have already been presented in the last several months. The ultimate decision lies with Stardock.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Turin, you're neglecting the fact that while they may have lost sales because GC2 didn't have multiplayer, they also gained sales because the single-player is so good. Which it is because they have focused on it.

I get the impression that MP is really, really important to you. Well that's fair enough. But to a lot of people its irrelevant or even an annoyance.

BTW on a side note if you want to play alongside your friends, have a look at EVE-Online; it's a space-based MMO. My flatmate has been playing it for a couple of weeks, and it looks really good. I'm signing up as soon as I get my new PC built.

Then I'll need to get a second monitor so I can play GC2 while doing long jump-trips... ;o)

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'm not in a minority

Yeah... look at all the people agreeing with you!

Successfully updated karma reason!