I can't speak for anybody else on this, but I play a game like FE for the singleplayer experience.  I wouldn't pay the equivalent of 50 US cents for multiplayer.

Obviously, your flavor preferences may differ.

I would without a doubt vote no.

I would however pay for a DLC that would bring the dynasty system WOM has.

Sounds like you've got yourself an idea worthy of Kickstarter!

I'd be willing to pay up to 5 bucks (big spender, I know!) if:

1) mp supports tactical battles

2) mp supports events and quests

3) mp supports mods

otherwise I have no interest in mp. I understand others will have different demands, those are mine. I haven't cast a vote yet.

No.

I find that the more games focus on multi-player, the more they tend to cut down on things I enjoy. I'll give two examples:

-I love strategy, but my hands are all mangled and slow, yet turn-based games are neigh impossible to come by (for several reasons, i know) one of which is that games move faster, and require less time commitment if they are RTS.

-I love a good story, an expansive one with little nuances that make it all feel alive this is why i'm devoted to the elderscrolls from day 1. it's why i played the ME series (though I haven't bought ME3 yet) and what is the multi-player about? it's just some random battle that gives you.... points? How about CoD or MW (which various friend and siblings of mine play)? again, fast paced, no story, no meaning, just a lot of random words of positive reinforcement. Sure, games like WoW manage a bit of narrative, though to accomplish that they need to devoting their not inconsiderable resources and large amounts of time to make the entire game to mulit-player (which i avoid for other reasons) but even there is it really a multi-player story? you're in a world filled with people that have already saved the world the same way you want to and little about that will change.

These examples are meant to illustrate the loss of the very thing video games provide for me: escapism. If life were like visiting jurassic park, i'd probably never play. but it's not. it's level grinding at a desk, or on roof. it's not mining for gold to smelt and forge into a suit of armore, it's mining for coal that someone else will deal with. there're no dragons, there's no magic. I want these things. more than that i want to believe it. when i play FE i want to walk around and talk to people, if only in my mind. and i can't do that if there's no time. i can't do that if the world is two cities and a field. i can't do that if i have to sit around waiting for someone 10 time zones away to make their move (i was president of a chess club in a law school: i hated it). i can't do that if they're not online when i am. i don't want my enjoyment to be determined by someone out collecting trophy's made of 1's and 0's. - i could continue about how it seems that games that add multi-player then tend twoard a focus on it, relegating single-player to a glorified tutorial and from there they start charging money for items, but i'd like to believe Stardock would never do that. Instead i'd like to address one more issue:

-people. People are smart. they'll find the simple solution; if there's a unit that can be spammed to win they'll do it. they'll turn an entire civilization into mindless drones, missile boat captains or cannon fodder infantry and throw them at you in a ridiculous show of mathematical prowess. they'll focus on "achievements." they rage quite. they sleep. they eat. they'll talk to you. and all of this is fine in mariokart 64 or golden eye, where the game doesn't really matter to you, where it's really just backyard wrestling in the digital age, play fighting on tv. but in a game you care about, a game you use to escape the co-workers that rage quit meetings, or trash talk at the water cooler, it destroys the appeal. yet even if you find someone that can let you keep the escapism, someone that can keep the game fun and you're available at the same time, as the game stretches on other needs surface and choices need to be made; does your new friend spend time with you, or with his wife? does he order more pizza or make himself a healthier meal and get some exercise? if you don't worry about your new friend you're kind of a monster, but if you do the game begins to be overridden by real life. sure, a new friend is great, people interacting with people can be fun, but then are you playing the game because you like the game, or because you care about the other person?

sorry for the rant: The point i wanted to make was, in short: i don't like multi-player. i think it destroys most games (esp. RPGs) and as far as FE is concerned not only would i not pay for it, i would never play it even if it were free.

Stardock used to use pre-orders to set the budget for their games, which is a kind of kickstarter when you think about it.

I think if the MP folks really want MP, and they can prove to Stardock that it would be profitable, then they should get it.

The big thing holding this game back ATM to me is tactical AI, and MP would provide that, though it would likely need some large modifications to make it work viably.

Would I pay a dollar? It depends on what kind of multiplayer you're planning.

I would love to design my own units and fight with them in some sort of skirmish mode.

But playing the entire game in MP is nothing I have time for.

I never play multiplayer, so no interest for me, however a multiplayer DLC makes sense inasmuch those who do play MP will have the choice

Mutliplayer suits FPS and nothing else.

No

Just not interested in multiplayer and money isn't the only resource that would be used to make multiplayer happen it would also take the development teams time (both in creating and supporting), time which I would much much rather be spent improving and adding to the single player experience.

Let me be blunt: The game, as is, is a digital coaster for me, without multiplayer. So would I pay a dollar for the DLC? Of course! The real question is, how much would MP fans be willing to pay?

Personally, I'd easily pay $10 for MP DLC. I'd pay up to $20 if it weren't for the fact that the only reason I bought the base game (WoM) was because it was advertised as having MP (although it never really materialized, understandably).

PLEASE REMEMBER ONE THING, which I feel gets lost by Stardock sometimes: I have several friends who never bought Elemental and never will without true, working, MP. So adding the DLC won't just net you a buck, but additional sales. Those people aren't going to show up on the forum, because they're not going to be following/buying the game if it lacks a feature they need.

One other thing: This needs to be TRUE MP. In my opinion, TBS is a poor genre for random pickup games, but they make phenomenal coop games with friends that you can save and continue. 

I vote yes because I have a friend in which I really enjoy spending an evening with playing a game together, its because both me and the friend gets dragged into the same game and talks about it (we sit in the same room), that would also be the extent of my multiplayer sessioneering.

I hope for some proper fantasy tactical game with mp soon anyways be it elemental or something else, heroes 6 is a disaster...

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

No.  Great price for it at 1 dollar, other single player DLC I would like to buy though.  I just grew out of multiplayer 4Xs after the old hotseat days of youth.  Multiplayer is still great publicity and some community for games, like Dominions 3 and other games got a lot of legs out of it.