As some people know, the initial release for Fallen Enchantress will not have multiplayer enabled. It was decided early on that 100% of the design and development focus for Fallen Enchantress would be on delivering a world class single player experience.
But after release, lots of things become possible. Advocates of multiplayer tend to be vocal. To gauge genuine interest, how many Fallen Enchantress players would be willing to pay a dollar to support the development time for a multiplayer mode (Internet cooperative / competitive).
To vote, go to:
https://www.elementalgame.com/journals
Please only vote if you are actually in the beta (the admin poll will display what % of users are actually registered users).
Result: 60% would not pay $1 for MP DLC. 40% would.
Yes, it's kind of often if game with single and multiplayer had shortlife span than single without multiplayer. There is way too many multiplayer game out there.
Ummm wait up: If it were 9% 'yes' and 91% said 'no', then there is no contest to me. 41% 'yes'? That's still a large number, even if it's not over 50%. Think of it: a little less than half of all the people that voted want to see a multiplayer component.
Also, your 'statistics have shown only 2% of the gamer base 'out there' wants or plays multiplayer elements of a game' - please, where did this information come from and how does it relate to this game? Because again, it looks like 41% of this particular gamer base wants to play a multiplayer match.
Finally, based on your 'stupid, silly multiplayer element' remark: Is the poll really a multiplayer match that you won? Did you enjoy it? Then you voted against what you really wanted!
Joking aside, I think alot of people that say no to multiplayer have a conditioned knee-jerk reaction to this poll because (and this is my opinion, so take it with a grain of salt):
1. They are still waiting to see a 'win' on the SP side of things with the game even though they can obviously see that FE is head and shoulders above the previous attempt, while still being in beta form. I don't know, but this seems irrational to me.
2. TBS games that have a multiplayer component are far and few between, even though there have been positive results in this arena in the past (AoW series, Jagged Alliance: DG, MoM, HoMM series, Sid Meyer's Alpha Centauri, MOO, Civilization series). People are still playing these games because of the multiplayer component, I might add.
3. More of the people in the poll have just naturally gravitated towards SP games in general, so the poll is skewed.
This game is a revolutionary iteration to the original Elemental game, and we can see the quality that has come out of it, correct? Well, I'd be willing to (and have) vote(d) a 'yes' in the poll and pay for the DLC, because these guys just did a free do-over that didn't have to be done. Let's give 'em a round to help inject some money back into the work they did for us.
Having a working multiplayer mode can only help boost sales of the people that already 'own' the game: if those people are venturous enough to try it, they may like it - and they can then tell their friends to get the full game for a match or twenty. I'd be willing to bet if it's good, those new purchasers will also try out the SP version...
The other thing that is good is, people have a choice as to whether they want to buy MP or not as it's a DLC component.
Give multi-player a dollar of a chance. Sheesh!
there arent really many strategy games with a decent multi out there tbh
anyway back to the topic id pay whatever price if the multi is good(and the base game is good too), nothing if its not
Some people haven't understood the question. They read it as I pay $39 for SP or $40 for SP+MP. I don't mind paying a $1. However, if you read it as I paid $39 for the SP and now there is a separate DLC for just $1 would you bother with the hassle of paying and downloading? What I am seeing is that most people wouldn't bother. I certainly wouldn't bother.
Just create a solid, working, interesting single player version, then care about the multiplayer. The initial decision to scrap multiplayer and create as good as possible game was IMO the correct one. People demanding multiplayer are usually very vocal, then most of them never play it anyway.
That depends.
Can that dollar be given, lets say instead, for more single player content? If so that's where I want my dollar to go.
Still, 41% of 388 is less than 100 dollars for MP.
Seanw3: Math, Dude ! ... (Okay, I know I shouldn't even comment on this, because you will soon catch your mistake, and correct it, but ... that will be then, and this is now.)
Anyways, a 41% positive response rate, out of 388 respondents, is worth more like $159. Okay, so Big Diff ...
(BTW: Shouldn't I get a Karma point out of this ? ... After all, I did just catch a mistake, by one the most Brilliant Minds that posts on these sites ! )
I am a skilled politician so I don't need math. The important thing is that it feels like less than 100 dollars.
I played many FfH2 multiplayer matches, and it was great. With a big dose of roleplay, and many funny situations. I want something simillar, and FE seems that way. I definetly would pay that 1$, and my friends will do, if game will have enjoyable multiplayer mode.
Actualy, i can say more. Some of my friends interested only in mp mode. And they will buy game only if it will have multiplayer. But i perfectly understand, that we are not a majority. For us any game is thing that must be played with friends.
I'm a little more concerned about the NUMBER of votes since friday... even if it's only people who are in the beta voting, it still seems a bit on the low side?
I would like to do a play by mail with seanw3 and das123. The game would take forever, but it would play out like a novel
If the game is actully good and if Multi-player consist of Internet, Hot Seat and Lan (also Play by Mail, I never understood whay anyone would play by mail but lets put that in for those that do.) And if I have the option of playing the single player game as multiplay, with no dumbing it down just to make it faster for the Instant gratification Generation.
Then yes I would
If my wife had any interest in a 4X fantasy game, then yes. Unfortunately the only TBS game she has any patience for is Heroes of Might and Magic.
So if the single play was opened to multiplay with no other changes except to put in simultaneous and maybe a turn timer with no other changes you would oppose this? Why?
I would support a multiplayer mode that focussed on play between friends only. Honestly I feel that competitive play between strangers doesn't really suit this type of game. However, the ability to have co-op (versus AI) and competitive play between friends (including human alliances battling it out with or without AI players/teams) friends would be a really awesome and welcome feature for me. Just don't set FE MP up like WoM MP - include tactical battles, allow full mod support (same mods on all computers), and focus on the friend co-op/competitive games instead. If you had that log-in system to have turns and battles in arranged games (with emails to people when their turn is ready, or when they need to be available when battling a friend) that could work even better than the traditional setup where everyone has to be available all the time.
But if you don't want to worry about the friend competitive, just provide co-op play with features such as Bellack just suggested and that would be fantastic!
Co-op with people you know would be interesting. Otherwise would be too long to make it work very well.
No.
Draginol, you guys get too distracted. Enough with the polls. How long have you guys been working on this game?
Fix the bugs and the mid to late game OOM crashes. Release it already.
No, I am not a fan of multiplayer. Balancing the game becomes to much of an issue. One of the great things about MoM was how out of balance the game was. It was truly challenging, if not impossible, to play with some races, i.e. gnolls. They were just plain awful, which made it fun to try.
Multiplayer games just continually balance, which I think takes some of the fun out of it.
I'd pay for multiplayer, no more than $10. I purchased E:WoM to play multiplayer games with a few buddies of mine. I even convinced those buddies to buy that game. I know that E:WoM's usage stats for the multiplayer were very low (I didn't even attempt it), but I attribute that to very few mentions of it by game reviewers (which says a lot) and comments about the mode made by avid forum posters. I feel privileged that I'm getting FE for free, but I wish that a multiplayer component was available too, even if it isn't as popular or played as much as as the single player sandbox mode. I think going the DLC route would be great.
We are still a long ways from release, will be at least fall.
Quoting ErikCurre, reply 25I voted no. Multiplayer does not work well for TBS games and I would never try it. I'd rather the time be spent on cool add-ons for single player. I'd love to see a monster pack that adds new high-level monsters that are a challenge even for level 20 uber heroes. Or how about DLC that adds new wildlands. I'd pay a lot of money for stuff like that.Quoting Tuidjy, reply 6I would not. This game's strengths would not shine in multi-player, and you are wrong in thinking that it is easy to just add something like multi-player to a finished product. One has to plan ahead of time, and that would adversely affect the quality of the single-player.But I would pay a dollar to make sure no effort is spent on multi-player.
This is total BS. TBS was made for Multi-player. I never understood how anyone would think the MP does not work for TBS games. Have you people never played boardgames before? Guess what, that is what inspired computer TBS games ....HELLO!!!!!!!!.
AI is never going to be as challanging as a human. And there are TBS games that have woorked quite well as MP. CIV 4 and now CIV 5 (yes I like Civ 5)
AOW:SM, Shogun Total War, just to name a few. The key is to not change the single player expereance for MP. That means don't dumb down the game for either speed or balance. If it can be fun single player then just allow the ability to have a human as well as AI players (see Civ 4 on how to do this or AOW:SM) Also in additon to LAN and Internet have Hotseat so I can play more than one faction at a time.
I'm not calling for servers to be set up to play MP we can use our own PC's to host games.
Number of people in the beta, who read the forums, and felt like commenting.
The number of people playing the beta is a subset of the people with access to it. The number of people reading the forums is a subset of that. The number of people who will then go answer the poll is a subset of that.
The general rule is that the forums are never a good indication of what the audience really wants because the forums are a small, selection-bias skewed group.
The way I see it as one of the guys who was originally interested in MP and highly disappointed with what we got in WoM, scrapping it for FE was the right call. MP can't possibly be fun until SP is fun. But these poll numbers? Considering the open hostility this forum has shown over the years to MP?
41% is a lot higher then you'd expect. If that number could be taken at face value and projected out to the entire playerbase, 41% willing to pay more for MP would be a ringing endorsement. (Shame you can't really do that.)
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
