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.
I would pay a $10 for a DLC that had flying units. I would not pay $1 for mulltiplayer.
I would probably buy the game twice more, (or rather I would gift it to my brother and my flatmate), so that we could play multiplayer. So yes I would also pay 1$ for MP support.
Honestly I bought Elemental because I liked what I saw from the gameplay and it was supposed to have multiplayer. I love coop games with friends. I play Civ5 all the time with friends but I only play it when I have someone to play with. The same was true about Elemental. I quickly get bored playing alone but can sit all day playing a coop game. My friends and I honestly don't plan to really bother with this game after our experience with the first iteration until we see a polished game. The addition of a full multiplayer instead of the chopped down version from the previous game will play a big part in our purchase. Honestly I understood multiplayer was going to be part of the release when it was first announced. The only reason I keep checking back here was to see the game progress and I had my fingers crossed for a good game to play with my friends. Multiplayer not being added at all is news to me and incredibly disappointing.
I would pay 1$ for internet MP. Id buiy another copy for local LAN. Hotseat should be maybe incorporated?
Hell yes that would be worth it, once FE finally gets playable without latter game crashing.
No it isn't, the question is "would you pay a dollar for multiplayer in FE".
The answer "No because I hate multiplayer" is a perfectly valid response.
If he MEANT to ask "if you wanted multiplayer, would you pay an extra dollar for it" then he should have asked that.
I play Civilization V exclusively using the Giant Multiplayer Robot these days, and it works brilliant.
So, I voted yes, but I really hope the game will have asynchronous turns, with some sort of notification system.
(Either that, or you could ask Giant Multiplayer Robot to support Elemental in addition to Civilization V perhaps?)
I didn't see a vote...I'm probably too late. However, I would vote 'no'. 4x games are meant to be played Single Player, imo....thus no need for internet connection to play the game....thus NO NEED for steam.
I would hope that if Elemental games come to Steam in some form, they don't also become Steam required, even if they do have multiplayer. However Brad, what was that about the notify and play infrastructure that was already put in place for Elemental multiplayer? Couldn't that be used instead of Steam for the approximately 25% of players who don't want to use Steam?
To my notes, they only run 1 voting poll at a time, so when they start a new one they hide the old Hope the knowledge helps
Sincerely~ Kongdej
As long as 'notify and play' means entering your cd code and BRIEFLY connecting to a server to validate before NEVER having to connect to them again...EVEN if you reinstall the game at a later date.
If it includes installing Steam, I'm not interested.
I think a big problem is illustrated in some of the posts here. Multiplayer is probably used by 10% or less of the player base for a TBS game, and of that less-than-10% there is no consensus on the "best" way to implement it. So for the money involved you'd only be satisfying some fraction of 1/10th of your customers. Not worth it when you could implement something cool for the 90% instead.
By notify and play I mean you have your turn, then it notifies the next human player to have their turn, so you don't all have to be on at the same time. I was not referring to DRM.
No. IMHO, TBS games are uniquely unsuited to multi-player.
I disagree, mostly because my back makes me only really able to enjoy turn based games.I do think TBS games are better suited for casual multiplayerneering, where the players involved sit in the same room, though, but can help me relax.
I am happy they made this poll, and atleast researched the subject, all I can ask for
As an adult gamer, I would agree for my own situation.
As a child, I played HOMM with my brothers and VERY rarely with friends using hot seat on the single household PC.
Children have a ton of free time though.
Also hotseat with siblings keeps them safely away from the internet.
Not only children Cripples too!
No.
I have zero interest in multiplayer for this type of game.
It's odd since I grew up playing competitive board games - but I have never enjoyed competitive computer games as much as single player.
I also get sick of seeing the availability of MP as justification for weak AI in single player games (not something that's a problem with SD games).
The only computer games I play online are co-op, like minecraft with friends, aRPG like TL2, and I've been an MMORPG addict since EQLive released - but I don't like PvP in MMORPGs unless it has a grand scope with purpose like DAoC's RvR or the upcoming WvWvW in GW2 - the random gank-based garbage that passes for PvP in most MMORPGs doesn't suit me and the idea of e-sport contained in MMORPGs makes me want to projectile vomit.
The only computer games I play online are co-op
Multiplayer means coop too?Thats what id use it for anyways.
Quoting Omnax1, reply 16 I do not understand why people who do not want to play MP vote no. Question is not, do you want to play MP or not? But If you want MP, would you be willing to pay a dollar for it? I would and I would like it very much. No special modes, no different rules. Just make it work, and make it easy for people to play together. No OOS. No crashes. Allow modding for MP. Other than that keep gameplay same as SP. you are absolutely right, way better than i could say it
First, of course I would pay $1. 100% of people thay play multiplayer would pay $1 for MP, for sure. 60% of the people in that poll did not say "No, I will not pay just $1 to play MP", lol, of course not, they would for sure! 60% of those people voted no because they just don't play MP and don't want it in, well, because they are Hermits and haters.
What your are seeing Omnax1 is not confusing at all. These people are actually "trying" to stop MP; Saying they will pay to stop MP, even when it would not effect them in any way, and make so many people (that actually have social relationships with other gamers) happy. There's a good reason some who are so agains MP never play socially; the same reason they don't want "people" to be happy playing MP. If they have to be alone; play alone; they don't want other's who socialize to enjoy it either.
Why else would such people actually work and pay to stop others from enjoying something? Only the absolute terror that putting in MP (which is standard in most games now'a'days) might in some magical, microscopic way change ever so slightly the only thing in life that they enjoy; solitare. . .
I speak for myself for the 'no' I voted on, but I imagine a great many others share this viewpoint:
It's not the multiplayer specifically; it's the fact that Stardock would have to devote X time to the design of multiplayer, whereas I'd rather they spend that X time into making FE the best single player 5x game to ever hit the market.
For me, that 'no' vote is an easy one, because I have almost never played multiplayer in a 4x game. The few times I've tried it, it was a really boring experiance...always waiting for your opponents to make there moves.
So, to conclude, a function that I never use OR even more depth to and already great game....I choose the later.
You seem to confuse "have no friends" with "know better then to play online with strangers and have no friends that play Elemental Fallen Enchantress who would like to play it in multiplayer while having compatible schedules".
"You seem to confuse "have no friends" with "know better then to play online with strangers and have no friends that play Elemental Fallen Enchantress who would like to play it in multiplayer while having compatible schedules".
No, you seem to confuse "Would you pay $1 to have multiplayer", which every person on earth who play MP would of course say a resounding "Yes", to "I'm voting no to keep MP out because I have no friends to play with and am affraid to play with strangers".
Multiplayer gaming really depends on communication. Besides the forum, how else are people talking about this game?
I wonder how useful it is to ask people who play a single player game if they would want to pay for multiplayer game functionality. It is akin to asking English speakers if they would pay extra to have the game in Russian. The current game isn't in Russian, so, if you are playing it now, you are happy with (or adapted to) the game as it is. Of course, if you don't speak English, then you won't buy the game. Same goes for me in multiplayer. If it's not multiplayer CoOp supported, then I don't buy it.
And yes, I get it, that person who is translating it into Russian could be the world's best English game designer, but I doubt it. If they added a multiplayer coop to the game, it wouldn't be catastrophically hard, it is a turn based game, after all. With that addition, they would broaden the user base. The content in the game that is already created could be shared with both. Two games / user bases for the the price of 1.2. Much like translating World of Warcraft into Spanish added many players to the game. Would English players pay a dollar extra for Spanish support? Nope. But Spanish players would pay $15/month for the feature.
Sadly, I was tricked with Elemental that they would provide multiplayer. They sort-of provided that, much later, with crippled functionality. Not sure still why they chose not to have tactical battles in MP -- That is why I came back to the forums to see if the current (or next) game was going to have multiplayer coop support. Guess it isn't. At least they aren't claiming they will. So, +1 for honesty. -1 from the player base. Well, minus me and my friends that play multiplayer coop.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
