Will the possible lack of MP support affect your decision to buy Civ 3?

[Rasputin]

Originally posted by Martinus

No. It may be a bad commercial decision, or may be not. It may also make the game expensive or even over-valued (IMHO not, as I would be willing to pay for the MP patch). But it does not make it a theft, and certainly does not justify a theft on behalf of a player.

Tell me, my friend - how often do you steal things that you consider expensive or over-valued?

I am not advocating DL the Game I am advocating Stealing the Patch... No game not Software should be released and then have people have to pay for the patches !!!! The fact that they know the players want MP they think they can charge what they want....

I hope any software programmer reasding this takes note and releases bug free programmes or free patches.. Dont remove part of the software because you not sure if it will work or not and then charge more for it .....

[Wittlich]

I would have to say that 95% of the Civilization-type games I play is multiplay (usually over a LAN). So if Civ3 does not have multiplay support, then I will not buy it - it's as simple as that

[TechWins]

Lets say this is a survery done by Firaxis to see what is important to their fans. 65 fans have voted, while this may not be the best way to make a survey it is still fairly accurate, and those 65 are supposed to represent the opinion of all Civ player population. 32 will buy the game regarldless of the including of MP. 12 wll buy the game if the SP is very strong. 19 are almost positive that they won't buy the game if MP isn't included. 2 are uncertain what this will do to their decision. It seems as if the 32 people will be the people who buy the game on release day. The 12 are probably the pople who are going to check out reviews before buying the game. The 19 people could have fallen under the category of 32 or 12 if the game was to include MP. The 2 people are uncertain how this will affect their decision but I believe they fall the 12 group. The percent of the population that each group represents is as follows (all percents are rounded so the total percent may not total 100%).

32 - 49%
12 - 18%
19 - 29%
02 - 03%

I'm going to portray how these results will effect the results of the sales of Civ3 by doing two options: Great game (everything we always dreamed of) & Bad Game (being called Civ 2.5 would have been a complement, just not very innovative). When I do the portraying I'm going to act as if each group is one. Example: I won't say that 11 from group 12 won't buy the game yet 12 people won't buy the game.

Great Game:

32 - This group will be buying the game.
12 - This group will be buying the game because of the great reviews the game received.
19 - This group will not be buying the game because of the lacking of MP but would have bought the game if MP would have been included.
02 - This group was compelled by the great SP that the game offers and bought the game.

This means that 71% of the Civ player population bought the game. Not too bad if more new Civ players buy the game. If very little new Civ players buy the game, then not including MP really hurt Firaxis here. While being such a great game it failed in terms of sales. If the game were to have been a bad game these sales numbers would have been fabulous.

Bad Game:

32 - This group buys the game because of their die hardness (if that is even a word).
12 - The bad reviews the game received and the lack of MP scared this group off.
19 - Not having MP made this group not buy the game but even if the game would have included MP some of them may not have bought the game anyways (some might fall under the 12 group if MP were to be included).
2 - Again bad reviews and lack of MP scared this group off.

This means that only 49% of the Civ player population bought the game. If MP would have been included, then the sales percentage might have increased. The game became a total failure in sales unless a large amount of new Civ player people buy the game, which is highly unlikely because of the game's stature. The whole Civ name might have been tarnished by the poor sales and unattractive gameplay (the graphics couldn't compell many customers).

Either way, if MP isn't included a huge portion of the Civ player population is lost. If the game were to be up to standards but would have included MP the sales might have increased (I for one would have bought the game). If the game does became very enjoyable the sales will probably be good but the sales could have been better. My point is that Firaxis should look at these results and realize how much MP not being in the game could have the sales of the game.

[OzzyKP]

Another thing people are missing from the poll interpretation is that most of those people who don't care about Multiplayer and will buy the game regardless most likely WON'T buy the multiplayer addition when it is released in the spring.

So making this decision to split the game release will hinder sales on two fronts. Lets say the SP game is 40 bucks and the MP addition is 20. None of the die-hard SPers will buy the MP addition, and the die-hard MPers won't buy either out of protest.

If you ask me the most profitable way to do this is to release SP & MP together in the same game this fall. Hell charge 50 or 55 for it if they are greedy. Still don't split it, it is obviously only pissing people off and will only hurt Firaxis.

Don't forget that when you piss off a vocal group like us Multiplayers we'll tell our friends and friend's friends that they are screwing us and that'll hurt as well. Like someone mentioned about infiltrating reviews which will hurt the game further.

Firaxis- up until this point everything about Civ3 has been wonderful from my perspective. I have been singing your praises for months, don't let a big ass rotten egg like Multiplayer ruin the whole thing. Put MP in!

[Chronus]

I'm not big on MP but would like to have it.

What concerns me is the timing of this discovery. Everyone has been talking and assuming that MP is in. If is isn't, why hasn't Firaxis said anything?

I draw two possible conclusions from this: either a major error has occurred . . . in which case, Firaxis needs to delay the release date to recheck the program, or there was, perhaps, a lack of planning. Both possibilities portray a negative picture.

This is unfortunate. I was really looking forward to this game (especially now that there are peaceful ways to usher in the Golden Age). I hope it's only rumor. If not, maybe they'll somehow be able to include MP w/ the release (even if it's delayed). Hey, if they listened to our suggestion for a peaceful Golden Age, maybe they'll hear us about this as well.

[Felch]

People, MP sucks anyways. I'll admit it's more challenging, but it's slower than a drunk redneck. It gets slower and slower as the game moves on in time, unless you use time limits, in which case you're so rushed it feels almost like a RTS. As long as I have good SP, I'll play the game. And besides, I'm not about to wait several more months so that some whiny MPers can get their fix.

[Ilkuul]

I think the options on this poll could have been phrased better. Multiplayer DOES interest me very much, but then so does SP -- so there's no way I'm going to delay buying the game till next spring just to wait for MP! So I fall somewhere between option 1 and option 2... But I DO feel it's a great shame they couldn't have released both at the same time.

[tuckson]

You know, I don't like this thread and I don't like this discussion.
The whole thing is more and more looking like a religious conflict then a good discussion between some civilized game lovers.

Where are the kind discussions, based on solid arguments?

The only thing I see is an ordinary yes-no game.

Why not just wait and see what Firaxis is putting in the box? If the game really is to be released in October, it's too late now anyway to change fundamental things in the programming (should it be necessary).

Get your feet back on earth!

[Kaak]

these guys are jerks pumping us for money. They want to release a single player edition, wait a little while and release a mp edition, just so we have to buy the game twice =( I won't do it! There are always other options!

[Acemo]

I will be buying Civ3 no matter what, actually I have already ordered WTF am I saying?

I would prefer MP in the initial release, but I'm mostly going to be playing SP. Too many MP games suck; players leaving, connections dropped, etc.

However, until I have seen an announcement from Firaxis on the delay of MP, I'm going to treat the "no MP" as what it is, an unsubstantiated rumor.

[Gramphos]

How come that 50% have voted aginst MP?

Firaxis: Do MP now!
Others: Vote MP now!

[markusf]

Looks like no MP to me.

[Kaak]

bastards....

[jdd2007]

I think it is too bad that Civ III doesnt have multiplayer, but I will still buy it. I predict that MOST of the people who said they werent going to buy it now will end up buying it anyway. I mean, if you are so excited about Civ III that you joined Apolyton and kept up with the forums, then i think that you will shell out fifty bucks for the game (after an inner struggle)

NOW THAT I HAVE SAID THIS THEN YOU PROBABLY WONT BUY IT

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by markusf
Looks like no MP to me.

They may have it hidden under New Game. :hope:

[SmartFart]

I wont buy Civ III w/o MP included. I'll get a pirate copy instead and they've lost 50$.
Quite simple.
They're great designers,but such a moneysuckers are far and few between.
- They've stopped fixing bugs in Civ2 2 years ago
- They're made SMAC full of bugs which are fixed in SMAX,but they never released free patch to undone bad things in SMAC

And now this?

Just for the record...Civ III will be my only pirate game in my collection.

[Robert Plomp]

this poll doesn't have enough options.
neither of the options apply to me.

My vote is: Eventhough I do really care about MP I will buy civ3 anyway thus it won't affect my decision.

[StrategicKing2]

I have one question for the designers of civ 3....
WHAT THE F U C K HAVE YOU BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST 2 YEARS..
Take a group of kids just graduating computer science and they would have had this done already.
Nobody likes to JUST play the AI.
We are already jocking for dominace at multiplayer civ 3, to deny us this oppurtunity would be criminal.
So as the Rock would say....
"You can take no-multiplayer civ3, shine it up real nice....Keep shining....TURN THAT SON'A***** SIDE WAYS AND STICK IT UP YOUR CANDY A S S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

[ColdWizard]

no mp?

i think i'll go and learn how to play starcraft

[Provost Harrison]

I have coped for the vast majority of my life without MP so I am sure I can manage a bit longer. I always enjoyed playing civ/civ2 on the games merits so if the AI is significantly improved, I will cope for a few months without MP...

...and it could be hidden under New Game, but I would doubt it...

[Sabre2th]

Nobody likes to JUST play the AI.

You would be surprised at the number of people at Apolyton who don't play MP.

Originally posted by StrategicKing2
I have one question for the designers of civ 3....
WHAT THE F U C K HAVE YOU BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST 2 YEARS..
Take a group of kids just graduating computer science and they would have had this done already.
Nobody likes to JUST play the AI.
We are already jocking for dominace at multiplayer civ 3, to deny us this oppurtunity would be criminal.
So as the Rock would say....
"You can take no-multiplayer civ3, shine it up real nice....Keep shining....TURN THAT SON'A***** SIDE WAYS AND STICK IT UP YOUR CANDY A S S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

This is not constructive at all and there is absolutely no proof that it will ship without MP. Yet

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Gramphos
How come that 50% have voted aginst MP?

I did note vote against multiplayer, I just wanted to straighten out that I´ll buy Civ3 even if MP is not included initially.

Civ3 will most likely be a fun, engrossing, and (after the first patches) highly balanced game. What bothers me about this MP delay are the potential lukewarm reviews. I don´t want Civ3 to get 'four out of five stars' on average, to sell about 500k copies and to be the last major TBS-game. I want Civ3 to score a record 97%, to sell millions of copies and to reawaken the TBS-genre so that I can enjoy even better games in the years to come.

Believe me, I´d rest easier if I knew Civ3 supported MP from the outset.

[Rhysie]

Originally posted by StrategicKing2
Nobody likes to JUST play the AI.

I love to just play the AI. I've never played civ1 or civ2 in multiplayer mode, in fact I've never owned a copy of either which I could play in multiplayer mode, but I don't care, I love to play against the computer. I play for fun, not just for challenge, so I don't care if the AI can't smack me around. Its nice to know that after my struggle with them I'm most likely going to end up on top of the pile.

Also I have a cruddy internet connection and all my friends have a different taste in computer games. As such I have no desire to play on an awful connection against someone I have never met. I might as well just play against the computer, there's less trouble involved.

I suspect that the vast majority of civ players are similar to me, its just that the vocal element loves MP and thinks the AI is too weak to be fun. I don't think it will be a huge blow to Firaxis if only the people who want to play SP buy it.

Also, I think its stupid to download it. Why not just wait for the MP to come out, and then either buy the MP version or buy the standard version and get get the MP patch if it is free. People have said that the release should be delayed so that they can release both at once. Why? If you feel that way, just wait for the MP part to come out, and pretend the release _was_ delayed. Why do people like me who only want to play SP have to wait for a feature to be added which we wouldn't use? It wouldn't speed up the developement of MP for them to not release the SP version as planned.

[Kaak]

jdd:

A lot of the people you see on here aren't people that were so excited about civ3 they joined the forums. We are die hard civ2ers that have been on these forums for years. The fact remains that they are trying to milk us for money, and it is wrong. They could have easily included an mp function, even if it made them wait to release it some time in november or early december (which would have been a better call on their part from a marketing stand point i think). jerks...

[OzzyKP]

Alright all you irate Civ Fans. Time to channel your anger and try to avert this tragedy. I found a few ways to ease everyone in contacting Firaxis and giving them a piece of your mind. Send lots of e-mails, and persuade all your friends who feel the same about Multiplayer to write lots of e-mails. Tell Firaxis that we are pissed, tell them we won't buy two half-games. Tell them we want MP integrated into the game and sold upfront with the rest of it.

E-Mail Dan Magaha

E-Mail Kelley Gilmore Communications Manager

and E-Mail Ask The Civ Team

If people know of other e-mail addresses to use to contact Firaxis please let us know.

Also be sure to refer them to some hot threads on the topic, with lots of people who are hot under the collar about this issue. http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=26096

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=26117

Now! MPers, let your fingers do the talking. Give Firaxis a piece of your mind.

[marcuspeddle]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Time to channel your anger and try to avert this tragedy. I found a few ways to ease everyone in contacting Firaxis and giving them a piece of your mind. Send lots of e-mails, and persuade all your friends who feel the same about Multiplayer to write lots of e-mails. Tell Firaxis that we are pissed, tell them we won't buy two half-games. Tell them we want MP integrated into the game and sold upfront with the rest of it.

Give Firaxis a piece of your mind.

I don't think channelling anger is going to get you anywhere. They're going to read your 'piece of mind' and then delete it and put your address in their Block Sender list. I certainly wouldn't consider the opinion of anyone who writes me e-mail and says 'shove your SP civ3 up your a**. I'm pissed!'. Instead of writing angry, immature rubbish to Firaxis why don't you send a polite inquiry to see when MP can be added and if it will cost extra money. As we saw in another post, a Firaxis representative said she would send MP as soon as it was ready. She didn't say 'I'll sell you MP as soon as it's finished.' I'm sure a lot of you want interaction with the developers of Civ3 (everyone seems very pleased when Dan posts here to answer a question or clear up some matter) but sending rage mail is just going to reduce the amount of feedback from Firaxis. As the saying goes, "Honey attracts more bees than vinegar."

[Falconius]

Originally posted by CyberShy
this poll doesn't have enough options.
neither of the options apply to me.

My vote is: Eventhough I do really care about MP I will buy civ3 anyway thus it won't affect my decision.

Same Here. I like MP AND SP. I like SP anough that I'll go out and buy Civ III the day it's released. I wasn't going to play MP immediately anyway, not until I played a few SP games to get the hang of it. So a delay isn't that bad.

If I am expected to pay EXTRA for MP, however, I won't be too pleased.

But let's face it, this is an electronic drug here. If our dealer says the good sh*t isn't available yet, but we have some decent sh*t to tide us over in the meantime, guess what the average addict will do.

[Master Marcus]

Very good poll. I choose " still buy it if the SP is extremly good ". I don't play MP because it's too slow, but I'll watch carefully the reviews and if the AI doesn't meet my expectations in the SP that remains, I may reconsider buying it ( anyway I won't buy it the first week of its release ). The door's wide open for MoO3, the only problem: the same publisher Infogrames......

[Felch]

Ozzy, don't hassle people when they're putting together a game. You're being less of a concerned fan and more an ingrateful jackass. Besides there are some people here who would like to see the game finished this year.

[isaac brock]

Originally posted by Anatolia


I don't think channelling anger is going to get you anywhere. They're going to read your 'piece of mind' and then delete it and put your address in their Block Sender list. I certainly wouldn't consider the opinion of anyone who writes me e-mail and says 'shove your SP civ3 up your a**. I'm pissed!'. Instead of writing angry, immature rubbish to Firaxis why don't you send a polite inquiry to see when MP can be added and if it will cost extra money. As we saw in another post, a Firaxis representative said she would send MP as soon as it was ready. She didn't say 'I'll sell you MP as soon as it's finished.' I'm sure a lot of you want interaction with the developers of Civ3 (everyone seems very pleased when Dan posts here to answer a question or clear up some matter) but sending rage mail is just going to reduce the amount of feedback from Firaxis. As the saying goes, "Honey attracts more bees than vinegar."

I don't think anatolia meant to say "shove your SP up your ass," he meant for people to send a polite but subtlely pissed letter to firaxis. If people are just calmly saying "Oh, multiplayer is not included. That's too bad, but it's all we should expect" then why should firaxis go to the trouble of including multiplayer? If you send them a polite but firm mail, that makes it clear that you are angry and won't buy without multiplayer, they may be more likely to give in. I don't think a campaign of friendly inquiries will do the trick. Did women get the vote by ringing up the government and cordially requesting it?