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: