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

[SmartFart]

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

Right.

I would add 'You know where you can stick Civ3 w/o MP feature'

[reefer addict]

i enjoy both SP games and MP games.SP is great for quick games or stopping and starting alot where MP games really challenge your civ skills against endless stategies.civ is the only game i play so i will buy it without MP .really makes me laugh at how mad people get over a game enjoy the fact that we even have this tech. and quit all the whinning. MP will be out when its ready and SP players shouldnt have to wait untill then if the rest of the game is ready

[dearmad]

Well MP is still losing in the poll even with all the MPers rousted out of their slumber in the hills.

The attitude of that has come across this thread is yet more proof as to why the MP world can be such an ugly world.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by reefer addict
civ is the only game i play so i will buy it without MP .

However, lukewarm reviews (due to the lack of MP) may hurt Civ3´s sales and therefore doom the whole TBS-genre.

[tuckson]

Re: Re: Re: !Viva La Revolution!

Originally posted by isaac brock
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?

Hmmm...
I always thought Dan M. and some others of Firaxis read these forums. Don't you think they've seen your opnion already? I guess sending them mail adds none to what they already know. I guess "those guys"at Firaxis or the "Jerks"or whatever cute nicknames I've seen for them who actually program the game are just as unhappy with the situation as expressed here. But we all know programmers usually have very few to say about what's in there and what's not. Usually that's a marketing/publishers/management question.

I agree on the fact that it would be nice from Firaxis to shine some light on this.

What I'm afraid of is not that the absence of MP is going to affect my Game play. I hardly use MP. What I do fear is that in all wellknown gaming magazines the game I 've been looking forward to for so long hardly receives a medium grade (or mark or whatever they call this) just because of the lack of MP. Those mags, just as some players here, seem to think that all players want MP and that the absence of it is a crime against gaming humatiy.

And bad reviews mean most of the times sales way below the estimated sales and thus could influence the decision whether to create a Civ4 or not.

[TheBirdMan]

It will indeed.

With no MP, there will probably not be PBEM support either.

And with no PBEM facilities - I will not spend any money on that game.

PBEM is the only way to play if you want a real challenge and like thepossibilities for real diplomacy (and if you want to have a life, then you can have this also with PBEM).

[tishco]

unlike what mags like pcgamer say, not everyone has next to free costs for the net and have rubbish modems and dodgy conections
some people dont have networks so they get super conections.
and i would say something like
but they ...eg.dont count suck at MP
only, i am one.

[blackice]

PLUS, SP people are dead head wankers who wouldn't know true Civ if it bit them on the ass.

So true...I mean lets face it AI is at best a learning tool real opponents offer you a challenge. For you 56k people play PBEM you will soon find out how true the above statement is...you can sign up here: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...955#post457955 give it a try then come back and vote with knowledge...

No MP no buy period I like to have the choice. Each offers a good game but MP and PBEM you play real opponents you really can not get much better than that...

I have posted this in several MP places I think once the MP people hit this spot you will see the graph move...as this information of no MP play is one of the dumbest things I have read in some time...

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by dearmad
Well MP is still losing in the poll even with all the MPers rousted out of their slumber in the hills.

You are all missing the point. The MPers don't have to WIN the poll. We just have to demonstrate we are a sizable and motivated group. If we could take the poll results as an accurate prediction (unfortunatly we can't) then it would mean Firaxis would loose THIRTY PERCENT of their potential profits. That is a HUGE drop.

The poll is to send a message to Firaxis telling them not to ignore a sizable group of Civ players.

[Chronus]

The fact remains that they are trying to milk us for money, and it is wrong.

Wrong? Says who? You?

Why is this argument always brought up in regard to the corporate entity. Businesses exist to MAKE MONEY. There is nothing illegal or unethical in releasing SP and then charging a small fee later on for MP. Let's put this into perspective: we are not forced to buy anything here. I don't agree with the wisdom of leaving out MP . . . but to call it wrong is incorrect.

With that said, I plan on waiting for the MP version before buying Civ III, unless the SP version gets astronomically good reviews from the players (I won't bother with the magazine reviews). If I recall correctly, Civ 2 MP was the same price as SP, so it's just a matter of waiting. But don't wait too long Firaxis, my interest in computer games is waning as I get older.

[EyesOfNight]

Who says you can't play with a slow modem? For most of my time on here I played on a 28.8 connection. In the last year here I got a 56K connection and I've been able to play tons of games.

[tniem]

Am I the only one that sees the cutting of MP foretell many other vital parts of the game to also be cut?

'That is why I am so concerned, they promised a great MP and are cutting it what about AI? What about balance? What about a good game?

[Leonidas]

I don't play multiplayer, so that part does not bother me.

What does worry me is, if they are cutting multiplayer because of deadline dates, then what else will be cut and/or be buggy because of this rush for the release date?

I can't believe that Sid would allow his flagship game - THE GREATEST STRATEGY GAME OF ALL TIME - to be released before it is properly finished. Yet that is what is happening.

This game is going to take some major hits in the reviews after it is released because of this omission. Shame on you Firaxis.

I also find it interesting that Firaxis didn't tell their loyal fans in public about this. What else aren't they telling us, hmmm?

[Master Marcus]

Originally posted by Leonidas
What else aren't they telling us, hmmm?

perhaps a weakier AI programming than expected, forcing us ( at least the most meticulous empire builders ) to micromanage everything. I like micromanaging ( unless it takes too long ) , while others do not. But at least it would be great to have the choice to do micro or more macro ( letting the AI to manage some cities ) with the same challenge level . I doubt that, though I'm still a confident civer.

[Lung]

Originally posted by blackice

I have posted this in several MP places I think once the MP people hit this spot you will see the graph move...as this information of no MP play is one of the dumbest things I have read in some time...

I'm one of them! You're absolutely right, BlackIce. Now that it has been posted on the Call to Power PBEM forum, there will be plenty more no votes

This is good news only for CtP PBEMers, as it is not destined to die in a few weeks from now. However, it's not the six month wait for Multiplayer that gets me, but the prospect of having to pay extra for the priviledge! It was reported on the CTP Multiplayer forum that CivIII was going to cost a whopping 60 bucks, and the multiplayer would cost another whopping 30 bucks!! If this is true, then this is outrageous!!

That means that in Australia, CivIII will cost a massive $120! It's so expensive, that i have actually been saving for CivIII. Spending another 60 bucks just for multiplayer is simply not an option. I will buy CivIII because i am a civ addict , but if i have to pay another 60 bucks for multiplayer, i will get a pirate copy - not only on principle, but also because i can't afford it.

So perhaps we should have another poll to see who will buy a CivIII gold edition? Not this little black duck!!