MP or no MP?

[PN]

Who is the biggest customer SP or MP?

What percentage of the buyers want MP? Not percentage of people who visit Apolyton, but total buying public worldwide?

You're a game developer, you've spent millions on this game, you've canned/suspended one (Dinosaurs), another has been knocked back (SimGolf) so your revenue stream isn't as good as you'd like it to be. BUT your biggest selling cash cow game is nearly ready apart from multiplayer which is only in there for X.Y% of your market (which I think is a very small number).

And Christmas is just around the corner. Would you release it? Of course you would.

Blimey if all Civ MP players are so economically naive, I'd hate to try and trade with you

[Sirotnikov]

Well, I think that MP is the only thing that can really give Civ longlevity, not that a comfortable scripting engine is out of the question (unless someone maes it in the black market :maughty

This isn't Civ 2, and proababy will never be.

The only way to insure people will be buying this game is buy gibing them a chance to play together and develop more.

Every successfull long standing game is about communicating and interacting with others. Risk. Diplomacy. Civ 2 !.


If Firaxis/Infogrames willt at least release something worthwhile together with MP so that the charge would be worth extra money, and can be called "an expansion add on", and not "things we forgot to put in the game, now for extra price", they could come out ok.

Otherwise they'll allienate the audience and won't have a long lasting game.

[ColdWizard]

i'm a pessimist

there will be no MP on initial release and MP will be part of an expansion pack at a later date


Long Live the Boycott

[PN]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Every successfull long standing game is about communicating and interacting with others. Risk. Diplomacy. Civ 2 !.

If Firaxis/Infogrames willt at least release something worthwhile together with MP so that the charge would be worth extra money, and can be called "an expansion add on", and not "things we forgot to put in the game, now for extra price", they could come out ok.

Otherwise they'll allienate the audience and won't have a long lasting game.

Rollercoaster Tycoon? Hardly out of the games charts for over 2 years now. No multiplayer capability whatsoever.

IMHO opinion the thing that gives games longevity is not multiplayer ability but its playability plus the feature for ANYBODY to make their own expansion packs after the developers give up on it and move onto something else. It's not the size of the MP community.

However the only examples that come straight to my mind are MP games like Quake, Half-Life etc.

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by PN


Rollercoaster Tycoon? Hardly out of the games charts for over 2 years now. No multiplayer capability whatsoever.

IMHO opinion the thing that gives games longevity is not multiplayer ability but its playability plus the feature for ANYBODY to make their own expansion packs after the developers give up on it and move onto something else.

\

This is probably why The Sims! has done so well. People like the game, but not only that, there is tons of stuff to download for it.

[Henrik]

I havent followed this thread (Or other mp threads) but one of the mac programers posting here (making the mac port) posted when asked by me about the compability of MP PC-MAC wise:

As for MP, let's wait and see what happens with the PC version. As it stands right now, it's impossible because the PC version uses DirectPlay. That may change, and if it does, then MP games could be compatible. It's my fondest wish that they'll move away from DirectPlay.

Hmmm, now I dont like that it isnt going to be compatible, but since a lot of people have been discussing weter there will be mp or not...

I thought this might be of interest...

[ChrisShaffer]

There are at least five different ways to implement multiplayer for turn-based games like Civ3. I'm perfectly willing to wait (years, if need be) for someone to finally develop a multiplayer system that works.

All the currently implemented systems have problems that are so significant I won't even play them anymore, so if Civ3 implements multiplayer using the models found in CivNet, SMAC, etc. I won't even bother playing.

Direct connect turn based (IP or LAN or whatever) - scheduling seven players for a complete game, waiting for other players to finish their moves, feeling rushed by timers, significant blocks of time required.

Direct connect simultaneous move (ala CivNet) - clickfest. Need I say more? Oh, yeah, same problems as previous - feeling rushed, scheduling seven players, significant blocks of time required.

PBEM (ala SMAC) - 2+ years to play one seven player game, player dropouts.

Me, I'm hoping for EC3 New Idea #5 - Simultaneous Turns of Play http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000343.html#5

[drake]

PN, I agree to what you're saying. I know they need more money. They need to fund simgolf ( ).

Some game developers hold their games to a higher standard and make sure they are complete before release. Some throw out a half assed job to make a quick buck.

We will find out if the game is complete or half assed soon enough.

If they don't care about the most dedicated civ fans f*ck em'. Thats my opinion. And you're all entitled to yours.

[Th0mas]

Originally posted by PN

However the only examples that come straight to my mind are MP games like Quake, Half-Life etc.

......and Civ II.

(both for MP and SP, but mainly SP)

[drake]

Uh thomas...quake and half life are worthless without a human opponent really......just like something like rainbow 6.

I'd argue civ is the same, but its a futile argument around here

[Deathwalker]

Ther'll do it it as a exspaction pack or a new version nowing them?

[Th0mas]

Originally posted by drake
Uh thomas...quake and half life are worthless without a human opponent really......just like something like rainbow 6.

I'd argue civ is the same, but its a futile argument around here

possibly true

However, the civ community has been strong for a long time, which is rare for any game - I think it is a combination of two things, the extremely persistent MP community and CIV 2's inherent customisability.

If you take into account the continuity of the Civ community between the period that vanilla CIV II was released and the availability of Civ2MPG, I would suggest you should come to the conclusion that customisability is a more important factor in determining a games longevity than MP.

It is the game design that provides the potential......Only then does MP allow you to share that experience with your mates. ( this does not detract from the MP experience or lessen its importance)

... MP adds the icing on an already great cake (just think of all the MP games that have been crap).

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by Simpleton
Don't worry . MP is in the game Firaxis just wants to surprise us. I'm sure of it...

In lieu of the official news:

Surprised??

[Th0mas]

In lieu of the official news: Surprised ??

No not really - but I think we'll get lots of 'told you so's....'

Better they get MP right first.... . . . .anyway MP in CIV 2 must be good otherwise people wouldn't get so angry about it not being present in the boxed version..

...soooo *raising head above the parapet* it would be worth paying extra for a multiplayer add on (with extra's like spanish and Viking civs etc)..

bye *ducking rapidly*

[Sarxis]

I for one agree with paying extra for MP- as long as it is truely worth the wait and money.

And anyone who continues to complain- hey, there's always CTP for ya!