It's officially official: NO MULTIPLAYER

[Rasputin]

and is anyone reaaly surprised??? civ3 Version 2.4 (subtitled the search for more money) will include MP but will cost a big buckaroo !!!!

[LoD]

Surprised: Not really. Angry: Very much so.

[Gramphos]

Rasputin,
I think all other features are good enough to buy the game anyway, but MP wouldn't been wrong. We still don't know whether they will have us to buy a MP version, or feature it in a XP together with other features, or give it away for free (as they became tired of only playing MP with themselves)

[TheBirdMan]

Yeees! Celebrate! I'm really happy about lack of multiplayer in the game, and I'm not joking about this.

Yes Sir Mr. Solver!

Now we know, why did you always left your nations in such a bad condition.

Didn'y you care for those poor guys, who eventually would take over the nations from you when you left our games?

One is still suffering, handling enourmous number of slavers and clerics.

And cities with no access to food

And missing trade?

And... and .

Well, everything has a reason I see !

Sorry Solver - but even so, your post did surprise me a little .

[SorvinoBackhand]

Trust Abused

Well said.

Firaxis tacitly lied - a white lie, if you prefer - in not stating this earlier. Clearly MP was a selling point for some consumers, and it was used in the game's promotion. While certainly Firaxis or Infogrames have broken no contractual obligation to any of us, it demonstrates poor taste to disinform customers. DanS' description 'perfidious' is absolutley correct in that sense.

For all the mystique this site has attributed to Sid Meier, it is disappointing to see that he could not prevent this. While no bindng contracts have been breached, our trust has been violated.

Originally posted by DanS
Booooo!!!!!!

Perfidious Firaxis.

[ogotai]

And what with option: "hot seat" - this won't be there too. This option isn't wery hard to put it into game options...

[Howling Chip]

I hope some day we'll all find out enough information to piece together what actually happened from the point Firaxis first mentioned CIV III w/ multiplayer to the point stated in their FAQ that it would ship without it.

I know I have considered several explanations, many of them based on reading opinions posted here at Apolyton. Were they were trying to get it in and failed to make the deadline? Was it for marketing? Did they want to toy with the emotions and attitudes of fansite members? Were they totally clueless and that sloppy with customer relation communications?

The constant in all the explanations I've given the most credence to is the fact it took so long for an official "No MP" statement to be made. Add the way information came out, like clues to be found in an E-mail to a teacher, and interviews in magazines, that there'd be no MP. Then recently Dan responds that he cannot give an official explanation nor and unofficial explanation on why CIV III will be shipping without MP.

Here's why I'm posting. Even before the MP issue, IMO Firaxis has been great in fan appreciation, but sub par in execution. So this morning a brand new angle popped into my head after my first espresso.

What if Infogrames has been the one demanding MP from the get go, and it has been Firaxis, or Sid, saying not ready, not ready, not ready, right through to the point it went Gold. Your publisher refuses to let you give up on MP till you prove in Beta its not ready. This would contractually keep you from saying "No MP" until you contractually proved to the "suits" it was not ready.

If Firaxis committed to MP as part of the Infogrames contract, those references to MP in the early interviews and pre-order features right after the publishing deal would be natural. If in this same contract they did not contractually commit to a guaranteed first release version (get the lawyers), and Firaxis does hold fan appreciation dear, and they won't release an MP that doesn't work any better than previous Civ MPs, then you would have what we've seen. Infogrames refusing to let go of the hope for MP by the time CIV III is gold, and refusing to allow any official statements on "no MP".

It would be Infogrames who'd be worried about CIV III losing money because it has no MP, not Firaxis. IMO the folks at Firaxis are more confident that CIV III will sell without MP on initial release, and the publisher would be sweating bullets.

The way communication on the status of MP was handled by Firaxis/Infogrames (by individual employees as well as corporate communications) does not look like some well executed or thought out strategy to achieve some type of goal. It looks to this poster like the result some internal problems, not a plan.


PS: Welcome to my first Apolyton post. YAY!

[yin26]

Welcome! Great post.

It looks to this poster like the result some internal problems, not a plan.

I can agree with this 100%. I don't see cheater or liers. I see people who have yet to learn from the past and make stuff like this a priority for the company.

[yoda]

CIV3 MP

Hugely disappointed. There is not a snow balls chance in hell that the AI will be anywhere close to challenging enough without it being ridiculous (ie: learn tech twice as fast and produce units twice as fast, etc...). I'm sure the game will be fun and I still look forward to playing it, but I hope we don't have to wait 2 years to have a multi-player version.

[Kyle]

Good for them. Make sure the game is good, then worry about multiplayer. I don't want to have to wait an additional few months (whatever) for something I'll never use.

[WarningU2]

No MP - Disappointed


I'm not a frequent visitor to this board like some but Wow! I'm very disappointed that the multiplayer option will not be included with the first release. This is huge news.

Although I'm sure that Civ 3 will be an exciting upgrade to Civ 2, to not have this option will prompt me to cancel my advance order and wait for the gold edition. This is purely for monetary reasons ... the Civ 3 game here in Canada ordered in advance via bits and chips was over $100 with shipping and currency exchange plus I likely have to pay GST. For it not to include MP ... well it just isn't worth it IMHO.

Too bad I've been really looking forward to this. Also explains why I never got an answer from Fixaris about MP options ...

Thanks for saving me 110 bucks...

[Kevin Ar18]

Single Player only - can be a good thing

Personally, I'm also kind of excited there's no multiplayer. As some have argued it means they really worked hard on the single player to get it right, but that's not the main reason.

It brings me back to the days of when I first got Civ2. I wasn't bored with every game out there. New games (like Civ2) were new and exciting to me.

Going back to just single player may force some of us to get back to the reason we really loved the game.... For every game I've ever liked, it was for the single player first and the multiplayer second.

This also brings back memories about finding hidden multiplayer ability in Civ2 and trying it out at school. Na, I don't see this as bad, but a chance to really enjoy this game before going into the fast paced multiplayer.

[WarningU2]

Re: Single Player only - can be a good thing

Originally posted by Kevin Ar18

Going back to just single player may force some of us to get back to the reason we really loved the game.... For every game I've ever liked, it was for the single player first and the multiplayer second.

Can't argue with you Kevin -- you're absolutely right that a non MP player game will force you to explore the game in it's entirety. I'm sure Civ 3 will be a great game and I will probably relent and buy it come Xmas.

What annoys me is that I was under the impression that since Civ 2 was a MP game at the last release, so would Civ 3. Fixaris did nothing to correct that impression.

[Kevin Ar18]

Re: Re: Single Player only - can be a good thing

Originally posted by WarningU2
Can't argue with you Kevin -- you're absolutely right that a non MP player game will force you to explore the game in it's entirety. I'm sure Civ 3 will be a great game and I will probably relent and buy it come Xmas.

What annoys me is that I was under the impression that since Civ 2 was a MP game at the last release, so would Civ 3. Fixaris did nothing to correct that impression.

Well, I must admit I've never played Civ2 multiplayer apart from the hotseat hack.

Oh, and we're not gonna have to wait years for multiplayer for Civ III.
With Civ2 they didn't really have major plans for multiplayer it seems.
However, multiplayer in Civ III is one of their plans for the game.

BTW, look how pleasantly surprised we've been to even get Civ III this early. Some expected it to come out next year.

[LoD]

Kevin Ar18: Although you have a point, you're only partially right. It's true, first one plays the single player mode, and, when he has fully explored the game mechanics, one goes to multiplayer (at least that worked for me). But you see, in Civ3, you won't have the option of going to multiplayer.
From what I judge you haven't really had a real MP civ experience. Believe me, it's entirely a different world. A whole range of possibilities of action become viable. Secret plans, schemes, real diplomacy. It actually adds a "role playing" to a civ game (and this makes you more "attached" to a single game). And we'll be missing all this out because there will be no multiplayer in Civ3.
The freedom to chose what suits you the most is better than being forced to having one option.