I don't like digital thing too, since currently I have no means to pay for it.

I'm for a multiplayer part, I think It's a cool experience, to make a multiplayer match against humans, where you can't know what the enemy(human) will do, whatever I would buy it

So many posts have just been idiotic. People that are fanatic about wanting multiplayer keep on coming up with senseless arguments about how horrible it is that GalCiv II doesn't have it. Here's the summary of the points I've seen:

1: People only buy games with multiplayer.
A: The fact that GalCiv II has sold so well shows that people want a game that they can play by themselves. Not a single person has bought the game because of multiplayer because the game has *never* supported multiplayer! The user base has shown that there exists a demand for a single player game.

2: Only 'hardcore' people voted against multiplayer.
A: Heck, if anything this should show how useless it is to devote so many resources to creating a multiplayer game. Its been stated over and over again that multiplayer games would take far too long - if the hardcore audience of GalCiv II is not willing to invest that time/energy into multiplayer, what makes you think that casual gamers would? If anything the trend for casual gamers would be to skew the data in favor of not having a multiplayer only expansion.

Beyond the amount of time - the most outspoken proponents of multiplayer have stated that they would want to play this with a friend of theirs. There has been little to no support for public game rooms which is what multiplayer would require. Just because you want a feature that appeals to you and your one other buddy isn't indicative that other people would want the feature since its most pratical application is to match up strangers.

3: Stardock is insane - 33% would buy it!
A: What you're completely missing is the fact that 66% of the gamebase *wouldn't* buy it. Stardock is looking to find something which will be worthwhile to make and that would turn a profit... if 66% of the fan base is against something doesn't it make more sense to go with what they would want as opposed to the minority?

Colligocarus has summed it up the best: "Take the number of hours required to play a game of GalCiv2. Multiply that by three or more. Then try and coordinate that much time with other people. Um, no."

A game (for me, medium+ maps) takes at least 3-6 hours... you'll looking at a minimum time for multiplayer games of 6-12 hours with one opponent! How many people actually sit down at their computer for that long of a stretch? Unless Stardock has some master plan to make the gameplay go way faster its impractical to do multiplayer!

3: Stardock is insane - 33% would buy it! A: What you're completely missing is the fact that 66% of the gamebase *wouldn't* buy it. Stardock is looking to find something which will be worthwhile to make and that would turn a profit... if 66% of the fan base is against something doesn't it make more sense to go with what they would want as opposed to the minority?

You fail to realize that Stardock doesn't know how many people would buy a $20 non-MP expansion. The poll had nothing to do with whether it would be more profitable to make a SP expansion or a MP expansion. I thouhgt that the results of that poll meant that they would make the MP expansion, because their were far more people saying they would buy the expansion than I would exer expect. If 33% of any fan base would buy an expansion to a game, I would figure that any game manufacturer would make it if the game sold well. I can't imagine doing much better than that.

From what I remember it was officially stated that if the game sold well you would put out an expansion pack with new content that also featured multiplayer. Obviously the easy road has been chosen again. /quote]

Stardock said that following the game's release they would look at the amount of interest in a multiplayer expansion and if they believed it was economically viable they would do it. Being an independent developer they can't take big financial risks, so they need to be sure. They are not sure. This decision isn't about making things easy on themselves, it's about still being in business this time next year.

Stardock also have alot of experience in multiplayer games in their back catalogue, their experience has been that turn based strategy MP is very niche, you don't get hundreds of people logging onto a server every night for a quick game, because the game is slow. Some people do want it, as the third share of the poll shows, but that means of the 3,000 community players who responded only a third would buy that expansion. The other two thirds get no new content.

IF (note the word 'if', we can't make definitive statements can we) that ratio carries over to the wider market then Stardock can only really hope that they sell 1 copy of the expansion for every three copies of GC2 they sold. Odds are the numbers will be lower than that as alot of people won't buy any expansion packs having moved on to new titles. On the other hand you could make something that any GC2 player would find useful and treble your potential audience.

"I would never play multi-player... I do not like playing with other people... gaming is a personnal relaxation for me.

if I want interaction with other people, I would go out and play tennis, or go hiking, bike riding, go to my kick boxing gym etc..... or whatever."

I want as many possible game features (-multi player).


my .02 cents



Amen! More stuff for us "single" people .

The expansion should include more than just multiplayer for $20.

I used to be against such an expansion, now i want one. Many people I know now want to play this with/against others and me. Before I didn't think that this would happen but now many people I know would enjoy a multiplayer game now that they are into the game. Frankly, as well, the game is starting to hold less and less value over the time that i play it simply because i have no friends who can play with/against me in this to keep my interest in the game.

Anyone who says multiplayer isn't included in this are probably against it being $20 for just one feature.

Also their are still others who are against multiplayer completely. Frogboy says that they have "slots" for features, that is wrong, its not like that at all. More features can be included, their is no limit, multiplayer is just one of many.

NO ONE WILL PAY $20 FOR JUST MULTIPLAYER, INCLUDE MORE IN THIS EXPANSION. I'D PAY $30 if it was mutiplayer + other features. Those other games that you mentioned that had "mutiplayer expanion packs" included MANY features along with multiplayer.

People WILL play multiplayer for this and it will be active, the fact that the game is still holding interest with just singleplayer proves it.

I am actually VERY intersted in multiplayer for this and plan on hosting/playing MANY games as i'm sure many others are as well. I would probably pay $20 for just multiplay, as most every here who says no will do the same, however I wouldn't be happy for paying $20 for just one feature addition.

Im glad theres no MP. If MP happens there would be nothing but...."nerf this", "nerf that".

Hmm? You make no sense, obviously you never played this type of game multiplayer before. Its people like this that know absolutely nothing that think multiplayer is a bad idea.

What we're seeing here is the multiplayer crowd vastly overrating themselves in terms of their importance, as per usual.

Hmmm ...

The ideal solution would be to offer the Multiplayer Exp. Pack (with a few other features designed to improve the quality of both Single Player Mode and Multiplayer Mode, like the ability to automatically upgrade outdated ships) alongside the original version. That should solve the problem because (although you have probably already considered this):

1.) The people who didn't buy it because it lacked multiplayer might be tempted to rethink their decision it if they see the Exp. Pack for Multiplayer right next to it.

2.) Those who don't want Multiplayer but are still interested in the game can still buy it.

3.) The people who already have the game can buy multiplayer if they wish but aren't obligated (it would obviously have to be available online as well).

4.) Subsequent expansion packs can be released online (and save shelf space) to those who already have the game and to who it would most appeal.

5.) After you have are finished with the game, you could offer an eventual Gold Edition that contained the original, all the expansion packs, and one or two extra features (a strategy guide, or more ship jewelry, for instance).

My suggestion (although once again, I'm sure you have considered this) is to stop selling the Collector' Edition and replace it with the Multiplayer Expansion Pack. Its a 'Collector's Ediion', after all; that implies there is a limited supply. I am relatively sure they still stock it in stores, given that I bought my game only a few weeks ago and it was the Collector's Edition (for the same price, too ). A better idea, perhaps, would be to take out the original version when you release the expansion pack and simply offer a Gold Edition (though with the option to buy the multiplayer pack seperately online if you already have the game).

But my point is that you might be able to lure more customers into the game by selling the Multiplayer Exp. Pack alongside the game, difficult though it might be. I already posted my list of ideal features somewhere above /|\

A vote for No Multiplayer here.

What I want to see is....Story. Here my out on this. What a game like Galatic Civ screams out for is more narrative in the single player game. I think really adding a multiplayer would be wrong because its single-player mode is so fleshed out compared to the multiplayer. The multiplayer would be bare-bones and probably buggy(being stardock's limited support they can give and the wide variety of configurations they would need to deal with).

However, the single-player is already laid out and there is nothing much (groundbreaking) to change. But what can be done is to implement a story mode(or series of stories, either a branching story line or mini-scenarios?) so that the player actually feels the already great AI has more of an initiative to play against and with. If you are playing on a campaign to assist a civ that is almost totally wiped out, and you watch the cutscenes where the citizens are suffering, you will be more inspired to help fend off their enemies. I think it would be a natural fit to a game that hints at a backstory but doesn't really fill in the blanks. Also think how much it would break up some of the monotonous moments if you were working for goals and rewarded in later missions by different starting conditions. And scripted events would be great to break up the "next turn click fest" that sometimes plagues even the greatest TB games like this one. Not to even mention how much help adding a more fleshed-out galaxy would help the small criticisms this game has gathered like how the technologies seem generic and abstract.

In closing, I know some ppl will disagree but I don't believe warcraft or starcraft would have been the big hits they have been without an arching narrative carrying the single player game and think GC2 needs this as well.

Hilariously, the Dom2 forums are full of self-important PBEM players who hate any attempt to streamline the UI of their game. Crazy world, huh? Dom2 is a good game, but the UI is a terrible clickfest. And don't mention any convienient automation!

Sorry, GalCiv2 sold Dom2 INTO THE GRAVE because it's not targetted at that niche market.

Shadow, your post appears to disregard the amount of work required to make a MP version. It's wasted time from the perspective of developing the SP game. It's not going to happen.

What's really surprising is currently a funky workaround exists for getting hotseat to work... so why doesn't Stardock release via download for a $10.oo fee an official hotseat within GAL_CIV_2?? It's practically working now why not just make it official ?? Doing this will satisfy many of those wanting the multiplayer functionality.

Ideally it would be nice to see LAN multiplayer become available as well... but giving the MP gamers something is better than nothing.

Two ways to go which is making a SP_only expansion which will bring a percentage of gamers which bought the original game
OR
making an expansion which includes Multiplayer as one of the features which will bring a percentage of gamers which bought the original game and NEW MP gamers which did not buy the original game.

When you make your expansions... keep in mind that you want your gaming community to grow.... and the Multiplayer feature will make this happen !