MP or no MP? - Page 2

PN · October 9, 2001, 15:50

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 · October 9, 2001, 20:28

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 · October 10, 2001, 00:47

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 · October 10, 2001, 03:03

Quote:

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 · October 10, 2001, 04:04

Quote:

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 · October 10, 2001, 04:52

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:

Quote:

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 · October 10, 2001, 07:48

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 · October 10, 2001, 08:14

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 · October 10, 2001, 09:02

Quote:

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 · October 10, 2001, 09:20

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 · October 10, 2001, 09:35

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

Th0mas · October 10, 2001, 10:29

Quote:

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 · October 10, 2001, 12:51

Quote:

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 · October 10, 2001, 13:10

Quote:

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 · October 10, 2001, 13:46

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!

drake · October 10, 2001, 14:04

Hey I don't mind waiting 2 or 3 months. Doesnt bother me. But I'm not going to buy two games. I will not buy civ3 "vanilla" and then get an add on. F*ck that.

They need the equivalent of a civ2 gold version with civ3. As long as I get that, I will be happy.....

They're still a bunch of backwards c0cks for not including it, but its a waste of time whining about it, so I think I am going to stop......................I think

SITS · October 11, 2001, 01:18

The lack of MP is a disgrace, especially as Firaxis hasn't been very forthcoming on it.

Th0mas · October 11, 2001, 08:29

Quote:

Originally posted by SITS
The lack of MP is a disgrace, especially as Firaxis hasn't been very forthcoming on it.

hang on...Sid made it quite plain in one of the early interviews that he felt civilisation was primarily a single player experience..

Ozymandous · October 11, 2001, 08:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Th0mas

hang on...Sid made it quite plain in one of the early interviews that he felt civilisation was primarily a single player experience..

And your point is?

MP was included as one of the selling features of the game, at least until the last two months when FIraxis (quietly) stopped advertising that as a selling point.

So Civ3 is playled by more people as a SP game, so what?? Still doesn't change the fact that they advertised the game as having MP and then kept silent on the issue (deluding those who placed pre-orders and then haven't chencked on the game again) for the last two months.

IF they knew MP wasn't going to make the first release, ands they obviously did buy the email that initially started the whole "is MP in?" debate, they SHOULD have published it so their customers wouldn't be pre-ordering the game under false pretenses.

My question to all those who think this game is the next coming of *insert your local diety here*, do you like being lied to and having information deliberately withheld? More companies are releasing games with major features missing to be sold as an expansion. Do you really like rewarding companies for releasing shoddy, half-finished products?

According to Soren, when Brian left they had to redesign the game, well tough, that's what they are paid for. I would hazzard a guess that if they had taken all the people who worked on SimGolf and that stupid dinosaur game and had them work on Civ3 the game would be FINISHED regardless of who had left the company.

Like the airline bailout, why should we reward companies for piss poor management decisions and failure to manage their resources correctly?

Th0mas · October 11, 2001, 10:15

The point is that Fraxis had asperations to make CIV III MP enabled - however they, obviously, were unable to deliver this functionality within the timescales and scope of their business plan.

This does not make them criminals.

In any development programme there has to come a point where you stop! The best way to kill a project is by scope creep. A decision must have been made not to release the MP functionality as it would have put the project at risk of non-delivery.

You might have grounds to be unhappy that your expectations have not been very well managed, but I would be very cautious about putting the full blame on Fraxis. As someone who understands the inherent conflict between marketing-development-creativity-business focus within this type of environment I would suggest that the decision not to include MP was not a simple "lets (screw) our customers for more money".

So Fraxis made a decision to focus on the highest priority which was to deliver an excellent SP CIV III. I strongly suspect that they talk about CIV III MP in terms of a 'phase II' - and yes you might have to pay for it ( developers are a very expensive resource)

My take is that I would rather pay for my game that may not have everything I want but delivers on 95% of it - than risk losing the on going evolution of the civilisation series altogether because you have a beef with the way it was marketed

drake · October 11, 2001, 10:20

Quote:

The point is that Fraxis had asperations to make CIV III MP enabled - however they, obviously, were unable to deliver this functionality within the timescales and scope of their business plan.

Yeah, they were too busy making useless animated units and other fluff

......

Th0mas · October 11, 2001, 11:09

Quote:

Originally posted by drake

Yeah, they were too busy making useless animated units and other fluff

......

yes I suppose it is a matter of taste

Though if they werent animated, there would be a lot of people moaning about that...

...although they would probably be different people...except Yin26

drake · October 11, 2001, 11:18

Quote:

yes I suppose it is a matter of taste

Though if they werent animated, there would be a lot of people moaning about that...

You mean firaxis can't make everyone happy???

They know this, and expect criticism because of this fact. No game release is flawless. Can't make everyone happy.

It just happens to be us MP people that got the shaft, so naturally we're un-happy.......I don't think anyone should expect us not to be un-happy.....its like you said thomas, if someone left out the hokey animated graphics, someone else would be b1tching.

Th0mas · October 11, 2001, 11:28

Quote:

Originally posted by drake

You mean firaxis can't make everyone happy???

They know this, and expect criticism because of this fact. No game release is flawless. Can't make everyone happy.

It just happens to be us MP people that got the shaft, so naturally we're un-happy.......I don't think anyone should expect us not to be un-happy.....its like you said thomas, if someone left out the hokey animated graphics, someone else would be b1tching.

I agree .. however I believe that in a CIV game you need the SP working before you get MP - the only part of SP that is not in MP is the AI (and only in those games with just human players)

...so to me it seems that if something needs to be dropped it is the MP functionality. (assuming MP will be coming along later)

I can understand why you would be dissapointed - it is when some of the MPphillic crowd start waving firebrands and threatening to storm the castle that I get

drake · October 11, 2001, 11:44

Storm what castle?

All (most of us) have done is express anger and discouragement and vow not to buy the game. What you mean Thomas?

I won't buy the game, but I'm not going to mail a package bomb to Firaxis

(Can't speak for anyone else though

)

Th0mas · October 11, 2001, 12:15

I suppose generally people are braver on-line - and maybe express their feelings slightly more vigorously than they might in person.

In my minds eye some of the Fraxis 'bashing' posts are translated into a vision of a screeming lynch mob, the spanish inquesition (indigestion?) or some medievel witch hunt... with about the same amount of objectivity.

drake · October 11, 2001, 12:24

Heh, yeah it is a little crazy isn't it?

Some people may be "braver" here than they are in real life, and many will probably puss out and buy the game anyway. But not me! I hold grudges!

If only firaxis had actually taken any of our advice, we'd have a hell of a game that ALL of us could enjoy!