Frogboy Frogboy

Galactic Civilizations II: Would you purchase a multiplayer expansion?

▼

Galactic Civilizations II: Would you purchase a multiplayer expansion?

Poll results

from GalCiv2 Forums

The question we asked was, would you purchase a multiplayer only expansion pack that was $20.

Multiplayer expansion are nothing new.  Civilization III had one. Even the original Civilization had a multiplayer expansion. 

My own thoughts on a multiplayer expansion pack are ambiguous. Unlike an EA or Take 2 or any number of big publishers, Stardock's ability to get widespread retail space for an expansion pack for Galactic Civilizations II is a real challenge.

Hence, future expansion packs for Galactic Civilizations II are likely to be digital-only.  This way, the retail version of Galactic Civilizations II can hold on to its space as long as we can and people who want more can come here to get it.

Which brings us back to what exactly should be in an expansion pack.  We plan to make multiple expansion packs. One of the mistakes we made with the first GalCiv was that we only made one and users made it clear to us that they would have liked to have seen more.  So this time we will make sure we do that.

The first expansion pack would come out this Fall.  The second one next year. It would be that second expansion pack that we have to finalize what features for that could potentially be mostly about multiplayer.

When one thinks of an expansion pack, think of is like designing a ship in GalCiv II.  We have 5 slots. Multiplayer would eat up at least 3 of those slots, more likely 4 slots.

So the question really boils down to, are there OTHER features you would prefer to have instead of multiplayer.  This multiplayer poll won't be the last one on the subject.  But the results make it clear that there isn't a huge outcry for a multiplayer expansion.

I think most people are of the opinion that they'd happily by an expansion pack that included multiplayer if it had lots of other features. But that's not how these things work out. Multiplayer is a huge feature so other features would have to be taken out.

Once the first expansion pack comes out, we can then look at what might go into a second expansion pack (including multiplayer) and put the question up as to which features would people want the most.

262,315 views 249 replies
Reply #126 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The only thing I have a problem with right now is that you are going to only have the packs on-line. I can only pay with money order. Unless you make that a option then I can not get any of the packs.
Reply #127 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
How about a better combat viewer? Better ship movement, no collisions, etc
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #129 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Vordrak, there's nothing advanced about organic hulls. Organic hulls would SUCK. Soft, vulnerable to chemical reactions, needs food, etc. Crystalline is bad too, but for different reasons - cracking, weight, etc

I'd like SD to go through the forums and grab all the great ideas that've been thrown around since launch. There are some fantastic (and average ) ideas out there, and I'd rather have a dozen of those than multi.
Reply #130 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Wow, people who don't know how statistical analysis works!


Yes. You're clearly one of them.

If you honestly believe that this poll means that only 33% of people who bought GalCiv2 would buy a multiplayer-only expansion, you're just wrong.

I would classify the error ratio of this poll to be something like +/- 15% or so. As many have pointed out, the ratio of people who come to this website who want MP is not the same as the ratio of people who purchased GC2 and would buy an MP expansion. How many people is the difference? Who knows. Also, the people who want an MP expansion know that their best chance for it is to vote, so more of them will vote than the other side. To say that this in some way balances out is to speak in ignorance.

Personally, I don't want multiplayer. I don't want the developers to waste their time on it. And I'm tired of seeing threads on it.

However, defending the lack of MP by saying, "Well, this horribly inaccurate poll shows that X% of people wouldn't buy it,) is no better.

If StarDock is going to stick to their principles and say no to multiplayer on general principle, so be it (and good for them). If StarDock is going to conduct a poll to determine if such a thing were profitable and make it if it is, then that's capitalism winning out over principle. But it's wrong for them to make the decision based on a bad poll. Either be serious about it and conduct real market research or don't. Whatever you do, don't play lipservice by generating falacious data to support the position you just happen to not want to take anyway.

Vordrak, there's nothing advanced about organic hulls. Organic hulls would SUCK. Soft, vulnerable to chemical reactions, needs food, etc.


That would be hulls made out of human skin; not organic hulls.

Kevlar is organic. So is spider-silk. Both of them have a higher strength-to-weight ratio than any known metal.

And "needs food"? What, the crew of a regular ship doesn't? A living ship needs food, but a metal one needs fuel. Plus, the metal one needs a crew (who need food). And the metal one can't fix itself, so it needs a living crew.

I can imagine a ship with scales made of some kind of woven spidersilk. Overlapping, and able to be shed and regrown. That'd be pretty good protection.
Reply #131 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
AHAHAHAHAHA.

An organic ship needs food like a metal one needs fuel? No, the organic ship will need fuel too - but it will fall to bits if you don't feed it. Organic ships can fix themselves like real living things! Except... real things heal very slowly, they can die from disease, are chemically complex thus reactive, etc etc. I'm not even going to ask what you base the idea of an organic turbine, or organic laser gun, or whatever on. You're clearly deep in biowank county, and you'll probably just say 'organic engines/computers/armour is better' and expect everyone to believe it. You even appear to be suggesting entirely organic ships - ie, spacebourne organisms, uncrewed, which somehow travel faster than light and are armed with weapons that would probably kill it in the act of firing. YAY FOR BIOWANK!

But hey, go some more pie-in-the-sky 'lol grow spidersilk' nonsense. Go for it! PS, spidersilk doesn't scale. Can you make a super-strong plate out of it? No, no you can't. Whoops!
Reply #132 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
But you're not applying it to a random sample, so regardless, in light of how many people did purchase galcivs2, it's an unproportioned tiny amount.


Oh but I was applying it to a random sample as this is as random of a sample that SD has access to. I will admit that neither of us know for sure which is in the majority when it comes to all GCII buyers so it is impossible to say if this poll is accurate or not. The only fact that I can apply to it is knowing GCII was a SP game when I purchased it so there was no expectation that the game would ever contain MP. SD ask those who they feel are loyal to their game and come to their site. This is about their best avenue to access the majority of their customers as possible at one time.

I'll stand by my comments, and refute that as being irrelevant. You can't apply a stereotype to 'minorities' and expect it to hold everywhere. I'd dare say that those seeking multiplayer have been practically chased off these forums (and it's definitely accepted that in these cases, the insults are not on a one-way street, please let's not be naive here). To exend that thought further, MPers have likey 'done their dash' with galcivs2 and have moved on. I honestly can't see there being a fair amount of multiplayer-enthusiasts on this here forum.


While I will admit that the SP folks have challenged the MP folks, I do not seem to recall any of them telling someone to leave. Just go back and read this thread again and see which side started throwing out insults. I wasn't meaning the link to minorities negitive just stating the truth that the minority crowd NEEDS to speak up to get their opinion heard. I personally do not mind a debate just leave the insults out (and this is not directed at you as you have not insulted). You have admitted that it is possible that "MPers have likely 'done their dash'" so do you feel that SD should actually target them in their decisions on what should be in an expansion? This game did not target the MP crowd to begin with, which is the point a lot of us are trying to make.

As for reviewers, I've had a subscription to CGW for years now but just because they may not like something does not mean I won't and vice versa. I read their reviews to learn a little bit about the games that spark my interest. As mentioned before, the reviewers do not always enjoy a particular type of game they are reviewing and therefore do not give it a chance so the review is low. GCII has gotten many good reviews with just side notes of the lack of MP. All that says is that the reviewers like MP but that does not mean that every one who reads their review agrees with it. As with this poll, you cannot claim that they represent the voice of anyone. There have been games that have had outstanding reviews that I felt sucked, but that is just the differences in opinion. Anyway, I just use reviews to get information while trying to leave out the reviewers opinion of how they feel about certain features.

Reply #133 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
If StarDock is going to stick to their principles and say no to multiplayer on general principle, so be it (and good for them). If StarDock is going to conduct a poll to determine if such a thing were profitable and make it if it is, then that's capitalism winning out over principle. But it's wrong for them to make the decision based on a bad poll. Either be serious about it and conduct real market research or don't. Whatever you do, don't play lipservice by generating falacious data to support the position you just happen to not want to take anyway.


I emphatically agree with this statement. I've never come on here and said a word about multiplayer previously. I didn't even know about the poll (though I do check the website weekly for updates), and I certainly can't understand anything that Pnakotus is talking about (it does sound like superflous exaggeration). To me, this thread still hasn't ruled out a multiplayer expansion at all, in fact- the OP specifically states this isn't the final straw on the discussion...

@ Norad: Stardock have hinted at multiplayer being a potential post-release expansion for a long time before GalCivs2 was even released. People have been discussing it for that long, and I definitely had the impression it was a highly likely addition later on in its post-release development cycle when I bought it. It wasn't the reason for me buying it, but it was certainly a factor that intrigued me immensely. And now that it's being put to the community, I'm just trying to establish a fair ground for those in favour of such a development.

Stardock have many market research avenues available to them (I have no doubt of it), and if they really wanted to embrace a wider, fairer audience, I'm sure they can do that too. I sincerely hope they do anyway- and that's all I'm trying to say.
Reply #134 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
the organic ship will need fuel too - but it will fall to bits if you don't feed it.


Are you suggesting that you know the needs of a completely fictional construct? We're already deep in the realm of speculative fiction to even be discussing living ships; it seems disingenuous to start saying that "X isn't possible" or "Y is possible".

You don't like the idea of organic ships. I get that. However, that did not necessitate the use of the pejorative term "biowank" (which you apparently just invented). All that does is turn your post into the ravings of a zealot crusading against anything that he/she doesn't find fits into his/her world view.

If you wish to be taken seriously, you should argue with greater maturity.
Reply #135 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Hence, future expansion packs for Galactic Civilizations II are likely to be digital-only.



Humm... not really liking that. Those of us in good old europe doesn't really all have credit cards or want to pay over the net. I hope that Paradox would still be releasing the expansion pack in stores.


What he said.
Reply #136 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Because all this fuss I don't like MP-only expansion.
Makes some SP players too nervous.

But, since I play only hotseat with friend, why not just make SP expanion and put hotseat in it.
It would take 1slot or maybe even 0.5 slots (diplomacy interface, save game system, starting menu, some balance here and there, and that's it).
Reply #137 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I think 33% for a 20 $ MP-only expansion is quite a lot.

Before release the lack of MP had also been justified by the fact of a lower price, 40 $ instead of 50 $. This is a 10 $ difference. But now we are (potentially) offered a 20 $ expansion. This is too much for many of us, for a feature many people had expected the game to have by now already (of course excluding the majority of the "true" GalCiv core fans who should be over-represented in these forums though)

I would be very disappointed without multiplayer. The AI (in absolute terms) is not as great as stated in many reviews and MP would be the solution to me.
Reply #138 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I would love to see a multiplayer expansion pack. We are a group of six people and we are still waiting for a game like MOO2. So maybe its worth to include it in the first pack.
Reply #139 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Hi there,

what I am really missing is A REAL ROUNDBASED BATTLE, where you could use that different ships you built.

SPACE
and GROUND !!!
(Take the 5 star General series from SSI as an example http://www.panzergeneral.com/ they even had Space General

That's it ... make that as ADD ON and I am really happy to contribute my 20.-
Make Multiplayer only if after all other things, it is still possible
Reply #140 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
It's fun to read more and more posts which are basically 'I want multi wah wah wah make it for me regardless of manpower, economics, or marketing. If they don't they're rogues and cads'. EARTH TO PEOPLE - they AREN'T consisdering it because it ISN'T profitable. That's what this whole thread is about!


They are considering it. They just don't think there is a large enough market to justify it.

Anyway I've been thinking about it and the top ideas I have for expansions are:

1. Political overhaul. The galactic council needs some lovin'. The ability to propose bills would be good. I always find military games more interesting as theres more to get involved in, non-combat routes can feel a little passive sometimes. Maybe the espionage system could be looked at too.

2. Asteroid installations. Back in the early days of development (pre-beta 1) there was a plan to utilise asteroid belts as small colonies/mining stations. You would have large belts scattered about the map which can be mined for X benefit. Space terrain was also on the cards. Nebulae, black holes, maybe better wormholes, and great big asteroid belts. Unfortunately it was realised a few months into development that they could never get it all done in time so it had to be abandoned. But it sounded cool....



Reply #141 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
It's fun to read more and more posts which are basically 'I want multi wah wah wah make it for me regardless of manpower, economics, or marketing. If they don't they're rogues and cads'. EARTH TO PEOPLE - they AREN'T consisdering it because it ISN'T profitable. That's what this whole thread is about!


They are considering it. They just don't think there is a large enough market to justify it.

Anyway I've been thinking about it and the top ideas I have for expansions are:

1. Political overhaul. The galactic council needs some lovin'. The ability to propose bills would be good. I always find military games more interesting as theres more to get involved in, non-combat routes can feel a little passive sometimes. Maybe the espionage system could be looked at too.

2. Asteroid installations. Back in the early days of development (pre-beta 1) there was a plan to utilise asteroid belts as small colonies/mining stations. You would have large belts scattered about the map which can be mined for X benefit. Space terrain was also on the cards. Nebulae, black holes, maybe better wormholes, and great big asteroid belts. Unfortunately it was realised a few months into development that they could never get it all done in time so it had to be abandoned. But it sounded cool....



Reply #142 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
@ Norad: Stardock have hinted at multiplayer being a potential post-release expansion for a long time before GalCivs2 was even released. People have been discussing it for that long, and I definitely had the impression it was a highly likely addition later on in its post-release development cycle when I bought it. It wasn't the reason for me buying it, but it was certainly a factor that intrigued me immensely. And now that it's being put to the community, I'm just trying to establish a fair ground for those in favour of such a development.


Point well taken. I admit that the first I had ever heard of GC was from an ad in CGW a little over a month ago so I'm a bit late in joining in on the discussions of the game. Having said that though, I still knew the game to be SP when it was purchased and nowhere on the box did it say there was a possibility of MP. Having learned from being in on pre-release discussions from a couple of beta test, if it isn't on the box where "the consumer bases their decision" there is no misleading involved. Of course that was from one of the big game producers that seem to no longer care what type of product they release because their name will carry them in future releases. I'm now just a little gun shy when it comes to anything that a game company says. There is no guarantee that patches will even be released and most of the time they are not unless there is just a major outcry from the consumers.

Ack, I apologize for the tangent. In short, there was an assumption on my part about nothing being released on the chance of MP but everything I had read by Brad before my purchase said how he felt about MP in a TBS. (It seems he still holds these feelings as well)
Reply #143 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
That would be hulls made out of human skin; not organic hulls


Hey! Hulls made out of human skin - that would be quite a cool graphic for an evil race ...

Kevlar is organic. So is spider-silk. Both of them have a higher strength-to-weight ratio than any known metal. I can imagine a ship with scales made of some kind of woven spidersilk. Overlapping, and able to be shed and regrown. That'd be pretty good protection.


Looking at this thread and the others I have posted in the general forum, there seem to be a fair few people who would like additional jewellery with more variety. Several people liked the idea of organic hulls and crystalline hulls (and jewellery) as alternatives to the metallic looking ships. You would need alternate graphics for the equipment modules too - that kept with the alternative graphical themes.

That would be a popular and profitable option for Stardock.

Also - lots of us would like Terror Stars too.
Reply #144 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Charging to add what is a standrard feature nowadays is an insult to customers
Reply #145 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Stardock, the "game has five expansion slots and multiplayer would take up 3-4 of them" analogy really got my attention. When you put it that way, I would rather not have multiplayer.

I'm sure you'll get requests for expansion features such as "more ____ ," such as more hulls, more extra components, more races, more random events, more game setup features. Assuming this is true, I'll concentrate my suggestions on features that wouldn't simply be more of the same (although I would really like to see more random events and races).

2) Variety in the planets that can be colonized. Mars-like planets are about the minimum, currently. But I'd also like to be able to colonize frozen Pluto-like planets, hostile volcanic planets, and gas giants. Rather than an initial colony, a resource-gathering module might go down on planets that are extremely inhospitable. Xeno-farming and other terrestial improvements wouldn't be possible, but recreation might (which could boost tourism empire-wide rather than just locally).

1) Bring resource extraction into the game. Aluminum, gold, iron, nickel, platinum, uranium, and coal might be just a few of the resources that could be extracted on the worlds we colonize. Different worlds would have different resources. Resources would provide benefits empire-wide (like tradeable goods) or local effects only (such as on production). Raw materials could be used in conjunction with specific improvements to produce additional goods, such as luxury products.

3) Galactic Stock Market. Goods could be traded on an open market with other civilizations with whom you have contact. Prices would fluctuate according to the current scarcity of the good (a function of supply and demand). My inspiration for this comes from the game Starknights (www.starknights.com), which calls it the Tradepost.

4) Some ship components (weapons, defenses, etc.) would require that you have access to certain raw materials or finished goods in order to utilize them on your ships. For example, a stronger armor might be available if you have access to Titanium and Aluminum, which are produced at an Electrolysis improvement from Titanium and Aluminum Oxides.

5) I'd love to see the makeup of each planet's population (ie, 45% Human, 55% Yor) affect your planetary management and the bonuses of your soldiers (as was done in the MOO series). The makeup of populations could affect planetary loyalty, morale, productivity, etc.

6) Minor races should expand beyond their one planet.

7) Allow players to design planetary improvement modules the way they are able to design hulls. Technologies would unlock the components of modules, but what you actually build would depend on how your modules were designed. There should also be plenty of extras (eye candy). The initial colony and capital improvements should also be upgradeable and designable, since this is where user-design would be the most meaningful. People might not care what their factories look like, but designing their cities might create a LOT of user interest.
Reply #146 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'd like to see more flexibility in ship design and type... if that's possible. Basic stuff like new hulls and jewelry, but also new capabilities, like cloaking, maybe some sort of area effect like stations, larger capital-ship-only weapons, rotating turret-like hardpoints, etc.

But I think my biggest priority is getting all the hardpoints in the game to line up how they should. There's nothing more disappointing to me than having to rethink how I'm going to design a ship because two opposing hardpoints aren't properly aligned.
Reply #147 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Charging to add what is a standrard feature nowadays is an insult to customers


And THAT is an insulting and ignorant statement. Most games have things like multiplayer standard because they have enormous budgets and huge backing by multinational corporations. Stardock has produced an excellent product, independently. How dare you criticize them for not having all the same features as an EA or Sony release?
Reply #148 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Charging to add what is a standrard feature nowadays is an insult to customers


The big gaming companies charge us for that "standard feature" as well, they just do not put it out in an expansion. By putting it out in an expansion those of us who would never use that feature do not have to spend our money on it.

BTW...Copy protection is also a "standard feature" to most gaming companies yet SD decided against it. It is nice to see a company take some chances and not follow the big publishers (and a few gamers it seems) in what they would like to consider the norm.
Reply #149 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
BTW...Copy protection is also a "standard feature" to most gaming companies yet SD decided against it. It is nice to see a company take some chances and not follow the big publishers (and a few gamers it seems) in what they would like to consider the norm.


Taking chances such as making a game in this genre to begin with. All hail bucking conventional wisdom.
Reply #150 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Something that used to be a standard feature, but now you have to pay extra for: a comprehensive manual. Anymore, you have to pay an additional $20 for the strategy guide that includes tables that should have been in the shipped manual. I would like it if the expansion pack includes the comprehensive manual (i.e., what is now called the strategy guide). Typical example was MOO3. In order to know whether it was best to address the Traal with a formal or scornful tone, you had to pay extra. Or all the MMORPGs where you never learn the actual effects of spells, just vague descriptions, unless you own the strategy guide. One of my complaints with Galactic Civilizations was the complete lack of civilopedia-like info. I can't count how many times I have right-clicked on a game feature (such as a tech) only to remember, "oh yeah, that information is privy."