Multiplayer is the future

[Sp00n]

The only game that even comes close to the TW series in tactical battles is the old out-dated Sid Meier's Gettysburg. It also had its limitations however. First: you could not purchase your armies, but only play historic or random battles online. Secondly: It was not a close combat type of game, since it was mostly cannons, guns and cavalry/with guns. Thirdly: The most you could play was a 2v2 without major lag.

The above game is what first attracted me to STW MP. It allowed you to purchase your army, it had close up combat, and you could play 4v4's without game-killing lag (Well for me as host that is).

There really are not any recent games similar to TW when it comes to realtime battles, which gave them a nice niche. However, with RTW they are closely approaching the mainstream and losing their uniqueness. It is the way of the business world in general and not of just CA/Activision.

!"

Check out the Imperial Glory website Elmo my old friend at last another developer appears to have copied CA, will it be any good though remains to be seen.

Panda I may have moaned in these forums about Rome but its only because of the passion I feel for the game and ill also like Elmo thank you for over 4 years of great online fun, I loved your last 2 games and played them more than any other pc game ive ever bought, ive never understood why no developer has copied you guys.

You have put lots of effort into Rome, Sorry though I just hate the new control system in Rome the SP game rocks but as you and your team well know the MP sucks you wouldnt be getting any critisism if you made the MP half decent I doubt that more than 5 of you even tested it.
Rome is a great game but it is a step backwards in every aspect of the 3D battle mode apart from sieges and graphics. You mention Warcraft and how you cant understand why so many people play it and I agree but its way more polished than Rome MP.

If you go and look at the forums for Imperial Glory they are asking the future players about all aspects of the game including MP, I dont recall you guys asking many questions here during Rome development.

Once again thanks for Shogun and MTW but before seeing reviews on your next games online content I wont be buying it and many will just download cracked copies and not buy it at all.

Bear that thought in mind.


MizuSp00n

PS Most of the critism here is about online play as this is a community site, Rome isnt a good online game its ok, compared to your last 2 games its poor.

[AMP]

Imperial Glory has good graphics and dose remind you of totalwar in a way, but i like swordplay. to much gunplay can get boring for me.. i hope i'm wrong for i will try the demo when it comes out and give the game a chance.

warcraft3 is easy to understand why so many play it online. just play the game online for yourself and you can see. look at all the features and support for the game.. tons of it. i've only stopped playing it cause it's not my type of game. i like commanding armies of swordsmen, cavalry, spearmen, and archers. i'm not a fan of the teching up, building, and reasource gathering, i like that stuff for campaign and always hope for a mp one.

sp isn't something that a whole lot of people can play over and over again. i'm sure most people only play it once or twice and problay over a long period of time. the ai is to easy to walk over and it just isn't nearly as fun as playing against a human online. why is it so hard for some people to see that?

combine warcraft3 features, rtw graphics, mtw/stw controls/gameplay, a mp campaign like rtw's, and you have yourself a winner!!!!!!!!

[hellenes]

I had thought that people here would have some grasp of reality; however, all I see are pipe dreams and piping dreamers...

d6veteran: I posted the link to the Stardock postmortem as something I read today which was interesting to me, not because it specifically informs CA's policy or because we take our lead from Stardock. So much for my referring to them on the basis that some people here have liked their games.

Dionysus9: I'm sorry, but your rant about "blame MP" is misguided at best. That quote was from the manager of that project, talking about where he saw resources expended in the project, and about what he would have done differently. To say that he's blaming MP because the game didn't do well is pretty daft, regardless of whether it got a cheap laugh from the crowd. He *knows* that only 1% of the purchasers of the game have tried playing MP. It *turns out* that investing so much time in MP was not profitable. He's not justifying a decision to not invest time in MP; he's regretting making the decision to have invested so much, given the number of people that it's benefited compared to the number of people who would have benefited from the time going somewhere else.

A couple other things:

Everyone keeps banging on about Blizzard as the paradigm for MP success. I think you need to consider that there are plenty, plenty more companies which have attempted to emulate Blizzard and failed. I would expect that CA has no interest in massively failing at MP, especially since we have our own stats about MP usage which suggest that 1% is a pretty good estimate of the size of the market. (We know exactly how many CD keys have been used to log into GameSpy for Medieval, for example. Doesn't tell us the size of the LAN market, but then nothing would.)

In short, everyone keeps saying that we would make a fortune if we "took MP seriously", and wailing that until we believe that there's more than 1% of you out there, we're waving goodbye to a fortune. But it isn't your money and your jobs on the line if you're wrong, is it? CA has made enough money to stay in business making predominantly-SP games. In fact, most games companies stay in business that way, with what you would call mediocre online support, or none at all. The number of *good* MP games is pretty minuscule. On the other hand, I could name you plenty of games which have delivered astoundingly good content, including a viable multiplayer component, which have achieved no great MP impact, and seen the developer go bankrupt regardless. (Who here played Startopia - multiplayer or otherwise? How many MP games of Emperor have I ever seen running? Majesty? Stronghold?)

Come on, be honest. Name all these successful multiplayer games. When you say that, what you mean is the Blizzard line, Counter-Strike, AoE, the Quakes and a few Quake-powered FPSs, UT, and some (nowhere near all) MMORPGs. That's about it.

In other words, FPSs and RTSs. Games you can pick up and play immediately. Genres which have been around for a decade.

Tell me why we should take any risks without a great deal of care and attention and investigation *and some numbers to back it up*.

I completely understand the risk wich is involved...However as i said in my previous post there is a HUGE income slipping away because of the PIRACY aspect...Blizzard hasnt focused on MP for fun or to please their customers they did it to ensure that ANYONE that has Warcraft or starcraft has the 100% LEGAL copy...SP games have NO ways to defend against PIRACY ...
And as far as for the implementation the CA had expressed a RPG style WONDERFUL idea of a MMORPG campaignmap where players connect and interact in a persistant universe mod http://www.computerandvideogames.com/r/?page=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/previews/previews_story.php(que)id=99798
NO waiting for battles to be resolved clan wars REAL diplomacy...
The question really is: WHAT IS EASIER TO IMPLEMENT A CHALLENGING "AI" OR A MP CAMPAIGN?
The answer is up to you...

Hellenes

[d6veteran]

The question really is: WHAT IS EASIER TO IMPLEMENT A CHALLENGING "AI" OR A MP CAMPAIGN?

Getting them to ask that question in the first place is the challenge.

[hellenes]

Getting them to ask that question in the first place is the challenge.

D6 my point really is that (and i think that youll agree) the current MP style with ONLY tactics and NO strategy with just scirmishes is pointless to the common RTSers who expect from A strategy game to invole strategy MP mainly...So for them RTW doesnt have a MP at all...

Hellenes

[Asus]

Of course we do. That's why (sob story) it hurts so much when people who have no idea what we go through to produce a game that's pretty much a work of genius declare that we're mental incompetents, paperboys, monkey typists, and so forth. Developers are human too. Boo hoo, etc. It annoys anyone who can't do everything to their heart's content, if they can't also be realistic about things and say, "We've done something that no-one else has done, and we did it as best we could under the circumstances." There are things in Rome which no other game does. Bugs are fixable, but lack of genius isn't. You can't patch a game to make it a work of genius. Rome is, basically, a work of genius. That's why it's winning all these rapturous reviews - not because we've supplied concubines to the review editors or donated $1,000,000 to GameStar or whatever, but because those people, who've seen a lot of games, really rate Total War in general and this in particular.

That dichotomy - of feeling that they've done a good job under difficult circumstances, but also feeling sympathy with anyone who finds a bug in a game - is almost certainly why a lot of CA's programmers don't stop by these boards. It can be almost physically painful to read complete strangers insulting us individually or collectively because they happen to have found a bug (or a feature they don't like, or a historical inaccuracy, or whatever). Anyone whose advice is "get a tougher skin" should try investing two years of their life in a creative endeavour and then ask fifty complete strangers to tell them it's shit...

Excuse the long post...


I'll be the first to admit I've bitched, winned and moaned about issues I've encountered with Rome. But when I stop and think about it, is a $50 game really worth getting all worked up over? Honestly could any of us produce something anything like it and FOR FREE? I suppose some may have a tighter budget than others.

In any case I guess what it comes down to is the fact that we were promised something, and built up our hopes in something truly revolutionary more so than the previous two of the series. There is a valid point made here that some things inherent to the STW & MTW are most definitely missing. Aside from the awesome graphics many of the features multiplayer is known for were either simply left out or do not function properly.

This fact is the cause for the entire debate here. I think just a little more care to MP, not a huge re-engineering, but maybe for example: Classic UI for those who preferred the old controls or maybe some advanced hosting options, but most importantly the things that were left with MTW need implemented otherwise most will not care for playing online nearly as much.

Is MP the future? Of course it is, whether CA is the strategy developer to do it or not. Humans are social beings. If you know anyone in who works in an environment with computers connected to the internet you know they are online playing Chess, Poker, Word puzzles, Tactics Arena (my favorite )and countless other games online against OTHER PEOPLE maybe half way across their country doing same type of desk job. Personally I find spending (wasting ) time alone with my computer very counter productive and a quite empty experience. After all who cares if I beat the computer?

Now Giljay seemed to sluff of MMORPGs in one of this posts, but hey these are big time money makers. What are the stats for EQ? Granted different type of game, but how about the Dark Age of Camelot? This attempted and was highly successful at realm vs realm and siege warfare with decent looking 3D characters for the time. There will be so many new examples coming just watch... I'm looking forward to see Battle for Middle Earth revolutionize RTS and I think it will.

To the Devs we (or I at least) apologize for any insults directed at your work, but please don't make excuses for not going or even attempting to look in new directions. I would much rather hear that CA just doesn't have the resources to make it happen rather than lame statistics that don't even include LAN. Personally I'd rather not have MP online as that may be too difficult to engineer at this time. However I can think of 5 friends and relatives who do not "game" that would not be interested in online campaign, but would buy the game if it featured LAN just so they could play against ME. How many others know people like this?

Basically there should be another patch fixing issues such as AI, UI, and missing features, and if that comes to be then my $50 will be well spent.

Sorry I hate making long posts because I think people skip them, but I figured now was the time speak up since I haven't much at the ORG.

[Jambo]

Hi,

I suppose in defence of the TW online players, the one thing they should expect from subsequent titles is progress. I'm not talking about the provision of MP campaigns, etc, but rather that the improvements made in the patching/expansion process of previous titles should be carried over into the new title, that being RTW.

Now, from what I've seen and heard it would seem that to a certain extent many of the nuances and problems that existed in STW and MTW and were complained about mercilessly by the community and subsequently patched, seem to have arisen again in RTW. Problems with connectivity, lag, control interface, desynchronisation, lobby features and in-game menu options to name a few.

I think what Gil said is absolutely right, but with regards to MP, if you're going to implement and advertise MP capabilities for a game, especially one that has had relatively successful MP in predecessors, then you've got to be prepared to do it correctly and support it throughout. The only thing worse than not having any MP, is having a half-assed MP side with little subsequent support. This only leads to community resentment at being misled into spending their hard-earned money on failed promises.

Maybe CA should have simply bitten the bullet and axed RTW MP?

Myself, I'd be sorry to see MP in the TW series dropped. However, like many I find that MP in games other than FPS (e.g. Half-life) are always fraught with imbalances, cheats and bugs. Unfortunately, these ultimately lead to the game becoming unplayable; take Command and Conquer: Generals and worse still, Zero Hour, as fine examples. The reason STW worked was because it was really simple. It had a small selection of units, which every player could use, and therefore minimised any potential imbalances. With the arrival of MTW many new units and unique factions were added to the mix and this inevitably and invariably led to imbalances - many of which were never resolved despite the patching process (e.g. spears units). RTW will no doubt follow the same old route, only this time with better graphics.

The only way MP will really work outwith the FPS genre is with subscription and TotalSupport (consider Dark Age of Camelot as an example).

Regards

Jamie

[Puzz3D]

Hi,

I suppose in defence of the TW online players, the one thing they should expect from subsequent titles is progress. I'm not talking about the provision of MP campaigns, etc, but rather that the improvements made in the patching/expansion process of previous titles should be carried over into the new title, that being RTW.

It doesn't seem you can expect it. It's a new game written from scratch, and CA has said that RTW is the game they always wanted to make. I don't know what that makes STW and MTW. Something they didn't want to make I guess. It appears to me that RTW multiplayer has been conceived primarily as an solo player game rather than a team game with support for an online clan community. Of course, this was not made clear by the marketing of the product and the blackout of info on what MP was going to be like, but there were signs that things had changed. For instance, movement speed is no longer rooted in realism. It has become an arbitrary variable. I remember longjohn refusing to increase the speed of cav in MTW by 20% because it would be unrealistic. What happened to concerns like that? I remember longjohn saying that the overhand hoplite spears were left out because of collision detect problems, and yet the game was released with all kinds of clipping problems. What happened? I've never seen a major release with clipping problems this bad. The frame rate isn't even close to MTW, and yet it was claimed that it would be just as good if not better. What's up with that? The only way you can get a lag free game in RTW MP is to play with armies that are smaller than were used in MTW MP, and yet there is an RTW info shortcut on my desktop which supposedly shows a "multiplayer" castle siege game with a massive sieging army. I didn't count them, but it looks like 10,000 men in the sieging army, and it says 8 player capability.

If you axe MP then what you are left with is SP with that flawed AI. The AI is going to make the same mistakes over and over unlike human players who learn from their mistakes with the exception of Elmo. Balance issues in MP could be addressed if CA took player feedback and made adjustments, but they don't do that consistently prefering to end of life each installment of the game. The SP strategic game has improved a lot, but the tactical battles are the reason for this game to exist. I'd hate to see the tactical battles deteriorate to the point where auto-resolving is the prefered way to play, but that's the path the series seems to be taking.

[hellenes]

The SP strategic game has improved a lot, but the tactical battles are the reason for this game to exist. I'd hate to see the tactical battles deteriorate to the point where auto-resolving is the prefered way to play, but that's the path the series seems to be taking.

The SP strategic game is the REASON and the point of the battles to EXIST!!
The ONLY reason i was playing MTW online was the communication and the fun/challenge to play with other people rather than the AI...
How many people would play the current tactical MP if there was a MP campaign? What would be more fun to play a battle of empires a battle that EVERYTHING was on the stake? That would determine the fate of the world?
The whole "technical gameplay impracticability of a MP camp" that CA keeps posting as an argument cant stand because they have found a solution: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/r/?page=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/previews/previews_story.php(que)id=99798
But for some reason havent implemented it AGAINST their own interests because for the MAJORITY of RTSers TW series DONT have a MP AT ALL!!!
From a greek warcraft forum:
"To Medieval eixe plaka se single player, alla ousiastika eixe aniparkto multiplayer giati ka8e "game" i8ele meres na teleiwsei, kai opws kai na to kanoume online fainetai i axia tou RTS. Kai to Rome apo oti fainetai de 8a exei kai polles diafores oson afora to gameplay apo to Medieval, opote.."

Translation: "The Medieval was fun in single player, but virtually had non existing multiplayer because each "game" needed days to be finished, and at all events the value of the RTS is shown online. And Rome as it seems wont have many differences as the gameplay is oncerned to Medieval, so..."
The link: www.warcraft.gr/forum.asp...1869.m1157
IF CA WANTS MONEY MAKE A MP CAMPAIGN!!!

Hellenes

[CBR]

Without the tactical battles the Total War series wouldnt have offered much: STW and MTW strategy is advanced Risk and not much else.

I know I wouldnt be be playing much MP campaign as it would take ages to finish it and a majority of the battles would be pointless as one side has a big advantage.

Sure it would be fun to try once in a while but the campaign wouldnt be the thing that will get me online every day to play/chat for hours on the Total War server. For me its the battles that are interesting and thats what has kept me playing MTW for nearly 2 years.

I have tried enough Civ online to notice the problems of online games like that and we cant really compare with RTS games as they dont take that long to finish.

Warcraft3 has a lot of players and average game length is very short http://www.battle.net/war3/ladder/re...rts-solo.shtml Most of the MTW battles I have fought was about same length if not longer.

There are several types of online games with the most popular games being FPS. They dont have any strategy element but is focused primarily on combat and I see the Total War series to be of the same kind just with armies instead of controlling one soldier only in a FPS.

I have seen several newer RTS games that also dont have any base building but have units only to fight with so overall the Total War series is not alone. It might actually be the start of a growing trend where people want strategy but dont want the standard RTS game.

CBR

[Puzz3D]

The ONLY reason i was playing MTW online was the communication and the fun/challenge to play with other people rather than the AI...

That's the reason I play online as well. If the tactical battles are properly implemented and the tactics deep enough, it's all the reason needed to play online for years.

[ElmarkOFear]

If you axe MP then what you are left with is SP with that flawed AI. The AI is going to make the same mistakes over and over unlike human players who learn from their mistakes with the exception of Elmo.

I learned from my mistakes . . . . and then practiced until I could reproduce them over and over again to perfection! It's a talent really . . .

[Skomatth]

What is surprising is that my clanmates are saying the balance is pretty good. e.g. not taking archers gets you slaughtered. The other mess is ridiculous and overshadows the good aspects (I almost said advances,but couldn't think of any).

[Sp00n]

Rome is a great game but it is a step backwards in every aspect of the 3D battle mode apart from sieges and graphics. .

Do I need to say anymore.

Sp00n

No longer an owner of Rome Total War(sad but true).

You practiced Elmo and it made you better at getting your allies killed.

[hellenes]

Without the tactical battles the Total War series wouldnt have offered much: STW and MTW strategy is advanced Risk and not much else.

I know I wouldnt be be playing much MP campaign as it would take ages to finish it and a majority of the battles would be pointless as one side has a big advantage.

Sure it would be fun to try once in a while but the campaign wouldnt be the thing that will get me online every day to play/chat for hours on the Total War server. For me its the battles that are interesting and thats what has kept me playing MTW for nearly 2 years.

I have tried enough Civ online to notice the problems of online games like that and we cant really compare with RTS games as they dont take that long to finish.

Warcraft3 has a lot of players and average game length is very short http://www.battle.net/war3/ladder/re...rts-solo.shtml Most of the MTW battles I have fought was about same length if not longer.

There are several types of online games with the most popular games being FPS. They dont have any strategy element but is focused primarily on combat and I see the Total War series to be of the same kind just with armies instead of controlling one soldier only in a FPS.

I have seen several newer RTS games that also dont have any base building but have units only to fight with so overall the Total War series is not alone. It might actually be the start of a growing trend where people want strategy but dont want the standard RTS game.

CBR

As i said the "argument" of taking ages to complete is nosense...Do the RPGs ever finish? NO! An RPG style campaign map where you connect and play WHENEVER you want...Also this would provide the battle-love players with TONS of challenge 1000 romans vs 5x2000 gallic armies of HUMAN players in the ALPS! Diplomacy politics STRATEGIC maneouvers!!!
No more complaints for stupid AI by the SPers and NO more sterilised flat non/benefiting encounters for the MPers...The split of the community would be healed...The battles pointless? An alliance of Carthagenieans+Greek cities+Macedon would make the Romans run for their money...As with the Gauls and Britons...Different maps climats, situations, you wouldnt be risking all you elite troops for ONE battle as you do in the current MP because you will NEED them in the future!!
And as i said before: for the common RTSers:
THERE IS NO MP IN TW AT ALL!!!

HEllenes

[CBR]

How can you compare it with RPG games? Its a completely different style of game. People can leave pretty much whenever they want, you cant do that for Total War style battle. The game you are talking about has nothing to do with how the campaign works for Total war.

And if battles are to be interesting they need to be balanced..what are you suggesting? That each player has an army and moves around the map and when they encounter other armies they have a battle? So campaign map and battle map movement has to be the same then.

Right now we actually have a MP where you can go online and join a battle to get quick action and after that leave the server again if you want.

I can do the same for most RTS games too: go online and play a quick battle that has some base building in it too and it will be decided pretty quick and a winner has been found. It has no effect other than perhaps some rank on a ladder as its not connected to a large campaign.

What you are suggesting is definitely not how most common RTS games are working so I dont see how many RTS gamers can consider Total War not to have MP at all, except for the lack of base building. You have any examples of games that are close to what you are talking about?


CBR

[L'Impresario]

Sorry to barge in, but comparing an online RPG with a strategy game like RTW or any other RTS won't bear many fruitful results. In such rpgs the individual player controls a single/limited amount of character(s)that actually don't have any major impact on the game itself, with almost no exceptions.Now, I can't imagine how any player that controls an army in the hypothetical mp-campaign won't impact the big picture.That's why the constant attention and participation of one player isn't needed. Civilisation-style games on the other hand do require that certain qualities, and the lack thereof isn't the only reason for their limited appeal to the mp crowds.
Continuity isn't the fortè of other RTS games as well. I don't see the "meaning" behind a Warcraft 3 mp game, and in essence the TW series isn't offering anything less (or more) to that experience. Strategy is the only way to provide continuity in such games, and while the TW game engine can truly deliver a combination of startegy and tactics, trying to implement this would reduce certainly the sources and effort that is to be allocated to the game's selling point, the tactical battles.

No more complaints for stupid AI by the SPers and NO more sterilised flat non/benefiting encounters for the MPers...The split of the community would be healed...

I can say that I have played many encounters that don't fit that description and I really can't comprehend why a battle has to create some kind of "repercussions" in a grand scale in order to be tagged as "useful" or whatever. The scope of tactics in the current game so far is impressive indeed and in a 4v4, the usage of tactics and maneuvres in battles between skilled clans can be mind-boggling and highly entertaining, without this being a battle for the destruction of Carthago (sorry for the 4v4 referance in a rtw lobby ).

Now for LAN games, that would be something else, but still...

edit: cbr can type pretty fast

[hellenes]

The CA itself had considered this RPG style TURN based campaign:
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/r/?page=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/previews/previews_story.php(que)id=99798

A persistant universe one with 1 turn one day for example in the middle there can be MANY battles as the new TW campaign movement is tottaly differnt than RISK one...

Hellenes

[CBR]

And to quote from that link:

"There won't be a multiplayer campaign using the full single-player campaign game - the games would take so long it's just not practical. We're looking at the option of a massively multiplayer campaign with a simpler feature-set where players join a faction and play when they like. No promises yet..."

And I guess they scrapped it as it wasnt practical either.

If you want a game with any meaningful strategy/tactics you have to play with a few dedicated players as there is just no point in playing it if some players drop out. Armies will disappear or become controlled by the AI..how much fun is that?


CBR

[hellenes]

And to quote from that link:



And I guess they scrapped it as it wasnt practical either.

If you want a game with any meaningful strategy/tactics you have to play with a few dedicated players as there is just no point in playing it if some players drop out. Armies will disappear or become controlled by the AI..how much fun is that?


CBR

If ANYONE drops the solution is more simple than simple: Another one takes his place... clan wars passworded ability to control diplomats factions and MANY other things JUST like RPGS...The only RTS with diplomacy online!!! If you are the ONLY clan member online you just search for a high ranking (on the ladder ranks) general to fight your battles that you cant yourself...Treachery risks just like real life the whole 270 bc roman world ALIVE with living humans not jist a STUPID "AI"...

Hellenes

[CBR]

Provide a link please


CBR

[Orda Khan]

To contradict the title of this thread, MP ( with regards TW ) is history. Nothing can convince me that CA will ever make a decent MP experience out of this game. Too transfixed on graphics they were and lost the plot along the way. Sp00n said it all in one of his posts....STW was the best and probably a fluke because they have never reproduced it. MP battles do not require stunning 3D graphics, nor do SP battles for that matter, it is of no use except for viewing replays ( and we all know what CA forgot )

I also agree with Sp00n when he says CA needs competition, something to kick their complacent butts into improving their product and I have long since touted trade descriptions! My hands are tied all shapes regarding my company and what I can and can't say or do by law, regarding our customers and quite frankly I find it amusing that games can be released in such an unfinished state! It's hilarious!

Yes Sp00n, imagine buying a Porsche 911 with no engine.......would we all complain? I think so.

As for this game? It's tat CA and I really hope some serious competitor arrives soon

.......Orda

[UglyandHasty]

Amen to that Orda !

[andrewt]

Companies mostly think that online MP is the future and many invested heavily on it but the actual numbers is that SP still rules. Games like the Sims, GTA, etc. all don't have multiplayer but are ruling the sales charts. I used to play multiplayer a lot but have stopped and haven't played one in a long time. I may get back to it someday with the right game but currently, SP is way more enjoyable.

There's just too many jerks online to make it a pleasant experience for most people. I've read many stories about how people try out online MP for a while then go back to SP or LAN MP or single console MP because of the people they play with. Fact is, people only want to play with or against people they know or trust. There's too many cheaters, sore losers, poor winners, etc. online. It's just not a pleasant experience.

The reason MP is more popular in countries like Taiwan and South Korea is PC bangs. You can play MP with other people and still be close enough to beat the crap out of them if they cheat or just plain act like an ass. You can't do that in online MP and until they figure out a way to allow you to clock your annoying opponent, online MP won't take off to the degree you think it will.

Blizzard makes polished MP games but the amount of whining on their forums is even worse than the ones in this forum. For most companies, it's just not worth it to invest heavily in MP, from both a financial, professional and personal perspective. 50% of the abuse for 1% of the sales is an understatement. For even successful companies like Blizzard, it's around 10% of the sales and more than 95% of the abuse. Terrell Owens, Ron Artest and Bobby Knight are saints and paragons of virtue compared to many MP players.

[d6veteran]

What are PC Bangs?

I know everyone keeps throwing these numbers around but ... I just don't get it. Every single person I know through work and school ... every single gamer I know ... loves the MP experience, and actively seeks games with great MP. I wonder if these numbers account for LAN parties or LAN gaming at work?

I don't get it. I don't know where the other 99% are who are buying games but not playing them online.

And don't let the horrible RTW lobby fool you -- there are much better alternatives where smacktards can me blocked/kicked/banned what not.

[ElmarkOFear]

Think "internet cafe for games." One big place with lots of networked PCs where players pay to play on an hourly basis. I believe that is a good description, from my understanding, but I may be incorrect since I have never been inside a PC bang.

[ElmarkOFear]

The reason the old STW and MTW lobbies were so civil was the private chat rooms for STW and the ban, kick, ignore features for MTW. RTW has no such features and thus it is like all the other RTS servers out there: Wild and Unruly. Even the WarHammer chat lobby, which I find fairly well done, is full of bad-mouthed children who know they can get away with cursing and rabble-rousing online without any repercussions. THAT is what keeps a lot of people from playing MP: The bad language, the cheating, and the downright lack of anything remotely civil.

The previous TW lobbies were good because it allowed the community to police itself and ignore the troublemakers and ban them so they could not get into your games. It worked very well. Unfortunately, this is one of my biggest complaints about the MP chat lobby for RTW: No features to allow for any policing and organizing play between friends.

[Tomisama]

A little logical analysis.

If you build a game overwhelmingly concentrating on the single player aspect. Then advertise it, again concentrating on the single player market. What kind of numbers do you think you are going to get?

The multiplayer market for Total War products is virtually untouched. People only find out about them by accident. There is no plan to cultivate this resource, so the undeveloped multiplayer community waxes and wanes under it’s own power.

Even with the above handicap, I think the number of buyers who actually do try to participate in Total War multiplayer over the long haul life of a particular game, is probably closer to 10%. Maybe even higher? The statistics you get, depend enormously on the questions you ask.

Now! What if you built a game specifically for multiplayer. Advertised it with the intent to draw every potential multiplayer on the planet (multilingual), hyping it big time as the ultimate multiplayer experience. Designed it based on the top if the line servers, that you maintained yourself, to keep them “always” up. Programmed with a “never before” available spectator gallery for any game running. Provide all of the tools imaginable to help players on their path to master the games (multiple eras). Give them free web space to build Clan sites. Set up ladders, contest and massive inter Clan competitions with publicly streamed events, and valuable prizes. With all of the above monitored and supervised by dedicated personnel. Do you think you would get a better numbers?

If you would treat Total War multiplayer as the “global sport” it really is, I believe the results would be astounding!!!

[ElmarkOFear]

Tomi:

Result 1: Massive online crowd, dominance in the gaming market.

Result 2: The single player forum here at the .org would be copy pasting your last statement and people would blame YOU for the lack of a good single player experience!

Result 3: Many single players would threaten to leave the community, but since they do not venture online, the increase of snail mail at CA HQ would put them out of business after the Postman sued them for his hernia and bad back from carrying their excess mail.

Result 4: We could then, have fun trolling the forums saying: You single player peeps are all whiners!

[Dionysus9]

You know, Tomi, I honestly believe it is just a matter of time. I don't think CA has it in them, for whatever reason, but they have shown the others the way.

It is just a matter of time before another company figures it out and gives it to us.

We aren't really asking for much, just gameplay really. A semi-realistic simulation of real-time battlefield tactics. MTW:VI was close to what we really wanted, except it was not accessible enough to the uninitiated. RTW even less so.

Look at the "graphics" in the game of chess. . .they are virtually non-existent, and yet it survives as one of the ultimate multiplayer games of history. Why?

Because of its tactical depth and accessibility.

The magic of the game is not in the packaging or the graphics-- its in the gameplay. Why so many software companies don't get that is beyond me. Flashy graphics and packaging might hook a few suckers initially, but they don't make for word of mouth sales or repeat customers.

Generalship is a world sport, whether it is being catered to or not. The sooner someone realises this and makes a suitable interface for the players--the sooner they get rich. It really is that simple. The key is to cater to the wargamers, and if you do it well enough, they will leave their painted figures and never go back.

So far that oyster has yet to concede its pearl, but it is sitting there for the taking.