How Much Would You Pay II

Of 74 votes, 54 voters last time decided they would NOT pay any additional money to make MP more to their taste.

Fair enough; though I always thought of the MP community as broader and deeper than 74 people.

So; let's pretend that CA would even consider making an MP-friendly game spinoff:

What if:

-there was a Multiplayer-only TW title? No campaign map, no long-term strategy to figure out; no diplo's, family, assassins or popes to be concerned with. Only battlemaps (25?) and balanced unit types (15? 20?)?

-there were a dedicated server, not some 3rd party provider?

Then what? What would you pay for such a product? $15? $20? $25?

And how much would you kick in for the monthly server subscription? $2.50? $5? $15? or not?

If you would pay up to $25 for such a product, and (say) $5 monthly for the server, what kind of features would you expect?

So 3 basic questions:

1. Would you buy such a product?
2. What would you pay, today and monthly?
3. What features would you like/demand?

I thought I'd start a poll, but realized we need more discussion first, to narrow the poll options.

A MP only game (say we take out the SP from MTW2) isn't worth more then €25,-. No monthly subscription (not everyone has a credit card).

As features I would say:
-Larger time frame with more units
-Fighting same factions
-About 40 more maps
-Somewhat slower battles (no routing as fast as it's now)

You've hit upon the main problem, KukriKhan. Lack of players. For sure, there are players who do not visit this place but there are still very few. If we tried to narrow it down to regular players (each TW game has had the casual player who plays for a short while) we would be scratching to find a hundred names and this is the Catch 22.
CA have been happy with their sales and could carry on in the same fashion, offering the limited MP they do, and still reach their sales targets. Seven years on from STW and MP features have not improved. IMO, this is because the MP community is so small. Where are the 500 names who signed the petition to CA? They are mostly inactive and a lot of the names on that list rarely played MTW so even desperately digging up dead players, we could only manage to scrape up 500 names and that was some time ago. I suspect we would see improved MP if those 500 names were regularly in the lobby.

I would prefer to discuss the game as it is, with SP and MP because I agree with Stig, I would expect to pay far less for an MP only game. What if it were the case that MP and SP stats were separate? In any case, these are a few of my suggestions.

User friendly lobby, including the various features we had back in STW days where we could create separate chat lobbies, etc.

Stable, lag free server capable of running up to 4v4.

CD key linked to user name and user name therefore unique, no more undercover.

Auto generated maps using co-ordinates, where the weather conditions can be decided. Particularly good maps could be saved.

Capabilities to fight same faction.

Ability to share unit control with allies.

Maybe fewer unit choices per faction (though I prefer more choice) providing that there is faction to faction balance, M2TW is still heavily Euro biased. Having less unit choice but various unit size choice along the lines that CBR used in his Community Mod, which still allowed variety in army selection to the degree that it was probably some of the best MP I ever played.

Toggles to control features like unit speed, fatigue, etc.

NO battlefield upgrades.

More distance between opposing deployment to add more manoeuvres.

NO radar map.

Improve replay feature, it used to be far less randomly accurate.

Return of competitive/friendly game hosting, satisfying both types of player.

I would pay slightly more than I payed for M2TW, let's say £30 but I don't see the need for a monthly subscription

.......Orda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stig

A MP only game (say we take out the SP from MTW2) isn't worth more then €25,-.

---

That would still be 5 to 10 times the amount of resources that gets put into MP now. The SP game would gain as well because 5% to 10% of its resources would no longer be going into an MP portion. The SP game would loose less than 1% of it's sales, and the MP game would probably sell more than 1% of the current SP sales. I don't know if the MP game would be profitable. The MP game could be download only.

1 dollar would be my best estimate:study:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mad cat mech

1 dollar would be my best estimate:study:

---

ATM 1$ is too much:laugh4: At first I want to see a game, that is worth to make an investment. But I don't think, that they would think about such concept for 200 players. That makes the discussion pointless. No offense, only my opinion.

So:

2 days
4 responses
86 views

On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being full support, I guess this idea (a separate MP game) gets a low 2. Thanks for the input.

Apparently there's little heart for suggesting possible working solutions that CA could implement - it's much more fun to snipe at existing product.

Got it.

Thanks for your time, and the input from all. :bow:

Hi Kukrikhan, my $0.02 USD and personal opinion...

I wouldn't pay a single red cent for a separate multiplayer version, in fact it would probably drive me to drop the TW series for good. The reason I have such a hard stance is that the average price of game today is $50 which is a good chunk of change for anyone. If you look at what's currently available today and even in the past, most games like this that have both SP and MP components ship with this fully enabled and worked out up front, they don't sell add-ons later than add MP functionality. I think that doing something like this would encourage the developer to be more lazy and greedy by doing so, for the reasons stated above. The fact that the TW games have always included MP as part of the base game package is another reason for my stance. Now if they wanted to do something like what happened with Return to Castle Wolfenstein or FEAR (which both had full MP from the start) and release a free multiplayer client after the fact, then I'd be ok with that. Charging for it, no way in hell.

Respectfully

:bow:

The thing is, I no longer have any faith in CA's ability to make an MP game worth paying for. I think thats what everyone is saying. They've had their chance and just can't do it. They claim its because there is a lack of interest, but that is a self fulfilling prophecy. There was more MP interest in STW than there is in M2TW--precisely because STW was a better MP product.

Resources devoted to MP have consistently declined, and so has the MP quality-- so I've lost faith.

All of that being said, if CA sold the franchise to a MP minded company-- I'd pay $50 for an MP game that was highly moddable. No monthly fee.

See I'm of the opinion that they're capable of it, they're just hamstrung by the really bad decisions made so far. I still can't get over the idea that this really does stem from CA's attempt to make this game "moddable" and at the same time protect their precious "intellectual property", and that all of the other problems like the MP balance and load of bugs shipped with the game are derivatives of this. If they got off the fence and committed, I think they could turn this into one real whopper of a game that everyone would be happy with. Again just my $0.02

:bow:

where did they get their the historical references for weapons and units from anyways? a cracker jack box?

maybe the guy that came up with the bill design was staring at his can opener while he drew the design up. never mind that there are bills in museums that are 8ft long with a 2+foot long blade.

and i can still imagine the guy that cranked out the peasant units still goes home after work cracks open a soft drink and laughs himself to sleep.

the guys that developed the cav mechanics forgot that they were supposed to make cavalry and not fighter bombers.

I would not pay for a separate MP game such as this, for the sake of just Battles only.

As it is I very rarelly play MP, and I prefer the SP campaign mode (as well as modability) of the series...

Last time I seriously played MP was with an RTS/Strategy game was when some guy posted up a list of what to build and at what moment in order to insure a win.

After that for me MP became thing of the past with such games, people just stopped playing to have fun and all they wanted was to win.

Now if you were talking about MP Campaigns, that is another storry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

See I'm of the opinion that they're capable of it, they're just hamstrung by the really bad decisions made so far. I still can't get over the idea that this really does stem from CA's attempt to make this game "moddable" and at the same time protect their precious "intellectual property", and that all of the other problems like the MP balance and load of bugs shipped with the game are derivatives of this. If they got off the fence and committed, I think they could turn this into one real whopper of a game that everyone would be happy with.

---

I see the problem as one of too much complexity in the design. Overreaching on what can be reasonably accomplished within the development schedule. The unimplemented features people find in Total Wars games is an indication of that. The result is more features in the game, but many not working properly. We see the number of unit types exceeding the ability to balance them. We see a new battle engine that doesn't function as well as the old battle engine. We see a new strategic map that the AI can't handle as well as it handled the old style map. We see a new battle AI that doesn't function as well as the old battle AI.

I don't like the path they've chosen to pursue since RTW in terms of gameplay, but that's another issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

I see the problem as one of too much complexity in the design. Overreaching on what can be reasonably accomplished within the development schedule. The unimplemented features people find in Total Wars games is an indication of that. The result is more features in the game, but many not working properly. We see the number of unit types exceeding the ability to balance them. We see a new battle engine that doesn't function as well as the old battle engine. We see a new strategic map that the AI can't handle as well as it handled the old style map. We see a new battle AI that doesn't function as well as the old battle AI.

---

Yes I agree too with this, but, may I also add that this occurence happens all over the board. Many games suffer from this, yet, it is not necessarilly the fault of a specific designer/company either.

The game market has gone off a very competitive tangent which pushes companies to constantly come up with new and "innovative" or " groundbreaking" features to be able to add weight to a certain Title.

A competitor may have in their description "fight/control with hundres of units at same time" another has to push the limit, it has to be thousands, yet that requires new systems and technology to be used, which is more prone to have bugs on any release.

I dont know about everyone but most people will buy a game for the duration of the hype, play it while its popular and move on, it is a minority that stay, yet, the ones that stay are not looking for groundbreaking features and eye candy, they are looking for more stability, more solid gameplay, improvements on an already aprouved system.

Priorities between "Drive-by Total-Warriors" and "Resident Total-Warriors" are not the same :P

So, to not deviate from original topic, MP maybe affected by that market trend and by the "Drive-by Total Warriors".

KukriKhan,
What did you expect? Do you honestly think that people would (or should) pay extra to enjoy MP? Just think for a moment about the things you mention in your post, the things a MP game would not have to worry about, think about the SP campaign from STW until now : Loads of extras.
Now ask yourself what extras we have seen in SEVEN years of MP. MP has become progressively worse with each new game, it astonishes me when I remember playing online 4v4 with 56k.
For those who remember facing the same faction in MTW, where has that option gone? Host a game and have someone select the same faction as you who refuses to change .. "No, you change", wants to alter the teams.......The game is ruined before it begins.
Why would anyone pay extra for that?
Then, of course we have balance issues and I'm not going to go over that ground but I strongly suspect the over complicated SP for most of them.
I've already mentioned the Community Mod made by CBR and it was fantastic, you had less unit options per faction but various unit sizes per unit. The principle was simple, no upgrades just buy units to make an army. It was still possible to field many variations, the Mod could reside along with the vanilla and it was possible to play either without the need to restart via a different .exe. Here we enter into a major problem with the MP community, how many installed it? There has been a handful of players prepared to give Mods a try but there are many times that number who would not. Already in these MP sub forums we have seen the attitude of some, it only confirms what I already thought. Some will not install a Mod simply because they are programmed to dislike certain individuals who created them and are duty bound by their Clans to perpetuate this nonsense. You are quite correct in your statement....

Quote:

---

Apparently there's little heart for suggesting possible working solutions that CA could implement - it's much more fun to snipe at existing product.

---

The same statement is true for Mods and those who made them. Rather than try them it is far easier to follow your Clan and post insults about others. I'd rather make up my own mind but there you go, why admit a Mod is any good when it would make you choke to do so? Would a school teacher reward a classroom of unruly children? MP will always be a headache because the community is (and always has been) divided over many issues, that is why I suggested toggles to set your own game preferences and this would be a great step IMO.
Unfortunately, the MP community is largely to blame for its own predicament, if there was a united voice from more players maybe CA would consider us. When we act like children I don't blame them for ignoring us. This is what I meant when I said "there is no MP community" but unfortunately that was taken literally and I'll admit I was at fault for not remembering English is not everyone's first language.
Puzz3D has taken a lot of stick around here for posting negatively about a game he does not play. I can understand that some are fed up of hearing it and threads regularly fall apart. So it's OK to forget the better MP of previous games? This is his main point afterall....MP was much better in original STW but I guess unless one played it one wouldn't know but there again, it's OK to ignore that fact and expect MP to just improve or to kid oneself that MP has always been like this.
After seven years of TW, I would expect quite a few improvements (call me stupid but out of appreciation for the loyal fans who paid for every game) but having to pay out more money? I'd be surprised if anyone would agree to that unless there was absolute proof that MP was vastly improved

.......Orda

tis true about shogun. where the ai would often faint withdraws and adjust its positions to flank you or poke at some weakness in your battle formation.

Good points made, fellas. What I had in mind was not an add-on to an existing game - what I was trying to imagine was:

What if tw SP and MP got a divorce? So that the next Title(s) released would be China:TotalWar (the Campaign) for say $40

AND China:TotalWar (the Battles) for $19.95.

Stand-alone products.

(Doesn't hafta be China:tw, of course).

Nah, it should be the same game. No-one wants to buy it twice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

I see the problem as one of too much complexity in the design. Overreaching on what can be reasonably accomplished within the development schedule. The unimplemented features people find in Total Wars games is an indication of that. The result is more features in the game, but many not working properly. We see the number of unit types exceeding the ability to balance them. We see a new battle engine that doesn't function as well as the old battle engine. We see a new strategic map that the AI can't handle as well as it handled the old style map. We see a new battle AI that doesn't function as well as the old battle AI.

I don't like the path they've chosen to pursue since RTW in terms of gameplay, but that's another issue.

---

Even "I" agree with above opinion, and you can believe my opinion is unbiased given whose opinion is quoted above. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stig

Nah, it should be the same game. No-one wants to buy it twice.

---

Agreed.

BTW, how the hell does someone join in Sept 06 and already have 1.5k posts? :dizzy2:

I didnt even know about CBRs mod - thats the tragedy

I pretty much agree with everything Orda said

They made this bed for the last seven years - hard to resurrect a MP community now much easier to have followed on from STW and built

yep for my mind the community needs to forget all the stuff each person wants and be of one mind with one vision of what they want and do not vary or argue from that at all... and then maybe

and if CA wont do it - they need to do it themselves as best they can with a mod - and all back that mod 100% and play nothing else

the alternative is continued deterioriation with everyone having their own personal if only senario which will never be realised

on the current track record why should I or anyone else invest $$ in a MP game which thus far has been demonstrated to be poorly supported

based on MTW2MP - $0 outlay and based on the server lag $0 subscription

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Good points made, fellas. What I had in mind was not an add-on to an existing game - what I was trying to imagine was:

What if tw SP and MP got a divorce? So that the next Title(s) released would be China:TotalWar (the Campaign) for say $40

AND China:TotalWar (the Battles) for $19.95.

Stand-alone products.

(Doesn't hafta be China:tw, of course).

---

Better still would be one complete game containing separate SP and MP stats created by a team consisting of dedicated SP and MP staff. Maybe even separate patch fixes for SP and MP too?

........Orda

I'll throw this last bit in and be quiet. :grin:

Yunus made my point exactly, the community is too fragmented on what individuals want to see exactly in the way of multiplayer. I respectfully submit that there are certainly common grounds that we all can agree on. I think one of these major points is game openness and modability. The fact that CA has decided to keep so much of this game's functionality locked away in the code which we have no access to exacerbates the problems we're discussing here exponentially. If we all had access to the game's clientside sources and a valid SDK that we can use to change game mechanics, everyone could be satisfied in that people could make MP mods to their taste and balance as they see fit. Witness what's happened with BF2 and BF2142, etc, hardly anyone plays the base game anymore, almost everyone plays some kind of mod. This would also fix quite a few of the SP community's gripes, IMO. Guess I just see the root cause of these problems perhaps a bit differently than others may.

Lastly, what Orda said and I've pointed out before is really a must at this point. SP and MP game mechanics/values must be separated. The nature of the two beasts and the differing desires of the players of each simply doesn't allow for what CA's done at this point anymore. They absolutely must be split logically within the game if CA wants to succeed down the road.

Respectfully

:bow:

I agree with Orda above, that the MP community has made it's own bed and has to lay in it so to speak; the ones that moan and whine about the state of the current Total War games also do nothing about it, seeing as it's far less tiring and far more fun to huddle up and whisper nasties about the game than actually attempt constructive action. CA doesn't want to deal with a community that attacks each other so often, and I don't see the situation changing in the near future to be honest...

I don't think the idea of two seperate games for retail would work too well, as CA or your 'average' gamer wouldn't see much point in seperating the two aspects of the same game. The game engine would be present in both of them, so in a way you'd be paying for the product twice. Plus, as numerously mentioned by some of our more esteemed members here, CA knows the active MP community is miniscule at the moment so I doubt they'd create a retail version of their game for such a small market. I think this idea is just a manifestation of people wanting CA to put more effort into the multiplayer section of their game, and I think healing the rifts between the current patrons of MP would go further towards that than the current idea here, no offence.

Although perhaps a workable variation of this, as mentioned above, is a downloadable multiplayer version of the game akin to Alexander (monthly subscriptions tend to only work for RPGs). You could put a few dedicated programmers together to compile a 'multiplayer add-on' for the current Total War game, with balance and multiplayer functionability as priorities. Perhaps more multiplayer maps coupled with a possible MP campaign could be on the cards too? I'm pretty certain that CA could make up for the costs of developing the add-on if enough of the MP community showed interest (and dragged some of the 'old guard' back too).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

BTW, how the hell does someone join in Sept 06 and already have 1.5k posts?

---

Because he's the Stig. :D

sry im way to lazy to read all that except the first couple of posts but i would gladdy pay $60 for a fully multiplayer supported TW game.

me 2 but CA would have to improve a loooooot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stig

Nah, it should be the same game. No-one wants to buy it twice.

---

I agree and disagree. First off, I never play SP. I haven't played SP since STW, and even then I only played a few campaigns. I only buy the total war series for MP. I've bought every game, retail, except for the RTW expansions. SP holds no interest for me for a number of reasons-- mostly because the AI is so pathetic, but also because I really dont enjoy the whole "empire administration" of buildings, units, tech tree stuff, taxes, diplomacy, etc. I want blood on my blade, thats it. I want to stand to the last man beside my clanmates, not count beans.

I recognize I am in the minority, but for players like myself who do not play SP-- we have to buy the whole package ($50) in order to play MP (a portion of the game CA spends 10% or less of its resources on [i.e. $5 per purchaser]). So the way I see it, I'm spending 10x more than I should on an SP game that happens to have MP tacked on as an afterthought.

The only reason I do this is because there is nobody else supplying my addiction to real-time multiplayer tactical wargaming. If the Lordz (or anyone else for that matter) can crank out a good MP game along those lines-- I'd easily pay $50 for it, and be happy.

But as it stands, I'm payin way too much for a game in which I play with probably less than 10% of the program code. :wall:

One of these days a software company is going to see the market for real time multiplayer tactical wargames and start supplying it. Once that happens, CA can kiss my $50 goodbye.

Heck, I'd even pay $100 if the game was highly moddable, the mp lobby was stable and well done, and a dedicated server was guaranteed for 5 years. But as it is, I will continue to grumble and complain and slap down my $50 for what passes for MP these days. Its like smoking resin.

*gags*

I feel so dirty.
:no:

it would be interesting to CA go down a Wplfenstein enemy territory route. Make Sp oinly game, and then a free downloadable multiplayer game. That would please the fans, but only if they improve the lobby etc

We all know CA goes for the big public, something which is bad for the MP gamers (yes MMO's are doing well, but as said multiple times MTW2 isn't made for that). If you really want the good MP games, and don't care much about the SP, you should take a game like Take Command: 2nd Manassas and make a MP ability for it. This still is the hardcore game, made for a small but select public. This still is the essence of a game and only has what it need to have. Some like it some don't, but overall games like this are the best, even tho they don't have good sales figures.

Mostlikely the new game by Lordz Game Studio will be the same. It's isn't well known by the gaming public, as they will never make it into the game magazines (or if they do they only get a fourth of a page to have a review. Plus they get low marks for Graphics and things (well this Lordz game might be different)). So even know these games are good, and what some players want, they will never find them. Hell, Lordz Game Studio uses some engine made by Slitherine Strategies , but have you ever seen any of these games in the normal stores. I know I haven't. Type a title at Amazon.com, even they don't have them, and normally you can find anything there.

me dinks lordz mite pull it off.

Personally I cant wait for the lordz new game. NTW is the best mod ever made for VI. THe lordz actually play the game and are constantly upgrading it. I expect the same from them with this effort. As for slitherene their games seem decent to me
http://www.slitherine.com/GameIndex.htm

Didnt they make the original Dune?

In fact when this game comes out I doubt ill be playing any more CA games. I expect many aggonies and other NTW supporters will also run out and grab this game,

how much did you say ca would pay me to accept an mp only game?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Personally I cant wait for the lordz new game. NTW is the best mod ever made for VI. THe lordz actually play the game and are constantly upgrading it. I expect the same from them with this effort. As for slitherene their games seem decent to me
http://www.slitherine.com/GameIndex.htm

Didnt they make the original Dune?

In fact when this game comes out I doubt ill be playing any more CA games. I expect many aggonies and other NTW supporters will also run out and grab this game,

---

Thanks for pointing that out Gawain, looks very hopeful! Of course I do happen to find the period of time from about 1500 to 1900 simply beyond boring, but hey.. if they show a real dedication to a modable, accessible product that they'll support and interact with the community, they've got my cash.

:bow:

As for slitheren being some no name company take a look here http://www.slitherine.com/news.html

Quote:

---

The game will support single and multiplayer and have a campaign game. The game will make use of the Arcane Legion engine developed by Slitherine, which has been nominated for the technical excellence award at the Independent Games Festival

---

Anyone know anything about this engine?

http://www.slitherine.com/lgs/images/mainart.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Anyone know anything about this engine?

---

Nope, as I said in my earlier post. Try typing it in a google, pretty funny of what you'll find. It's called: absolutely nothing.

If you want to know the "size" of the game, take a look at the forums. The Arcane Legion forum has as much post now as the MTW2 forum had .... 6 months before the game was released

I've tryed Legion Arena (was trying to find something new when RTW was released) and have uninstalled it after 15 minutes.

Still that is new engine for Arcane Legions as I understand. I would say it would be best to wait for the demo. On the other hand those of us who played NTW1 and 2 are aware what Lordz can achive with their knowledge. NTW 2 made RTW interesting for me.

well i play mp alot more than sp , coz i like to fight with my clannies and against others clans in tournies and ronins :thumbsup:

buti dont know how much i wud pay, do you think ever such a thing would happen, a split between sp and mp?:turkey: :england:

man! this post is flushing out some wabbits.:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judge

but i dont know how much i wud pay, do you think ever such a thing would happen, a split between sp and mp?

---

I think they would have a bigger profit margin on a standalone MP game because the graphics and battle engine would already be done for the SP game, but that would be offset by much lower sales. If the MP game achieved 5% of the SP sales and both games cost $50, the MP game would have to have 20 times the profit margin of the SP game to be as profitable. If the MP game sold for half the SP game, you'd need 40 times the profit margin. It doesn't seem feasable. On the other hand, they couldn't charge $75 usd for a combined SP + MP game when everyone else is charging $50 for their games. I think the MP aspect of the combined SP + MP game would fare better if MP considerations were taken into account earlier in the project development.

TW could of course ship with two exes: one for MP and one for SP. That's not a new thing for games.

I do not know how much of an issue it still is, but SP is held back by MP and MP is held back by SP (true since STW), while they also need each other. Both use some identical elements of course, but also have specific needs.

The MP exe could throw the SP bagage overboard and the result would be tailored and lightweight. Fixes/patches necessary for SP wouldn't have side effects for MP.

I think the amount of posters in the MP section says it all. I doubt going for a seperate MP game (even when comes with the SP game as Tosa said) is just not worth the effort. How many people really play this game in MP, 1000? Maybe more, but I think saying that 1000 persons really want to play MP is realistic. Why put much effort in to that? imo it's simply not worth it. Ofcourse making a big MP game might get you a new crowd, the question however is, is it worth the gamble?

Quote:

---

How many people really play this game in MP, 1000? Maybe more

---

In one month I have 4000 names known in MTW2. So its way more than 1000.

Perhaps You can make an offer with $5 for e.g. and all interested ppls can declare their interest without making a real comittment.

Your offer could say: Declare Your interest and only if we get enough ppls our project will start. Perhaps You can say 8$, but the first 100 pay less, for e.g. 5$, the next 200 6$ and the next 300 7$ ?

And after You see how many will join You can decide if it is worth. Or even You almost know your budget, better than now as You only can guess.

My english is not very good, so I hope I have understand Your purposal and my posting fits to this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

In one month I have 4000 names known in MTW2. So its way more than 1000.

---

How did you get that number?
But then 4000 still is kinda low I think, considering how many of them only play MP once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stig

I think the amount of posters in the MP section says it all. I doubt going for a seperate MP game (even when comes with the SP game as Tosa said) is just not worth the effort.

---

That is correct I think, but it's a bit of a stalemate. Seperating MP more from SP will allow MP to evolve while riding on SP's success.

:yes: gawain is psychic :idea2:

I don't think a separate entire game is necessary to get the type of game we would like to see MP be. Just separating out the stats and AI scripts, making the MP ones easily accessible for modding, would be a major step in the right direction.

Quote:

---

How did you get that number?

---

Quote:

---

gawain is psychic

---

Dont tell me none of you know this trick and how to spot people with more than one name.

Quote:

---

But then 4000 still is kinda low I think, considering how many of them only play MP once

---

I doubt many play it only once. I know that once I played online I couldnt even bother with the camp game in any TW series. Also Im sure RTW has or had far more players than MTW2 has at the moment.

I don't see any reason to separate the MP and SP portions of the game. Adding the features listed by Orda to the current game and fixing the present crop of critical bugs (shields, 2H, cav push etc.) would be a better solution IMO.

Couldn't they make the MP portion a separate, down-load only version, like some of the BF2 expansion packs? Not having to produce cds should cut the overhead a bit. Could a MP only version be easily moddable enough, so as not to take more than a month or two by dedicated, knowledgeable community members to tweak?
I'd pay $20-25 for that plus a $5-10/monthly server fee. If the game is not to my liking, that would only be a loss of $30-35. I've got games I don't like sitting in a box that I've paid as much and more for already.
To get something like this, the object is to convince the game manufacturer that there's a profit to be had, they aren't going to do it as a community service. So far, at least, that hasn't happened. A real shame, because I know some of you have invested much blood, sweat, and tears over the years about MP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

Couldn't they make the MP portion a separate, down-load only version, like some of the BF2 expansion packs? Not having to produce cds should cut the overhead a bit.

---

Only if it's free, I think plenty of people don't have creditcards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stig

Only if it's free, I think plenty of people don't have creditcards

---

That and there are some of us who violently object to incredibly lame monthly fees in general, period. No double dipping, kthx.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stig

Only if it's free, I think plenty of people don't have creditcards

---

Quote:

---

To get something like this, the object is to convince the game manufacturer that there's a profit to be had, they aren't going to do it as a community service.

---

Nothing will be had for free.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

Nothing will be had for free.

---

My reply was faster then your edit m8.


I don't really like monthly fees, for 2 reasons:
1. I don't have a creditcard
2. 15 euros is about 9 beers

Yeah Stig, we seem to be playing cyber-tag. I understand your reasoning. This is a competition for your entertainment dollar. Some can't, by circumstance or won't, by choice, want to spend it this way. However, as I stated, if it won't be feasibly, financially to their advantage, they just won't do it.
Some in the community have been agonizing over this MP issue for years, and their desires have been discouragingly unfullfilled. Doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result, leads to frustration :wall: . If such a thing as I, and others, in this thread have suggested, could come to pass, then I think there is enough knowledge & dedication within the MP community to take this to the next level. I sure would like to see it happen.

Apparently, the 1% increase in sales as a result of the 5% to 10% resources put into MP is greater than the increase in sales that would result if that 5% to 10% were put into SP and the game had no MP. There must be some level of SP and MP where the profit is maximized, and that's what you would want to find from a business standpoint. The customers determine what they are offered by what they are willing to purchase.

A lot of games that have monthly subscriptions have other means of paying then credit card, so that really isn't a deal breaker.

An MP game that was flexible would be something I could see value in.

An MP campaign game would be worth dropping Eve-online to take part in.

An MP game that was able to be hosted on your own servers, that had auto-swap stat files, that custom maps could be loaded and shared and the same with 3D unit models, would be grand.

With all those ^^^ features, I'd pay full game price and up to $15 per month for server service (tho' I'd prefer $5).

For those features minus MP campaign (already stipulated as very hard/too hard to implement) I'd pay $19 - $25 basic, and ohhhh... $10 a month for the privilge of playing actual humans, my soon-to-be friends, in massive tw combat, on a reliable connection, on a wide variety of maps.

ahh! a marketing scheme. how can i get in on the profit?

I wouldn't pay anything unless the battle engine was returned to the tactical depth it once had. I would also require stable operation, support for AthlonXP cpu, lag free 4v4 battles with 8000 men, dynamically balanced combined arms gameplay, improved control interface and better MP foyer. In short, all the things the game once had.

So Puzz: IF it had all that, what would you be willing to pay?

I'd pay $50 for the game and $15 usd a month, and I don't need multiplayer campaign, DirectIP (already rejected as a matter of company policy), host distributed stats and maps (already rejected because it would delay launching a battle) or host distributed 3D graphics.

Quote:

---

I wouldn't pay anything unless the battle engine was returned to the tactical depth it once had. I would also require stable operation, support for AthlonXP cpu, lag free 4v4 battles with 8000 men, dynamically balanced combined arms gameplay, improved control interface and better MP foyer. In short, all the things the game once had.

---

Are all these things beyond what can be modded?

if the multiplayer community goes to paying to play im out.50 bucks is enough out of my pocket.

Quote:

---

if the multiplayer community goes to paying to play im out.50 bucks is enough out of my pocket.

---

As would those of us without a creditcard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Are all these things beyond what can be modded?

---

They are all beyond what can be modded except for the unit stats, and there is no consensus on modded stats. As a result, mods fracture the online community. I would say that good playbalance in the vanilla game is necessary.

It's also detrimental to the online community to release a buggy game, and then take many months to correct those bugs because players leave and don't come back. Another consequence is that playbalance issues take a backseat to bug fixing and may never be addressed.

Paid subscription would be the best way to get ongoing support, and get enough interations of playbalance adjustments to bring that to a high level. However, subscription would also prevent a lot of people from playing. It seems like the current business model is the one that keeps coming back as most viable. The difficulty with it is how do the players get the developer to put more effort into what's under the hood as opposed to what's on the surface when the business model is geared toward maximizing initial sales and then moving on to the next product as quickly as possible.

If the game meets your expectations now, then go ahead and enjoy it. Any improvements will be icing on the cake. If the game doesn't meet your expectations, then I would say you shouldn't even own it at this time. I think that's the most effective way to deal with the current Total War business model.

Thus spake ZaraPuzzthra :)

Thanks for the insights into gaming industry business models, Sir. :bow: I agree with your analysis.

Except one thing: I think modding is a viable pursuit for the SP crowd. I believe there is room for the MP gamers' requirements for equity in battle and reliability of connection to other human players -

and the SP gamers' desires for dragons, or purple ponies, or more diplomacy, or a more zoom-able campaign map...

whatever,

can, rather than alienate the 2 camps, inform each other. Hence my suggestion that SP and MP get a divorce. An amicable one, but a divorce nevertheless.

Credit card possession problems can be got 'round. And not every MP player is a no-credit-card 10 year old. Merely look at, not only the popularity of, but the paying public of World of Warcraft. Those folks find ways to extract profit via negligible subscriptions, and garner non-credit card players (and they update (read: patch) almost weekly). Because they are dedicated to their product.

CA could do the same, if they were persuaded that there was enough demand.

Totalwar Multiplayer has been the red-headed step-child of the series since MTW, for a variety of reasons. If we smart guys could figure out a way to suggest a product they could build, that we would support (and enjoy), for a few years... why would they not build it?

I believe they would. As long as it wasn't a money-loser. Nobody in their right minds would do that. Even Mother Theresa, somewhere along the course of her life, had to have done a cost-benefit analysis - effort expended vs. lives/souls saved. Yanno?

I just thought, instead of the bashing, and nostalgia, and gloom and doom, if we (all of us) figured out some way for the bright minds of CA - and they are brilliant - to give we little 1-percenters a product we would buy and support...maybe they'd take notice and do so.

If not, OK. We'd have done our part.

Marketing research informs the decisions about how the product will be developed and presented not something posted at the org.

The RTW v1.2 beta team was made up of all hardcore players with hardcore suggestions, so near the end of that 3 month effort when the developer said they wouldn't make changes that were only of interest to hardcore players, it made you wonder why you were there. Several people quit before the end. The rest of us stuck it out to the end, and then quit the MP game.

I recently went to a movie with a friend on a Saturday morning. This isn't a cheap theater as matinees cost $8.25 usd and evenings cost $10.75 usd. There were about 50 people in the theater. When the previews came on, the sound was so loud as to be painful, the picture was out of focus enough to give you a headache and the image was partially off the top of the screen. I went to the manager and informed him of this. Fifteen minutes later the movie started, and all those issues were still present. My friend and I got a refund and left. None of the other 48 people left or even went to complain during the time I was in the theater.

Ladies and Gentlemen, and especially Puzz3D:

In my last post, above (#67), I wrote: "Thus spake ZaraPuzzthra :)" in initial response to his response.

I thought I was being clever, but the fact is that the phrase invites unwarranted disrespect for our tenured, talented gentleman, whose work and opinions I have admired, respected, and valued for years.. I apologize to him publicly, here:

Puzz3D: To reiterate what I wrote by PM: I'm sorry that I let a moment of frivolity take me over, resulting in my making a disrespectful comment aimed at you. I deeply regret that. It won't happen again.

And I apologize to the community at large; such language, common among good friends, can do untold damage to relations among the community when written/spoken in the general public, where the "good friends" condition is not understood by all. Rather than enhancing bonding between us, it creates chasms of misunderstanding, mistrust, and disrespect. I meant no part of that, and work against it.

Finally: sorry to all for this public announcement. It seemed necessary to me, to make things right.

Friends,

A moment of your time please. What follows are my honest opinions, that I only ask people read and consider with an open mind. Also, please understand it is never my intent to insult or personally attack, if any is taken or perceived I apologize in advance.

Please please please please please please do NOT feed the horrible, malignant, cancerous beast that is subscription/monthly fee/episodic-based gaming.

I submit that all these are, are attempts to bilk gamers out of more money for products which we've paid for and received the same thing in the past. It could be argued that games like Everquest and World of Warcraft offer enough new content on a regular basis to merit the monthly fees, however as counter-examples I would submit Guild Wars and Anarchy Online, both games that charge only for the software itself, have no monthly fees, and add new content on a regular basis. I submit to you the Bethesda Oblivion nickel-and-dime method for charging for what amounts to 10 minutes/several megs of new content, that arguably should have been in the game to start with. Thankfully this appears to have failed for the most part, most sales were to Xbox 360 players who have no way to mod their game, and as such must resort to purchasing official downloadable mods to experience anything different that we PC players can. I submit to you Sam and Max by Telltale games, which they want to charge us approx. $10 per "episode", which as I read amount to maybe 2-3 hours of play each on the outside. 4 episodes so far at ~$10 = ~$40, for say ~12 hours of gameplay. I don't know about you guys but I paid $40-50 for KOTOR1 and 2, Deus Ex, Half-life, System Shock 2, etc etc which all provided me far more than just 10-12 hours of gameplay. Of course everything I've just provided above is subjective, please keep in mind I simply submit these to argue my case.

I think what this boils down to in my mind is people's drastic lowering of standards, unfulfilled desire (heh) for a quality product that fits a particular want, and bad perceptions of the gaming industry in general. It's hard, if not impossible to independantly discuss these three concepts as I see them. In terms of bad or "wrong" perceptions of the gaming industry, it's well established that it does not require a subscription or monthly-fee based model to promote or ensure an outstanding online game experience. Look at the Battlefield (and spinoffs) series, Quake series, Guild Wars, Anarchy Online, Ghost Recon/Rainbow 6 series, Command and Conquer series, Half-life and it's derivatives, etc etc etc on and on and on... Charging a monthly fee is honestly what I perceive to be a lame excuse for a greedy or poor business model. It is perfectly feasible and doable to support the large server and network infrastructures based on profits from game sales alone, and as the Quake, Battlefield, and old Half-Life WON-based multiplayer series have proven, key-based authentication is more than enough to ensure that pirate copies will not be playable through the official internet means. As for the desire of a quality product and lowering of standards, I think these go hand in hand. Like many of you guys, there are certain franchises and genres that have long since died of neglect, been killed off, or sunk into mediocrity/unacceptability for various reasons that I would love to see resurrected. As two examples, I would kill for a good new modern military flight sim (LOMAC stinks, and uses Starforce) like one from the golden days of Janes and EA, or for a new good friggin' non-Dark Age non-console-arcade-fest stinking BATTLETECH game!!! If somebody came up with a solution for either of these I would bear their love children... but in the same token I will absolutely NOT lower my standards to to play them. For example, there are certain copy-protection schemes, like Starforce, that I refuse to purchase anything that utilizes them for a number of reasons, not the least of which that it does damage your hardware. There are other reasons for not lowering your standards but I won't get into them, this is getting long enough as is. In my view, stooping to pay a monthly fee for something that we should have been getting from the start (good TW MP) is lowering of our standards and giving in to something that we should not, and that we should hold the provider accountable for based on prior history of inclusion, as well as advertisement to the effect of it's availability in the final product. In simple terms, I submit that we should not offer to pay additionally for something that we should fully expect and demand to begin with. If a publisher chooses to go in a different direction than an individual expects or wants in terms of an old beloved game or game series, then I think it comes down to the fact that one must choose to "vote with their money" so to speak, and tell the publisher their thoughts by not purchasing said product. It's painful to do, but I've done it many times with other games, and from reading these forums there are enough who have done just this with M2TW. In the end it's the only real way to get a message across, as profit is the bottom line and speaks louder than any words in the business world.

I know this is a long read, and there may be some logical gaps as it's hard to condense all I wish to say you all my friends, but I think you can get my major points. All I ask is that you consider what I've said, if I'm very lucky perhaps I can influence or change a few minds.

Respectfully

:bow:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Personal Disclaimer: I hate MMO's on principle, any game that requires me to be online to play fits this bill. Steam also fits this bill, and yes I know about the offline method. I just strongly resent having to 'ask permission' every time I want to play what I have rightfully purchased and is 'mine'... hence why I have uninstalled Steam and refuse to buy any products through it for the a year and more now.

So the question begs. If you could make a really good TW mp game with all the features mentioned how big a following could you expect? If it were really that good how many would play it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

So the question begs. If you could make a really good TW mp game with all the features mentioned how big a following could you expect? If it were really that good how many would play it?

---

Only CA/Sega marketing probably have a good idea of what this would be. I still firmly believe that in today's PC gaming environment, a game's following is going to be largely based on whether or not it's highly modable. Modding has just become one of, if not the, major selling points these days. And let's face it folks, the TW series has NOT been the most modable or accessible in this respect. I'd imagine that if they changed their tune on this, separated the MP/SP components like most all other modern games do, and gave their community the same level of support that other game publishers do in the above regards, they'd get a very sizeable following. I don't have any numbers nor can I offer any anecdotal evidence, but some of the "old timers" seem to indicate that the number of online players has remained about the same, if not shrunk some since the days of Shogun. This, if true, I read as a bad sign, as time passes the number of players should always be increasing. /shrug

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Ladies and Gentlemen, and especially Puzz3D:

In my last post, above (#67), I wrote: "Thus spake ZaraPuzzthra :)" in initial response to his response.

I thought I was being clever, but the fact is that the phrase invites unwarranted disrespect for our tenured, talented gentleman, whose work and opinions I have admired, respected, and valued for years.. I apologize to him publicly, here:

Puzz3D: To reiterate what I wrote by PM: I'm sorry that I let a moment of frivolity take me over, resulting in my making a disrespectful comment aimed at you. I deeply regret that. It won't happen again.

And I apologize to the community at large; such language, common among good friends, can do untold damage to relations among the community when written/spoken in the general public, where the "good friends" condition is not understood by all. Rather than enhancing bonding between us, it creates chasms of misunderstanding, mistrust, and disrespect. I meant no part of that, and work against it.

Finally: sorry to all for this public announcement. It seemed necessary to me, to make things right.

---

Oh for god's sake, you were being humourous. No need to apologize for, humour is pretty normal you know.

Whacker, i mostly agree with you BUT i do think Steam is a good system, and i do play an mmo with a monthly fee - EVE online. But that is only because of the type of game it is(no other mmo like it, or that allows as much player freedom), and because of the huge amount of new content the devs keep on adding.

Whacker: I too stay away from purchasing anything StarForce protected. I ended up having to reformat and reinstall WinXP due to its corrupting my harddrive and causing no-end of problems. On my other PC I used the StarForce uninstaller, and it helped, but I also ended up having to reformatting to get rid of some of the hidden files which the installer did not eliminate and which were making it to where my PC didn't recognize my CD or DVD drives.

I always check the Anti-StarForce site to see which games use it. I have not bought games just for that fact. Games I otherwise am interested in and which had good reviews in the magazines.

StarForce lost a lawsuit and UBIsoft will no longer use them as their copy-protection scheme since they were listed in the suit as well. They ended up losing sales of their games by being stubborn about it when people began to complain about StarForce. It will be a while before they get back a chunk of their previous customer base due to their arrogant attitude.

Here is the URL for the list of games using StarForce:

http://www.glop.org/starforce/list.php

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lusted

Whacker, i mostly agree with you BUT i do think Steam is a good system, and i do play an mmo with a monthly fee - EVE online. But that is only because of the type of game it is(no other mmo like it, or that allows as much player freedom), and because of the huge amount of new content the devs keep on adding.

---

I completely agree with you, in that the concept behind Steam is outstanding. Steam itself is just a terrible implementation of that concept. As I stated the main issue for me is the DRM riddled throughout it, and the "big brother" style approach taken to the authentication mechanisms. Also I think the patching stinks, as the system will simply autopatch your games without your approval. This coupled with the fact that Valve is extremely hush-hush about what they tell people they've changed and fixed doesn't sit well with me.

As to the MMO content argument... We're just going to have to agree to disagree like gentlemen. :grin:

@ Elmo

My dvd drive is slowly dying in my main PC. Long story short, I've linked it to me installing the Lock-on Modern Air Combat add-on which uses Starforce "protection" some time ago. Apparently Starforce will force your disc drive drivers into a certain mode of operation that is long since depreciated, and if run for extended periods of time in that mode can and will cause damage. Lovely, eh? Thank god that Ubi and the other publishers are starting to listen. There's good ways to do cd protection schemes, and there's bad ones, Starforce is the poster child for the latter.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

I still firmly believe that in today's PC gaming environment, a game's following is going to be largely based on whether or not it's highly modable. Modding has just become one of, if not the, major selling points these days. /shrug

---

Not sure I agree with this. What percentage of people who buy the game even look on the forum? I doubt it's much more than 10%...I'd eat my own foot if it was higher than 20%. Without a shadow of doubt, less than half the people who have bought the game will even patch it, let alone install a mod! (My stepbrother (23 years old and generally computer literate), for instance, didn't even realise there WAS a patch until I told him...he'd been content with 1.0 too!)

Only the hardcore gamers think modding is a necessity. Sure, some non-hardcore gamers may use and enjoy mods, but if the mods didn't exist, they wouldn't miss them. To say a game's success is largely down to its modability is wrong, IMO. Also, to say that Total War games in general aren't mod-able is debateable. I agree modders can't do EVERYTHING they'd like, but look at Napoleonic Total War for RTW, or Samurai Wars? Pretty decent mods there if you ask me...you think these mods are in some way poor, due to limitations in what can be achieved? Please, enlighten us. :verycool:

A quick glance at this very forum at this very moment provides interesting numbers to consider. As I write this, 36 people are viewing the SP board, compared to 5 viewing the mod board...

Quote:

---

As to the MMO content argument... We're just going to have to agree to disagree like gentlemen.

---

Well mostly i agree with you, in the case of EVE i must disagree given the huge amount of new content the devs have added to it over the years for free. Apart from the cost of the game and monthly fee, there have been no additional charges for expansion packs. Unlike WoW which i despise.

Personally I no longer have any faith that CA is capable of producing a quality MP tactical "wargame". Even when they finally allow the programmers the time to make a 100% working MP interface, there will still be the combat mechanisms that will need to work well at release time.
Having a MP game in which it is easy to exploit the game system is not good for the atmosphere of a community. And with M2:TW CA isn't really showing that they can deliver... at least that is what I gather from the forums as I've kept my promise that I wouldn't buy M2:TW if it contained obvious bugs. :wink:

Quote:

---

A quick glance at this very forum at this very moment provides interesting numbers to consider. As I write this, 36 people are viewing the SP board, compared to 5 viewing the mod board..

---

You are looking at the M2:TW forums. M2:TW is not as moddeable as M:TW or R:TW. Currently more people are looking at R:TW modding forums then all M2:TW forums combined. Plus TW mods have been published in game magazines quite often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Of 74 votes, 54 voters last time decided they would NOT pay any additional money to make MP more to their taste.

Fair enough; though I always thought of the MP community as broader and deeper than 74 people.

So; let's pretend that CA would even consider making an MP-friendly game spinoff:

What if:

-there was a Multiplayer-only TW title? No campaign map, no long-term strategy to figure out; no diplo's, family, assassins or popes to be concerned with. Only battlemaps (25?) and balanced unit types (15? 20?)?

-there were a dedicated server, not some 3rd party provider?

Then what? What would you pay for such a product? $15? $20? $25?

And how much would you kick in for the monthly server subscription? $2.50? $5? $15? or not?

If you would pay up to $25 for such a product, and (say) $5 monthly for the server, what kind of features would you expect?

So 3 basic questions:

1. Would you buy such a product?
2. What would you pay, today and monthly?
3. What features would you like/demand?

I thought I'd start a poll, but realized we need more discussion first, to narrow the poll options.

---

I'm sorry, I'm not going to read the rest of the replies to this thread. (Patience :laugh4: )

I would buy the game. I have played MTW2. I will not buy it. I have bought every other TW game and add on to date. As it stands, I WILL NOT BUY MTW2. CA has lost my money until something like this comes out. I mean, something like a MP only game comes out.

Do I want SP? It would be nice. But if it comes down to it, I CARE ONLY FOR MULTIPLAYER.

I WILL ONLY SPEND MY MONEY ON MULTIPLAYER. Do not provide me with multi fun, and you do not get my money. Period. That is why I never bought MTW2.

Lets be clear. I never pirated, nor have I ever condoned pirating of the TW franchise. But...

At one point I did, successfully, talk friends into buying the game, because it had more of a MP portion to it. As I see it, each TW game does more to KILL the multiplayer portion of the game. Yes, I capitalized KILL for a reason. CA is killing their biggest POTENTIAL market.

Keep doing it. I'll keep an eye on your product, and only spend money again when the product is to my liking. As it stands, you do not have my money, nor the money of my friends, nor the money of the other people I would have talked into buying your product. In fact, I will talk people out of buying your games, until I see what I want.

That is real marketing. Tell your people. They'll **** a brick. If they don't, fire them.

Yes, my degree IS in marketing. Opps, original question unanswered, right?

I would easily pay $50 dollars for a game that gives me the multiplayer I want. Do not provide it, and I will not provide you with the money.

Hope that is clear.