Would You Pay for MultiPlayer?

[KukriKhan]

Vivendi, maker of World of Warcraft, has posted double-digit profits again here, using the monthly subscription model.

This topic has arisen here before, but with the influx of new players, I wonder if pay-for-MP attitudes have changed any. So:

Would you pay extra, on a monthly basis, for better Multiplayer support (stable, always-on servers; more maps, competition ladder, etc.) ?

If "yes", how much would you pay?

EDIT: Poll is anonymous. You may make multiple choices to accomodate ideas like Lusted's below ("No, unless... ").

[Lusted]

No, not unless a multiplayer campaign feature was in the game.

[Stig]

No never, not even if we would have a MP campaign or anything

[The Spartan (Returns)]

no thats whats great about computer games, most are free.
things like Xbox Live i wouldnt pay for.

[Monarch]

Accidently clicked no, instead of £5 a month.

When I got my first tw game, Rome, I would never have paid £5 a month. However now I've played it so much and really like mp I think I would be prepared for a little sum of money. However the quality of multiplayer would have to go up too, stats tracker/ladder, better servers, optimized code for less lag, little features like if you don't spend 30 florins you can donate it to a team mate etc would be needed.

It has to be said lots of RTS such as Dawn Of War use gamespy, they have a stats tracker, friends list, stable servers, little lag (but it is an rts so that should be a given) and its all free.

I don't think I should have to pay for a better mp experience, but I would do if I was made to.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Nope. that why I don't get games like WOW or EQ in the first place.. If the MP isn't free, no matter if it WOW/EQ or my Favortie Game, TW, I will not play MP on it..

[NihilisticCow]

I would pay for multiplayer, but I don't think it would really work for this game as is. What would you have, a multiplayer that was solely available for people paying? The numbers who play for "free" aren't that large as is. It might work for some massive campaign, but I don't really think that would work too well either. People always say a multiplayer campaign would be great, but I never really see how it would work for 99% of people. You can't have a campaign that has people constantly being substituted, nor can you expect any arbitrary group of people to finish it. Some kind of reward system for winning games (gaining resources etc) might work, but I'd suspect it would more reward time played instead of ability and so fielding better armies.

What I would like most is something like the automated ladder matches in WC3/CoH etc and regular balance patches so that it doesn't become just a game of who can build the most exploitative army.

As an aside I've often toyed with the idea of writing some kind of STW/MTW style web based campaign and using the game for the battles.

Anyway, I've gone completely off topic as usual...

[HaroldVonBraver]

No, not unless a multiplayer campaign feature was in the game.

This is something I would love to have for free (a multiplayer campaign). But if it was available for a price, I would pay up to $10 a month for it.

[LordMorgan]

I would only cosider paying if you had the ability to do multiplayer campaigns with the ability to save your progress because campaigns take time. So perhaps a yes but most likely no lol.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

if MP was much bigger, then 5 bucks a Month I MIGHT think about paying, but with only 200-300 players, then it makes really no sense then to charge the small MP communtiy..

[Orda Khan]

STW was a great online game and perhaps, with those old players one could argue it would be worth paying. I played STW a lot.

MTW was a smooth online experience, however they screwed that game with supposed patch 'fixes'. Spears were rendered usless and by v2.01 it was all cav/sword armies and boring tactical play. I did not see anything remotely worth paying for after v1.0.

RTW was a complete mess and none of the patches released could sort it out. The MP community voted with its feet and left. A very large percentage of battles were ruined by idiots, the lobby chat was even blocked due to the infantile behaviour. The worst experience of the series and definitely not worth paying for.

M2TW is a brand new title and already there are many issues. Why would anyone pay? Sure, if the server was smooth and flawless, allowing 4v4 with no problem but it isn't.
It's been six years since STW, there appears to still be a problem providing decent MP. The last thing I would do right now is start paying for this poor service. The game would need to be tactically superb and tightly balanced which it is not. I would give up on MP altogether before paying for it in it's current state.
In short my answer is a definitive no

.......Orda

[Xaziv]

No. I don't play p2p games anymore.

They should not use gamespy though. B.net was great & free, why can't more companies make online systems like battle.net?

[NihilisticCow]

No. I don't play p2p games anymore.

They should not use gamespy though. B.net was great & free, why can't more companies make online systems like battle.net?

Gamespy works fine in a lot of other games, it just seems to have issues here... and companies don't make online systems like battle.net because it costs a lot of money, especially when most people who play TW play single player. Besides if they did do, it would take quite a while before it got to even Gamespy's level of stability I would think.

p2p games? So you don't play any RTS game online either?

[tootee]

Yes, US$5 a mth but not for the current quality.

Must
1. be stable in 4v4, no lag, no desync, no drop
2. greatly improve the lobby interface.. by a lot.. friend list, ban list, ignore list, private chatroom like in STW, etc..
3. provide fast-response patches for bugs and improvement
4. support individual ladder as well as clan ladder

These must be there.. I would still pay even if game is not as balanced as desired..

[KukriKhan]

So, in 12 hours, we've garnered a 9(no) to 4 (yes) vote of willingness to pay extra money for extra MP content, despite the $60 retail price off the shelf. And 2 of the 9 are "yes but, maybe" 's. So actually, 7no to 6yes.

I wonder if CA/SEGA are interested in such a prospect - although these numbers are admittedly a mini-micro-microcosm of a 10% microcosm (of MP enthusiasts v SP guys). Personally, I think they should re-look at the idea.

Would I pay a dime (10 cents - $3.00 per month) a day to insure guarunteed connection, auto-patch updates, and new maps every week? You bet.

Would I pay a quarter (25 cents - $6.50 per month) a day, the price of a newspaper, for guarunteed connection, auto-patch updates, new maps every week, a player ladder, and other stuff? You bet.

Keep the monthly per-pay in single digits (<$10) and you may have a winner, like iPod downloads. Then you get not only the hard-core MP'ers, but also the cafe' tw players.

Content is king. Build it and they will come. Cliche' s for a reason, IMO.

[Whacker]

Good morning.

In short, my response is never.

I prefer the single player experience, and when I do occasionally do multiplayer, I'd prefer to play with my friends and people I know, rather than some random 13 year old "ZOMG U SUX0RZ". For some additional thoughts of mine, there is a thread in the main M2TW forum started by Mr. hellenes to this effect, which I have a number of posts in.

And Mr. Kukrikhan, I would like to submit to the discussion that there is a pervading sense of WoW amongst my few friends who do play, that it has a huge, horrible amount of bugs and Blizzard's policies and practices towards it's players would impress even the WWII fascists. http://games.slashdot.org/games/06/11/16/2216246.shtml I'm not saying that you are/were, but holding up WoW as an example of the definitive multiplayer experience may not the best. This is of course a matter of opinion, but I would still like to submit that.

Lastly, another thought that I had whilst debating this same idea in the other thread with Mr. hellenes... I for one fall into the category of gamer who does NOT play a single game to the absolute or near absolute exception of all others. Even when a new game I've been waiting for a long time is just out, I'll still play at least 3-4 other PC games at the same time, just because I like variety and that's how I work. My friends who play WoW quite literally play nothing else, with the exception of 1 individual whom I've managed to get to buy M2TW.

Just some food for thought.

Cheers!

[Myrddraal]

But what about the casual MPer, who goes on rarely? Would he pay a montly suscription for 1 or two games? I doubt it. A better system could be a pay per day system, like you said, 25 cents or 13 pence a day is not much for a decent set of games.

If it cost 13p per day and you could order days like you do songs on iTunes, I'd pay, but not a monthly suscription.

I voted yes, but there's a but...

EDIT: I also voted !GAH Ichi GAH!, because I haven't seen that option in a long time

[RTKBarrett]

Your really quite negative in alot of ure posts arent u... lol

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Orda, I don't think CA will ever return to the old STW state of Fame for MP m8.. I think they can come close, but not right on the button. Why? that was 6 years ago. 6 years ago I was 8 and was scared of bees so bad,wasn't funny. Now I'm 14 and not. You get my point. It just, if CA can fix it up to a point, it be good for some vets to return IMO..

[BDC]

Maybe if you were in a persistant world, as a local minor noble, gradually building up an army etc...

Hmm.

But not for regular games. Especially hosted on private machines. Who would do that? Just be silly. You pay for a persistant world, for perfect servers, constant patching, admins, etc.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Of course.. But MP is to small on TW, if it had 200,000-300,000 players MABYE, but not with only 200-300 or so, give or take 100 anyhow..

[Shahed]

I would'nt pay for TW. MP has been screwed since RTW and the first version of MTW was majorly screwed too.

I would'nt pay for WoW.

I paid for EVE for a while and I'd still be paying if I had more time.
If I pay it's got to be worth it and TW isn't worth it, MP wise.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

MTW/VI on MP wasn't bad Sinian, IMO, on the first one anyhow. RTW yes, was messed up, plus, I think it would be a bad idea to pay 10-20 bucks a month to play a MP game with how many people? 200, mabye 300? come on.

[Shahed]

MTW/VI was'nt no, and that's what I said. The first version of MTW was screwed though, you'd take on average 30-60 minutes before you'd get into a game, and then most probably someone would get disconnected. There were so many issues I don't need to get into them in detail (I hope). What about the login issue. Before you could even hope to play a game you'd have to login, which most of the time you could'nt even do. I remember sittting there for an hour many many times logging in, disconnected from server, logging in, login failed, logging in,logging in, disconnected from server, logging in, login failed, logging in,logging in, disconnected from server, logging in, login failed, logging in,logging in, disconnected from server, logging in, login failed, logging in.

Once you actually got a game going suddenly the frekin thing would crash, or disconnect one player or more. In the middle of the game players would get kicked by the server. Server stability was a MAJOR issue (do I really need to remind everyone ?). Best was when not only did the game crash but you could'nt even log back in, coz there was your 'ghost' still sitting in the lobby waiting to play (lol?). SO the game thought you are already connected. And that's what we paid for. So now if someone asks would I pay. HELL ! NO WAY ! 50 bucks is not a whole lot in the industrialised world, but for that I can do a lot of stress free, fun things, like for example watch a great concert, or a play, or a night out, whatever.

It was pathetic and we all loved the game so much we actually spent hours and hours waiting to play. Finally they did get it working, but it was'nt close to perfect IMO.

How about America's Army, so easy. Log in, find server, connect, PLAY ! Takes about 30 seconds from the time you hit the shortcut on your desktop till the time you are IN GAME PLAYING.

How about EVE Online. Takes 90 seconds from the time you hit the shortcut till the time you are IN GAME PLAYING.

In the first version of MTW, you never knew how long it would take to get in the freakin game. Luckily I had time back then to sit around sipping beers while I wait, not anymore. Even if I had the time I'd never wait around like that again, NEVER.

And this is even without getting into the more intricate 'balance' issues. Beyond that RTW, incredible, just a tiny spot of the shadow of a great MP game TW once was.

Maybe I've just run my time. It was'nt at all interesting to have a battle in RTW, for me, unless it was scripted beforehand. There was no strategy, and tactics, interface was messed up comapred to the older TWs, teamplayi was less important. It had nothing of appeal to me. I played SP sometimes, and that was ok for a few hours, but then it was just missing some.. depth. Atmosphere was on the downhill in MTW from STW, and it got much worse in RTW. I tried the MTW2 demo and it's awesome, graphics are amazing, incredible detail. But I don't really care all that much for graphics, for me gameplay and depth, immersion is most important. I'm a person who likes tactics, strategy, depth. IMO since STW all that is going out in favor of flash. We now have an uberpolished product, a brilliant work, but it ain't for me, coz it does'nt have anything that appeals to me greatly. I will try it though, eventually. Hopefully there's some good mods for MP, coz with all that eye candy, I can just imagine how great it could be, if it had depth first.

[KyodaiSteeleye]

I stopped playing MP right after RTW was released - poor MP maps, nasty forums, and most of all, awful games. I had not one decent tactical online RTW game which wasn't spoilt by infantile behaviour, ridiculous funding (i gave up trying to get people to play with less than full upgraded units) unit spamming or just plain annoying "special abilities".

TBH I play EVE online, and I'll pay for that monthly becuase there is regular new content and a lot of interactive stuff in-game. TotalWar doesn't have that. A well implemented, balanced MP campaign would make me re-consider.

[tgi01]

Well I would pay for a multiplayer only version of the game where all focus is on mp ... I did pay for several mp only fps -s .... on the other hand a monthly fee for a game when your own pc is the server why would any1 want to pay for that ...

TGI

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I don't want to bash CA or anything, But It still seems they still don't care about MP, which isn't new.

I think it's because, CA might think, "It's a SP game, plus, why should we care about a game with only 200-300 people on MP?"

there you go.It doesn't matter if Palamades (Jason) works for CA and is also a MP player or not, That why BF2/2412 and other FPS and WOW and other MMORG's get more help, because they got more people, in the Tens of Thousands and in the Millions.

[Orda Khan]

Your really quite negative in alot of ure posts arent u... lol

What is your point? Should I send my posts to you to proof read?

.......Orda

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I think Orda is just vocing his thoughts Barett.

[Darkarbiter]

Vivendi, maker of World of Warcraft, has posted double-digit profits again here, using the monthly subscription model.

This topic has arisen here before, but with the influx of new players, I wonder if pay-for-MP attitudes have changed any. So:

Would you pay extra, on a monthly basis, for better Multiplayer support (stable, always-on servers; more maps, competition ladder, etc.) ?

If "yes", how much would you pay?

EDIT: Poll is anonymous. You may make multiple choices to accomodate ideas like Lusted's below ("No, unless... ").

World of warcraft has as incredibly good GM support system and stable servers and few downtimes for the format. Thats why i quit eve online (took 3 months to even send me an email but still didnt fix problem that was a bug and reward me money i deserved as well as dayly downtimes and laggy servers). What im saying is if their gonna charge $15 a month for it then im gonna want to see 1 more thing be moddable each month and a really good GM service and stable servers (lag free too as well as maybe region specefic servers) they would also need to have different rooms for different mods (say if the mod pays like $20 flat fee. I highly doubt that would ever happen. So im never gonna pay monthly for this kind of game.