Quote:
If they're content with their current, single player market, and that market has no interest in multiplayer, why do they need to implement multiplayer?
|
and
Quote:
As an aside to Uncle_Joe's post, I'm also one of those who don't do multiplayer (and GalCiv would likely have been worse with it added) and I think Stardock have a valid point in seeing single player games as the majority market.
|
And IMO if they want to do a single-player game then thats fine if it works (which it appears to do). But what bugs me about it is the attitude that they are so right because of their 'poll'. If you conduct a 'poll' under heavily weighted conditions, then you can get the results to favor whatever premise you choose. And thats what I feel happened there.
For example, if you went the PBW forums and asked if MP capability was important in a 4x game, I seriously doubt you'd get the same response! So to go to a game forum where mostly single-player gamers are present and conduct such a poll is equally worthless IMO.
But I do understand what you are saying ('why bother adding what their majority of their CURRENT customers dont find important?'). And it makes some sense. But the way it was presented at the time (and since) really rubbed me the wrong way. And unfortunately, it does NOT tell them how much of a market they lost by not having MP capability (and it might be tiny or it be much greater, but that 'poll' still cant measure it since the sampling is mainly of people for whom MP capability has lesser value).