Multiplayer required for success

[Apophis]

Its a good game but replayability can only be infinite if there is multiplayer. Take Anno series for example, their most successful release had multiplayer but the next releases were so bad and without multiplayer the developer stopped putting them on Steam in order to conceal their fans' unhappiness. Ill never buy another Anno game. Had they kept their formula, Id be in a multiplayer game right now instead of buying Imagine Earth.

Multiplayer is the best for sales and longevity because ppl who love the game invite their friends. Playing with friends is more fun and they invite more as well. Streamers find the game and it becomes viral overnight.

I've seen modders add Multiplayer to single player games such as Rimworld and Factorio. It. Can. Be. Done. It. Should. Be. Done.

I'm only being insistent because I like the game, its complex enough to be stimulating and easy enough for a beginner. I don't want to stop playing it but without the human aspect, its only a "good" game. Add multiplayer, make it GREAT!

[Krausladen]

Rimworld is a horrible example for why multiplayer helps a game succeed. Also, Rimworld is a great example of how single player games should be made for infinite single player replayability. Same with Factorio.

Multiplayer needs to be implemented as an RTS/Strategy game. Civilization is turn-based, but that game is more in line with the grand view of multiplayer opportunities in this game.

[Nasabot]

Nonsense.

Usually <1% of the playerbase of a Singleplayergame plays MP consistantly.
Its a huge waste of time and resources to implement MP which could otherwise be spent on creating content and new game systems. Also, most of the time, a SP is not designed for MP which leads to very gimpy and unbalanced gameplay which is not even fixable.

[atheist4thecause]

My counter to this is that unless there is a way to continually make sales in multiplayer, longevity really doesn't matter much for profit. New campaigns/expansions are the key to bringing in more profit and that's why the developer should always consider adding more campaigns through DLC.

[Eagle_of_Fire]

*sigh*

So this is the obligated "bring MP to every single game in existence" thread of this game, right?

Factorio has always been multiplayer. It was one of the devs goal since the start. I've never played a version of Factorio which wasn't multiplayer. It is obvious OP has no idea of what he's talking in this instance.

Rimworld is also one perfect example of why SP games should stay SP games as it has thrived under its SP only aspect. The whole point of Rimworld is to allow the players to roll out stories by themselves with the help of the software and it would never make any sense to turn the game into a multiplayer mess to begin with.

I've seen threads like these in every single game forum I visited, ad nauseum. If you are to make the two hundred thousand thread of this type, please for the love of God at least have actual arguments to back you up instead of spouting nonsense.

And please keep this game SP. There isn't enough of those games around nowaday.

[Aten]

Don't get me wrong, it would be fun to PVP over a planet in this, but yet it does great as a solo adventure too

[Wuik]

Hello,
if you had fight with an AI players before, you easily understand why it may be very difficult to play on MP , cos it was not a turn-based game .. simply!

[jake21]

It's sad that so many devs have been deciding to cut costs by making the game single player only. Specially in strategy genre where most exciting comes from having a real adversary and also mates to witness and share the cool moments. I see dozens nice of games on Steam that have tiny playerbase and revenue because they lack multiplayer.

[Wuik]

@jake21
don't agree whith you, Cos i i got all the achievements on ANNO 1800 except only one :
One for all , All for onel !" So why?? Cos it was a Multiplayer achievement and that was impossible to find two others players to play at the same time .. that is simply impossible !! and you will may knew they had sold more than a million game in the entire world ..
And another thing : all the players must have the same DLC cos that don't work !!
I don't want to stay behind my computer more than one hours to try to play for a multiplaying game ... So yours arguments are totally false.

[Eagle_of_Fire]

Of course it is... But what is even more ridiculous is the stupid mindset which has been implemented in gamers mind that a game must sell incredible amount of copies to be "successful". If a single player game require way less development time it mean they don't need to sell as many copies to break even and then make money. The only point which is always important and the single one most devs and gamers forget about is: is the game itself and the gameplay fun? That's all what really matter.

[Buntkreuz]

Originally posted by Apophis:

Its a good game but replayability can only be infinite if there is multiplayer. Take Anno series for example, their most successful release had multiplayer but the next releases were so bad and without multiplayer the developer stopped putting them on Steam in order to conceal their fans' unhappiness.

Generally im all for multiplayer and if this game had a multiplayer mode, awesome.
It would be great and all that.
However, its funny that your reasoning is the worst possible.

Why are you taking the exact worst game as the example for multiplayer?
Bluebyte made clear that Multiplayer is the least played mode in any Anno game.
The last figure that floated around from official side was around 3% of all users playing Anno 1800 in multiplayer.
In other words, pretty much NO ONE plays that mode.

I am one of that small group of people that deems multiplayer as necessary for a strategy and management game, but reality is i belong to a minority.
There are tons of good reasons to be made as to why multiplayer is beneficial and great.
But saying "Anno has it thus its necessary" is just none of them.

[The Doctor]

While I definitely groan whenever I see a thread calling for a single-player game to have multi-player, I guess my position on this has changed quite a bit. It seems to me that once you play strategy games with other players, no AI opponent is ever going to provide you with an adequate challenge. For these MP folks, single-player games are broken if they can't be played with other folks.

There's another game, AI Wars 2, which is one of the best single-player games I've ever played, where the dev has been investing a ton of resources into enabling multi-player for his game. I hope for his sake that the investment is worth the effort as it is not a trivial matter to enable this. If the game hasn't been designed from the get-go as MP, it's not as easy to do as you might expect.

I have read quite a lot of Steam reviews in my time and the MP crowd can be utterly savage when reviewing a game that doesn't provide them with a near-perfect MP experience so if a dev wants to do it, they have to do it almost perfectly or it will hurt more than help. It's an all-or-nothing proposition and if it can't be done so that every MP game is near-perfect, it's better not to do it at all.

So, MP fans, please bear in mind when you 'ask' for this feature that you are not asking for anything trivial and you need to be a bit more patient and understanding when the MP experience is not as flawless as you need it to be. I've never read a promise for MP from these devs to have MP so it's not like they've let you down so approach it rather as if you're asking for a favour instead?

[Roderick]

Originally posted by jake21:

It's sad that so many devs have been deciding to cut costs by making the game single player only. Specially in strategy genre where most exciting comes from having a real adversary and also mates to witness and share the cool moments. I see dozens nice of games on Steam that have tiny playerbase and revenue because they lack multiplayer.

Cutting costs means, one had planed out multiplayer and dedicated expenses to this, but then had to save money somehow and thus cut the multiplayert to save costs. Was that the case here?
On the other hand, I like building up factories, cities, planets and universes without pressure and therefor I for one don't need multiplayer in such a game and don't want one in Imagine Earth.

[Buntkreuz]

Multiplayer is not only cost related but skill related.
Developing a feature requires certain skills.
If none in the team has these skills, implementing that feature is not possible.
It only then becomes possible, by using money to hire someone who has the skills.
At that point, the cost of implementing the feature equals the time it needs to implement it and the time equals the money for salary of the person doing it.
Lets say they hired a person because they lack the skill of implementing it.
That person costs roughly 4k€ monthly, at the very least, likely 5k.
If that person needed two years to implement the mode, thats roughly 120k€ of development costs for that mode.
A game costing 20€ minus expenses leaves roughly 11€. Lets make it easier and say every sold copy earns them 10€ after paying expenses like taxes and fees.
That needs them to sell 500 copies a month only to pay that one person implementing multiplayer.

This is just a really rough calculation.
I didnt do that to show exact numbers but to give a rough idea on what that means.
Whether they now need to sell 300 copies or 700 copies a month only to pay one person and whether that person now earny 3k or 5k is irrelevant.
Besides i left out stuff like equipment cost, software expenses, rent and so on.
Now, you can estimate that implementing a multiplayer mode can cost a lot to implement.
And all of that leaves out the necessary design work.
Implementing a mode is not just about the technical aspects, but it needs a design concept first.
Which then needs them to rewrite tons of existing code.


See, im all for having a multiplayer mode.
I deem any strategy game only relying on an AI as not challenging enough, because human players provide so much to the experience of playing.
Unexpected events and dynamic behaviour no AI is capable of.
But these guys here spent 7 years makign a really good and complex singleplayer management strategy game.
They are new in the business, this is their first proper game.
And considering they needed 7+ years to make this game, asking them to spend another 7+ years to implement multiplayer is stupid.
And i mean that.
In 7 years from now, the visuals of this game are so drastically outdated, that it getting multiplayer would feel like a waste.

Instead the best idea for those guys would be to deliver this game as good as they can with what they can do, establish themselves in the industry, hopefully be successful, hire a new person capable of netcoding, then creating a new game with multiplayer in mind using the funds and reputation they earned.

[Chalchiutlicue]

I would like to have a multiplayer mode.
Since we've got AI Players here, it's not really a Singleplayer game.
The AI Player could also be replaced by a human player.

Another idea would be that every player has his own planet and can trade with/attack other players.

[atheist4thecause]

Originally posted by Chalchiutlicue:

I would like to have a multiplayer mode.
Since we've got AI Players here, it's not really a Singleplayer game.
The AI Player could also be replaced by a human player.

Another idea would be that every player has his own planet and can trade with/attack other players.

Then why not just play a space 4X game?