GalCiv2 Multiplayer Poll on GC2 Main Site

[Phoenix_56721]

Stardock has just started a poll on a MP Expansion. Would buy a $20 MP Expansion?

I would love to see a MP Expansion and so I started this thread to help "get the vote out" for MP. I want to use my own custom ships online against other people ships! To me this game would be a great MP experience so if you would like to see a MP Expansion please go vote!

Heres the link to their main page:
http://www.galciv2.com/Index.aspx

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

"Star" dock or "Cash Cow"?

"Would you purchase a $20 multiplayer-only expansion pack for Galciv II?"

Since I am not a GalcivII Site member I cannot vote on their site. I'd however truely LOVE MP- but considering GalcivII sales are roaring (at USD 44), with sales figures exceeding all expectations by far, 20 bucks is just ridiculously over the top if it'd be just for the sakes of the multiplayer. If its going to be a proper addon WITH a multiplayer included thats a different story. I know enough people who played the demo and told me: "If they go MP I'd actualy buy it".- What better advertising is there, than that of having the best selling top notch game that will get even better?



Really, they just took in an exponentialy higher ammount than they ever considered possible (and that without the use of any professional marketing advertisng channel) and have the nerve to ask people that if they want MP, then its gonna cost them 20 dollars more? Word of mouth can make a brand- and it can likewise take it away.

Fact: Apart from the galciv series, no other turn-based strategy game lacks a multiplayer feature. I belive that since 1993 (Master of Orion 1) there hasn't been any, and even Civ1 got its MP before Civ2 was released.

And what would the average Civilization Fanatic have answered, had Civ4 not been launched with a MP, and had Firaxis made a poll a la " want a $20 multiplayer-only expansion"? We'd have called them animal names and given them the finger- those less emotional people amongst us would have just answered that poll with a big "NO"- which is exactly what is happening right now at Stardock's GalcivII site.

The way they ask this poll question is just set in a way that 3 outa 4 people will say "NO" after checking their coin purse. Stardock made overproportionaly great sales already with the initial launch. Fact: A good product sells on its own. Stardock has just proven it again. So , in theory this brand has potential to be a "star"- which could be achieved by moving over to the MP market via added value to the branded product (see my former colleague's quote below). However, given the outlook by parts of particular GalcivII staff, their product is most likely to develop into a "cash cow" brand.

So perhaps some people there are fed up with programing right now- ok, great. Understandable. But then I'd wish they wouldn't make stupid polls that have the "N-answer" prewritten all over it, and keep their internal power struggle to themselves, really, for the negative way this poll has been set up it seems more like a farce than any real tool to estimate customer wants, but merely a tool to justify not making MP.

EDIT:
As a former colleague of mine would put it: "Catastrophe: Customer threatens to make a work order"
If they'd really want to know how much money is really in it for them by going Multi they ought to make a simple "how much would you pay for a multiplayer-addon? a) $5, b) $10, ... n) $x" One learns that kind of estimate projections at college, for Sid's sake

EDIT2:

Evidence in sales
US PC Game Software Sales

* 1998 - $1.8 billion
* 1999 - $1.9 billion
* 2000 - $1.78 billion (84.9 million units)
* 2001 - $1.75 billion (83.6 million units)
* 2002 - $1.4 billion (61.5 million units)
* 2003 - $1.2 billion (52.8 million units)
* 2004 - $1.1 billion (45 million units)
* 2005 - $0.95 billion (38 million units)
Note that these sums do not include the concurrent revenue from MMORPG subscriptions, a market segment that has been achieving significant annual gains*.

The text & figures show:
- A) in 7 consecutive years sales yield has halved at an increasing average price/unit
- B) Stardock enjoys higher than estimated sales against the trend within a declining industry (in volume of sales)

Conclusion:
While playing vs other people sells*, A & B suggest that GalcivII is likeliest to develop into a "cash cow" brand. This is a straight forward term: Give them more money and they will make you something.

 

[Phoenix_56721]

I agree that the poll question is worded poorly. Frogboy put up the poll and it seems he's against MP in GalCiv2. The poll is on GC2 site and asking if you would be interested in buying a MP expansion, well most MP won't be on their site to vote "yes" because they passed up on the game already. They are asking like minded people if they want to change their ways and pay for it. But I was hoping that the poll (doomed that it may be) would show some interest for MP and that they might add it in with the next Expansion.

I would assume if they made a MP Expansion that it would include new content other then just MP. It would be a very bad idea to just release a strictly MP Expansion! There are a lot of Single players fans that would still buy the expansion if it included other material they felt added to their SP experience. I hope Stardock doesn't follow Elder Scrolls 5: oblivion example and start selling bonus packs just to keep the revenue coming in. They did mention this in one of their forums, if people would be interested in purchasing a Ship builders bonus pack for $9. I don't really like the sound of that. I think they should add it for free or sell it in a worthy Expansion pack that includes new features like MP. If GalCiv2 turns into a cash cow (selling material that should be in the game to begin with) for Stardock I will be very disappointed!

I have faith that Stardock will do the right thing, they have a good track record for supporting their games. But this is a critical time for them, their company is growing to the next level and that brings up many issues on how to expand their company. It's real easy to get blinded by the dollars signs $$$$$. I will buy a worthy Expansion if it includes MP or not but I'm not interested in buying it piece by piece and end up paying more for an expansion then I did for the original game!!

 

[DaviddesJ]

Fact: Apart from the galciv series, no other turn-based strategy game lacks a multiplayer feature. I belive that since 1993 (Master of Orion 1) there hasn't been any, and even Civ1 got its MP before Civ2 was released.

Nonsense. Off the top of my head, two obvious counterexamples are X-COM (and its sequels) and Jagged Alliance (and its sequels).

And, as Brad has said, even those turn-based games that do have multiplayer options are played as single-player games 99% of the time.

Personally, I'd like to see more multiplayer turn-based games. But I think the necessary elements for such a game to work well are very different from what's needed for a single-player turn-based game, and so I don't see much point in trying to push multiplayer into every game, even those that aren't well suited for it.

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

Off the top of your head then:

1) X-com (1994) is mainly a tactic game, not a strategy game proper! Here you equip your troops and go hunting aliens at ufo crash sites - I'd have to say that the means to make a MP out of this particular game would be rather impossible since its merely a game with 2 factions (although there are X-com clone games that indeed aim for making a MP game, with aliens and other factions playable) - yet that compares to strategy games of the likes of Civilization and its clones in which way?
2) Jagged Alliance is an up-polished X-Com clone (also 1994).
3) Furthermore interesting to note: Where did Brad got those 99% if not out of his own magic hat...? Or was there another poll?

... No, honestly, those games you mention have nothing to do with the genre, apart that some parts of the game were turn-based: That is rather, one could switch to turn-based movement/action during an otherwise realtime tactical environment. Sorry, no real strategy here...
----

I don't see much point in trying to push multiplayer into every game, even those that aren't well suited for it.

And that leaves which games? (even=especialy?) Actualy, a game where you can design your own units, build up your empire, where you can barter for goods with other parties and hold diplomatic relations with them seems quite well suitable for featuring at least a LAN feature.

If one asks the industry why there are so many single-player turn-based games the usual answer is: 'Turn-based doesn't go well with MP, for the players would need to invest too much time to finish a game (or so)'. Well, so if whatever turn-based game has this problem, then wouldn't that also count in all those games such as MOO2, CIV2, CIV3, CIV4, etc?

I mean- Civilization 2, the figurehead brand of this genre managed to double its life span to overlap the Launch of Civ 3, and did so merely by making a simple but suitable Multiplayer edition. But they didn't just sell the MP on its own- instead they sampled and retouched all profesionaly made mods and scenarios into a full fletched addon. And it sold: Big time- and people played it via LAN and WAN like crazy, making Civ2 the market's leading brand for a second time after its launch...

I don't really see how GalcivII, a game which is the current trend setter within its genre (merely by looking at the point and volume of sales) would lack the "necessary elements" while following the footsteps (not to say that it is a clone) of the venerable Master of Orion and other games that were able
to outlast their contemporaries, via adding this very feature to their respective leading product.

 

[DaviddesJ]

No, honestly, those games you mention have nothing to do with the genre

X-COM and Jagged Alliance are just as much a part of the turn-based strategy genre as Civ and GalCiv are. You're the one who chose to make a characterization of all TBS games, not me.

If one asks the industry why there are so many single-player turn-based games the usual answer is: 'Turn-based doesn't go well with MP, for the players would need to invest too much time to finish a game (or so)'. Well, so if whatever turn-based game has this problem, then wouldn't that also count in all those games such as MOO2, CIV2, CIV3, CIV4, etc?

Yes, it does count that way. And that's why those games are so rarely actually played as multiplayer games. We don't have precise measurements, but it's clear that the overwhelming majority of people are only playing these games single-player. And that's what the poll, which you don't like, illustrates. Even though the sample audience is extremely skewed toward those who would be much more likely to play multiplayer (people who actively participate in online forum), still you don't see much interest.

What percentage of people who have bought Civ4, which does have multiplayer, do you think have actually played the game that way? It must be well under 5%.

The multiplayer feature has disproportionate importance, in some ways, because the most avid players are the most likely to play online, so they judge the game that way in deciding whether to recommend it to others. I do think it's important for marketing, for that reason. But we also have plenty of examples of games (like GC2) successfully marketed without it.

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

X-COM and Jagged Alliance are just as much a part of the turn-based strategy genre as Civ and GalCiv are. You're the one who chose to make a characterization of all TBS games, not me.

My apologies, I should have specified...

And that's what the poll, which you don't like, illustrates. And that's what the poll, which you don't like, illustrates.

Your interpretation of the data from the poll is untrue Allow me to clarify....

What the poll shows is that the overwhelming majority of the people that already own the game and post online at that particular forum do not want to pay $20 for a MP-only addon. Nothing more, nothing less.

The question is not "do you want MP", no, the question is " "Would you purchase a $20 multiplayer-only expansion pack for Galciv II?".

And most people (sample size of a mere 838, when I peeked just now) said 'no'. "No I don't want to pay $20 for it". They didn't say "no, I don't want MP".

That is the reason I don't like the way the poll is set up- because people will merely see the $20 additional bucks and will rightly say no (but I am sure I wrote that above already). I wouldn't mind a properly made poll even if the result would still be negative. It is no secret, however that the person who made the poll has been lobbying against MP for months, but is that a reason to make it that obvious by making the poll so helplessly biased?

(people who actively participate in online forum)

Uhm, just to give you an example of another SP game (nothing to do with this particular or the mentioned overall genre): Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion just hit 100.000 members on one of its growing number of fan pages. The people 'participate' in these forums to get inspiration, help, to mod and show off their mods- hell that's why Civfanatics exists. Most people on the forums are not posting there because a game has (or has not got) MP- hence there is certainly no bias towards "those who would be much more likely to play multiplayer" at all... People who participate in forums are not by default Multiplayer Freaks and I am very puzzled where you keep getting these weird impressions from That would mean that the mayority of the people in the forum would be pro-MP- its not the case, and you already proved yourself wrong already establishing that in that case this would be uncommon.

Nope, the reality is that online communities exist regardless of trivialities such multiplayer adherence. The reasons behind this are widely varied.

We don't have precise measurements, but it's clear (...) What percentage of people who have bought Civ4, which does have multiplayer, do you think have actually played the game that way? It must be well under 5%.

Yet another percentage value out of the magic hat? Well, I certainly don't know- but I also won't commit the mistake to resort to making uninformed assumptions to seem as if I did for the sakes of making my point One skewed up percentage value is as good as another. As Lenny H. Courtney put it so brilliantly in his days "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics."

Hm, actualy Firaxis'es Market Research unit should have a fairly good answer to the particular proportion between core single- and added multiplayer. After all they chose to launch a game of theirs with a multiplayer on board for the very first time (all prior games they made had the multiplayer as an addon, whereas this time they made it a priority to have one at launch). Yet they also had a significantly higher value brand and budget to start out with. Would be interesting to get to know Stardock's actual sale figures and compare them to Firaxis' ones.

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

... but apart from all that written, this discussion is rather futile- at least as far as the poll is concerned there won't be any surprises as a result...

 

[warpstorm]

Would be interesting to get to know Stardock's actual sale figures and compare them to Firaxis' ones.

Civ4 has sold a lot more.

 

[The Great Apple]

I would have bought GalCiv 2 had it multiplayer. I will probably buy it and the expansion if the expansion comes with multiplayer.

 

[DaviddesJ]

That would mean that the mayority of the people in the forum would be pro-MP

No, it doesn't mean that. It only means that the people who are most avidly involved in the game, those who do things like participating in online forums, are more likely to be those who would devote the time and energy to multiplayer play, than the (many) people who just buy the game in Wal-Mart, play a bit on their own, and never go online and discuss the game. E.g., it might be the case that 20% of online forum participants would try multiplayer play if it were available, but only 10% of all buyers.

You're right that the poll doesn't directly say anything about how many people want to play multiplayer. However, it seems to me that $20 is such a minimal amount that anyone who had any actual interest in playing multiplayer would definitely vote yes in the poll. You are of course entitled to disagree.

After all they chose to launch a game of theirs with a multiplayer on board for the very first time (all prior games they made had the multiplayer as an addon, whereas this time they made it a priority to have one at launch).

Presumably you've read the presentations by Soren where he explains that the primary reason that Civ4 was developed as a multiplayer game first is that that made it easier to test and develop the game before the AI was ready?

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

Presumably you've read the presentations by Soren where he explains that the primary reason that Civ4 was developed as a multiplayer game first is that that made it easier to test and develop the game before the AI was ready?

Yeah sure- its mainly a mere testing feature and hasn't got that much to do with the huge marketing campaign they made about that particular feature- omg, do you really believe Soren or are you just trying to undermine my point? In either case I indeed chose to uphold my dissentient position.

Interestingly enough Stardock argues they developed their Single-Player-only for the EXACT same reason as Firaxis claims to have developed their featured Multi-Player: To be able to emphasise on AI development and make the game better than if they'd gone the other way. Sounds great, huh?! Well to me it did when it was written...

Then however, Stardock also says something else: That they didn't "want to defer resources" to developing an MP for the initial release: I.e. it was too expensive a venture for Stardock. On the other hand the entire tale of first "emphasising on AI development" gets a sour aftertaste at this point, since this very statement pretends a quality lead development, while in the same article they say that its mainly a budget lead one. That's also why they ask for more money now, at the point that the single player is done.

Besides: $20 may seem "minimal" to you, aged 42. But you don't really make an effort to think about those for whom games are primarily developed and those who play games most: K i d s !? And for them it is indeed a lot of cash. Just yesterday over at the Post Your Ship Designs thread where one of them wrote he can't wait to get GalcivII for his Birthday.

So we got two companies arguing quality (and they have both produced quality products, nuff said). But from there onwards it has become a mere money thing after all. Is it worth ($$$) the effort- a purely economic reasoning I can't blame them. It is what I have been arguing since my first post: Money defines when (or if ever) anything new will be produced. What I would like to see though is for them to treat this issue fairly. This apparent inability to make workable polls might, of course well the result out of Stardock's chronic lack of marketing techniques over time.
---

I would have bought GalCiv 2 had it multiplayer. I will probably buy it and the expansion if the expansion comes with multiplayer.

Ditto

 

[Smidlee]

"Star" dock or "Cash Cow"?

Well, your post sound a little selfish/self-centered yourself. The point was (by Brad) made why should 95% of gamers who doesn't play TBS multiplayer pay for development of multiplayer which is costly to please the 5% who does. I have no doubt multiplayer costs which why civ3 didn't have multiplayer until a $20-$30 expansion PTW.

Really, they just took in an exponentialy higher ammount than they ever considered possible (and that without the use of any professional marketing advertisng channel) and have the nerve to ask people that if they want MP, then its gonna cost them 20 dollars more? Word of mouth can make a brand- and it can likewise take it away.

Again Why do you want everyone pay for multiplayer when they not going to use it. Since there's less gamer who play multiplayer then the cost will be higher for those who want multiplayer. If someone really love playing multiplayer game then no doubt they already paying 40-50 dollars a month for boardband (plus pay monthly fee for MMORPG games which is a big success) so they wouldn't have any trouble paying one time fee of $20.

Fact: Apart from the galciv series, no other turn-based strategy game lacks a multiplayer feature. I belive that since 1993 (Master of Orion 1) there hasn't been any, and even Civ1 got its MP before Civ2 was released.

The fact that Galciv2 isn't multiplayer shows big time especially with it's AI development. I wish more TBS will follow Stardock lead. Galciv2 doesn't have that "water-down single game" feel like Civ4 does.

So the question is who is being more selfish ; Stardock which as any business has to make a profit or the few multiplayer gamers who want every singleplayers gamer to pay for the option they want. Any gamer who plays MMORPG ( and/or have boardband) and want Galciv2 multiplayer shouldn't have any problem paying an extra $20 to get multiplayer. I have no doubt if Brad see multiplayer profitable he will do a multiplayer expansion.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Besides: $20 may seem "minimal" to you, aged 42. But you don't really make an effort to think about those for whom games are primarily developed and those who play games most: K i d s !? And for them it is indeed a lot of cash.

I don't know, it doesn't seem like much when I look at what kids spend on clothes. But I would favor some kind of differential pricing---a stripped down version of the game for people on a tight budget, and a more expensive version for people who are less price sensitive. Unfortunately, it's hard to make this economic model work in the computer game industry as it presently stands.

But I honestly think that if the poll question were "would you play multiplayer if it were added in a free update", instead of costing $20, the overall response wouldn't be much different. And that if you somehow found a way to poll an unbiased sample of all of those who buy the game in stores, as opposed to the small fraction who participate in online forums, either question would get you a response much more biased toward SP play.

Just yesterday over at the Post Your Ship Designs thread where one of them wrote he can't wait to get GalcivII for his Birthday.

Well, I think that's good. Looking forward to getting things on special occasions, as opposed to just having them handed to me, is a positive memory from my childhood. It's not better for people to just have everything handed to them.

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

I don't know, it doesn't seem like much when I look at what kids spend on clothes. But I would favor some kind of differential pricing---a stripped down version of the game for people on a tight budget, and a more expensive version for people who are less price sensitive. Unfortunately, it's hard to make this economic model work in the computer game industry as it presently stands.

But I honestly think that if the poll question were "would you play multiplayer if it were added in a free update", instead of costing $20, the overall response wouldn't be much different. And that if you somehow found a way to poll an unbiased sample of all of those who buy the game in stores, as opposed to the small fraction who participate in online forums, either question would get you a response much more biased toward SP play.

Well, I think that's good. Looking forward to getting things on special occasions, as opposed to just having them handed to me, is a positive memory from my childhood. It's not better for people to just have everything handed to them.

Well, you are right there, $20 compared to other stuff seems well bareable. Yet the market pricing this far has risen dramaticaly since early 2004.

And when you add it all up we get: USD 44.99 for the game, S&H is around USD 5.00 plus an addon of another USD 20.00 (with another S&H USD 5.00) summing up to about USD 75.00! Mind you, I wouldn't want a sloppily (spelling?) made free addon or the like. If the job ammounts the costs, then its a product that deserves its price. And it would also add to the utility of the product... though even when one downloads it directly and one'd save 10 bucks, hm, even then, at $65.00 its getting quite pricey.

Maybe it is really just the lacking experience they got with marketing, huh?

 

[DaviddesJ]

And when you add it all up we get: USD 44.99 for the game, S&H is around USD 5.00 plus an addon of another USD 20.00 (with another S&H USD 5.00) summing up to about USD 75.00!

Amazon is selling GC2 for $39, with free shipping. One way that people on very limited budgets (like students) can save money is to wait a while after release, for prices to go down.

P.S. You can also buy a (new or slightly used) copy on Ebay for $25-30, including shipping.

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

Well, your post sound a little selfish/self-centered yourself. The point was (by Brad) made why should 95% of gamers who doesn't play TBS multiplayer pay for development of multiplayer which is costly to please the 5% who does. I have no doubt multiplayer costs which why civ3 didn't have multiplayer until a $20-$30 expansion PTW.

I am not calling them selfish by doing so and if you dare suggesting that I on the other hand am (or any other people on this forum), another time you'll be in trouble, Sir! The discussion has so far been rather polite need for such.

"Cash Cow" is a basic economic term that enjoys widespread use within businesses to define brand positioning and marketing strategy! There is nothing wrong with calling the product that- its a term out of any good business handbook. The correct term for what you denominate as a company's "selfishness" is called "profit maximisation"- and that's entirely legitimate.

About those % figures: I already asked what those 95% (and 99% respectively) are based upon, but haven't recieved any answer, except that Brad mentioned that at some point (was that the interview, perhaps?- Im asking cuz I might have missed).

Anyways, in the light of the practicaly non-existent marketing research by parts of Stardock and the totaly different outcome regarding sales figures (and I am actualy very glad that despite of that they managed to tripple their sales over their highest estimates in the initial month post-launch) even such statements are not much more than a guessing game with random numbers.

Again Why do you want everyone pay for multiplayer when they not going to use it.

You lost me...

Since there's less gamer who play multiplayer then the cost will be higher for those who want multiplayer. If someone really love playing multiplayer game then no doubt they already paying 40-50 dollars a month for boardband (plus pay monthly fee for MMORPG games which is a big success) so they wouldn't have any trouble paying one time fee of $20.

Nobody has been talking about any monthly-billed MMORPG. Besides, what is that provider you mention where one has to pay 50 Dollars a month worth of fees- I want to know so I can call the cops...

The fact that Galciv2 isn't multiplayer shows big time especially with it's AI development. I wish more TBS will follow Stardock lead. Galciv2 doesn't have that "water-down single game" feel like Civ4 does.

Ah yes, never bought Civ4 because I noticed that many months before it launched- and made myself heard. I wouldn't be surprised if some people at Firaxis know my Anagram pretty well...

So the question is who is being more selfish ; Stardock which as any business has to make a profit or the few multiplayer gamers who want every singleplayers gamer to pay for the option they want. Any gamer who plays MMORPG ( and/or have boardband) and want Galciv2 multiplayer shouldn't have any problem paying an extra $20 to get multiplayer. I have no doubt if Brad see multiplayer profitable he will do a multiplayer expansion.

While I share your hope on that last sentence I can't really say that A) I find it very nice to be called names and B) that what you mention made much sense in the context of the ongoing discussion.

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

Amazon is selling GC2 for $39, with free shipping. One way that people on very limited budgets (like students) can save money is to wait a while after release, for prices to go down.

P.S. You can also buy a (new or slightly used) copy on Ebay for $25-30, including shipping.

Indeed, yet that hasn't got much to do with Stardock- but yes, its a good point. I am sure that in the end one could eventualy get an addon (whatever type) less than 20 bucks after more marketing channels take over from the publishers.

There was one particularly bad mooded German guy at GalcivII's forums who said something about waiting a year till the latest version of the full game and latest addon plus patch becomes available as some 5 dollar gaming mag as a lay-in goody Darn- I need to find that post- it was hillarious...

 

[Smidlee]

While I share your hope on that last sentence I can't really say that A) I find it very nice to be called names and B) that what you mention made much sense in the context of the ongoing discussion.

Actually "CASH COW " would closer to name calling (not that it is) than stating someone could be self-centered or selfish.
MMORPG was mention because it relates to "multiplayer games" as well as Broadband. Gamers who likes multiplayer usually have broadband as well played MMORPG so a $20 fee for multipayer is cheaper compare to other multiplayer costs. I was one who paid $30 for Civ3TW to play online only to find it very disappointing. So $20 is a small price to pay for multiplayer compare to other "multiplayer" game cost.

Brad has stated that "Multiplayer" option isn't cheap sometimes cost 1/3 of the development of a game yet only a small percentage of gamers benefit from it.

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

About Cash Cow: Please follow this link before jumping to conclusions. I suggest you also read about what the graph in my 1st post actualy displays and how a "Star" can become "Cash Cow" (BCG analysis). As I said, it is in every university level book on the topic. There is actualy some word play there as well, but I was supposing that it would be noticed more easily.

You don't have to relativize. I merely asked you politely to refrain from suggesting it for I, and possibly some other people may as well, feel insulted by it.

In other news : I know what "Multiplayer is, and I also know what MMORPG means- and those are two different things as if you were comparing a VW Beetle to a 20 ton Freightliner. That said you can only count the game fee into the ecuation, not the actual bill payable to the provider to claim that other type of Multiplayer (relevant here or not) is priced higher.

After all one would possibly also need to pay the same provider to be able to play IP based MP games (LAN/WAN) with your brother in Mexico (well mine lives there, at least). So all that money would add to those $20 just as it would add to the MMORPG variable* montly bill... anyways.
---

PTW- yep, that was indeed a sad story- I too bought it back then. The first thing that pissed me off was that it wasnt even compatible with the previous editor files. And, yes- the MP sucked big time.
In playability terms however, GalcivII is a far better product that Civ3 (vanilla) was along with PTW. I mean Civ3 was already dissapointing when it was launched for all the bugs and problems with the editor, whereas GalcivII works nicely and is highly customizeable to the extend that scenario making is relatively easy.
Civ3 Conquests though, was also more solid where PTW failed but one had to wait years before it launched. Thats another reason why I got hopes for an added MP to be able to make GalcivII even better. I could, of course, be wrong, but still think MP should be kept as an option for future expansions.