DSWargamer
Posts: 283
Joined: 8/25/2010 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rtwfreak I think MP in a game should be DLC you should only have to buy it if you want it and if you play it. Same with a PBEM system. Those savings should be past on to those customers that don't play it. Why should I have to pay for the programming of something I don't play. It could be the same in reverse make games that are MP only or PBEM only and sell everything individually, solo game, MP game, PBEM game and let the consumer have choices and decide. I think the publishers and developers could make more money this way instead of this content they are milking us for now. I personally won't buy any DLC cause I don't buy scenarios and such I buy full games only. But, I might be tempted to buy a MP pak or a PBEM pak if somebody else was willing to play those and wasn't a cheat. That's the big problem with MP and PBEM systems, I don't care how well they are made (somebody is going to cheat) thus I dont usually play MP or PBEM. I once was playing a group in Age of Empires when all of a sudden her came police cars and tanks totally ruining what was turning out to be a great experience. Just takes 1 to ruin it for the whole. I never played another MP game since...I dabble in PBEM but I've experienced the same in those as well. Until they make a system in the clouds whereby nobody can muck with the game (meaning cheat) then I will not play MP or much PBEM. Hmm an interesting notion, and I am ok letting it stand as a reasonable request if enough actually wished it. Not sure if the time spent to make a game possess multiplayer though is even remotely on par with the effort to design an AI. But, I already know how many would freak out if an AI was a separate purchase :) I understand the cheat concerns. The first incarnation of Strategic Command, a game I think is incredible, was SO easy to cheat with, that only a complete dolt couldn't actually do it. And anyone that couldn't figure it out, likely wasn't bright enough to win even with the cheating. Now on the other hand, the primary reason I like Battle Academy is how cheating is not an option. You play your turn, you hit send, it happens and their is no file changing hands. You can't reload and reload and reload. You get the turn sent to you, and you either play it or you don't. As a result, I have experienced considerable games via that system, and in every case, if the player was doing poorly, their only alternative was to bow out. And generally if you get a rep for doing that often, well you also kill your chances of getting any more offers too. But I understand your dislike with multiplayer as a rule as the game world is not going to be all the same as here at Slitherine Group. Hacks and cheats and all that sort of thing tend to poison a game. And we have all heard about games that were spoiled because someone had wrecked the fun. I don't normally play most of the games that suffer from it. Those are usually mob games where it is considerable sums of players all playing together. Some people just can't cope with not being better than the other person. A human flaw. I have lost as many games of Battle Academy as I have won. But they were all because the other player just played a bit better than me that game. When I win, it is because that time I was better. But like I said, I can't really know what would be involved with making multiplayer a separate purchasable design. But, I DO know that in a lot of cases a game was only delayed due to a need to force an AI into the design. I personally would be ok with multiplayer being a separate expense, but I most assuredly would also like the AI to be a separate purchase. No one wants to pay extra all so they can play the idiot AI. I'd rather they knocked 20% off the price of most wargames, made them sans AI in the base release, and required me to either be both sides like with my board games, or have my other human opponent visit me and we could play it on a single machine. I tend to prefer to play Strategic Command this way. I play a turn, I resolve turn, I get up and my friend sits and plays there turn. All the fun of A3R, but without the problem of where to set up the board. Now, if you refuse to find an opponent, isn't that the same as refusing to do anything else that limits you? Why should the rest of the hobby be forced to be made to endure your own personal limitations? I have broadband internet, because I decided I needed it. I don't have a car though, but I prefer to walk. I DO have local friends I can wargame with. And when it comes to available time, hey, if it is important to you, you make the time.
_____________________________
I have too many too complicated wargames, and not enough sufficiently interested non wargamer friends.
|