Stardock: "People like strategy games, but don't like playing them online"

[Stormwaltz]

For Stardock, the more significant shock of Demigod has been the discovery of the low number of PC gamers who play strategy games online. Demigod’s single player experience, while decent, did not get anywhere near the care that the Internet multiplayer experience did. Despite this, only 23% of people who have purchased Demigod have ever even attempted to logon to play Internet multiplayer.

Source

[Yegolev]

Interesting that Demigod is still selling but the people who buy it are not even attempting multiplayer... which seems very odd to me.  Or perhaps shocking.

[Severian]

They start with:

The launch of the game was hamstrung by a combination of insufficient network resources and network code that wasn’t scalable enough. The result was a disaster...
...its multiplayer experience simply fell apart...
It took approximately three weeks for this to be addressed.

This is not the game to use to draw sweeping conclusions about the appeal of mulitplayer in all strategy games. They do have numbers. They are confounded.

Our conclusion is that strategy games that we make and publish in the future will support multiplayer but will not sacrifice the single player experience to do so.

That still may be an appropriate conclusion. In the particular.

[eldaec]

I didn't click the link.

Strategy games are not generally team based - many are 1v1 only, and real time strategy games all suck when played 'efficiently' - even Starcraft.

Ergo, no good for mass market multiplayer, why is this a shock to anyone?

[Sky]

Or a deeper game like Civ 4 will take seven years to play online without dumbing it down to retardity. We used to play LAN versions of Sacrifice, but that game was "different".

[Lounge]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Demigod the game that basically nobody could play on day one because their servers were overloaded?

[Ingmar]

I'd wager that more people played through the Starcraft or Warcraft single player campaigns and then put it down, than ever played it multiplayer too.

I don't understand why this is surprising at all to anyone.

I'd guess the main exceptions would be games with truly terrible single player experiences like Total Annihilation.

[Kail]

Strategy games are not generally team based - many are 1v1 only, and real time strategy games all suck when played 'efficiently' - even Starcraft.

Yeah, watching that latest SC2 battle report really hammered that home for me.  The strategy is less "X unit is weak against Y unit," and more "if you rapidly load and unload your siege tanks from the dropship, they can fire and then disappear before the enemy projectiles can hit them" kind of stuff.  Every time I heard one of the commentators say "Ooh, that's some excellent micro!" I died a little bit.

The only RTS I ever got into online was Warcraft III.  Mostly, they have a massive learning cliff for new players to climb before they can even begin to be competitive, they're highly unintuitive, and they provide very little feedback about what the player is doing wrong.

[K9]

I still have a soft spot in my heart for hotseat HoMM.

[Ingmar]

I still have a soft spot in my heart for hotseat HoMM.

Or Warlords (I).

[Soln]

I always thought a small pay-for-play big world RTS game would be moneyhats myself.  Web games like Travian etc I thought proved that.

I don't want to be a big civ and facerolled by someone when I'm offline.  But running a small squad I could grow that was in a larger alliance....  I also figured CCP had this in the works.

[Malakili]

real time strategy games all suck when played 'efficiently' - even Starcraft.

This basicaly sums up exactly how I feel about the RTS genre, to play online I always have fun, and then I hit a certain level where I start having to worry about shit like build order, clicks per second, and other shit, and I just hate it.  On the other hand, every so often I will STILL go install any of the old RTS games sitting on my games shelf and play through the single player again before shelfing it again, its just way more fun.

[Mosesandstick]

I still have a soft spot in my heart for hotseat HoMM.

Off the top of my mind, one of the few games you could play with friends all night long in front of one computer.

[naum]

I really miss Kohan series… …that was a unique take on RTS that was less of click-fu affair and integrated with TBS wargame elements (zone of supply, etc.…). And the dice roll of immortal heroes was a cool gameplay touch…

The move to 3D from 2D isometric really harmed the genre too (in addition to all the script macros…)…

[UnSub]

Taken from the source:

Demigod was, in short, a victim of its early success. It wasn’t buggy, its multiplayer experience simply fell apart once thousands of people were online trying to connect at once. It took approximately three weeks for this to be addressed.

I think there probably were quite a few Stardock fans who bought Demigod out of loyalty, but held off playing it after early reports / got burned once and quit. There's an odd proportion of players who seem to buy games only not to play them too. Or they tried the single player and didn't like it, so never got on to multiplayer.

At the time of this writing, approximately 2,000 users did return Demigod to us. Approximately 60% of those users purchased at retail. Nearly 90% of all users who returned Demigod subsequently re-purchased the game once the network issue had been resolved.

Interesting to see so many repurchased it, but again I wonder if this was out of loyalty to Stardock rather than being driven to play an online RTS. Also, if they were returning retail copies, did they have to send the box back? Probably not, which would have lessened the barrier to signing up again.

[Hayduke]

Eh Gameranger came to the rescue, but I got bored of the game very quickly.  I do find it surprising that so few even tried the multi.  I mean yeah the word of mouth on the game was really bad in the first couple weeks when the multi was broken.  But if you bought it, would you at least try it?

[Morat20]

Or a deeper game like Civ 4 will take seven years to play online without dumbing it down to retardity. We used to play LAN versions of Sacrifice, but that game was "different".

I played Civilization (the CivNet version) online, over dialup, and Alpha Centauri as well -- it'd take several evenings to complete a game, but nothing that bad. Mostly we'd throw a timer on a move (5 minutes ro so, max) and have everyone do their moves at the same time instead of a round-robin affair.

[ffc]

Also, if they were returning retail copies, did they have to send the box back? Probably not, which would have lessened the barrier to signing up again.

I returned my Demigod retail copy due to multiplayer issues.  Had to send the box back with receipt. 

[UnSub]

Also, if they were returning retail copies, did they have to send the box back? Probably not, which would have lessened the barrier to signing up again.

I returned my Demigod retail copy due to multiplayer issues.  Had to send the box back with receipt. 

Did you re-buy Demigod later on? Were you offered a discount if you re-purchased? I'm curious of these peoples' motivations.

[Speedy Cerviche]

The only strategy game I ever enjoyed playing online was world in Conflict which had pretty unique gameplay for an RTS. You control a small squad (max about 8/9 vehicles, as low as 3/4, depending on type & cost) that's part of a larger team of said squads, you micro them and operate in the larger strategy that ebbs and flows between the two teams across the map.

You divide your attention between tactical level of fighting well in your immediate area, and paying attention to strategic flows. You could be outfighting a nearby enemy squad or two due to superior positioning and targetting, but if you're not paying attention to map you might not notice that AA support no longer exists in your sector and if you don't pop smoke and try and retreat back to AA cover those gunships on the horizon will soon be moving in to easily pop you.

Add to that no base & production management, and you could easily jump in and out of games FPS style, made it a great multiplayer game.

[Soulflame]

Hm.  I've played a number of strat games multiplayer.

AoE I, II, and III, SC, Warlords (man I wouldn't mind finding a workable single player for that.)  I did play some Warcraft III online, but mostly avoided it because of the burly men.  I didn't play TA online much, but mostly because turtling doesn't work in that game at all, and I fail at micro.

The one I've probably played the most was AoE II, and that was mainly in a circle of friends via IRC.  We also established a "NO FUCKING BRITS" rule early on.

For the most part, I won't play strat games online because of the sheer amount of micro required to win at upper levels of play.

[Rendakor]

SC was the last game I played seriously online. WCIII had the aforementioned burly men matchmaking; fuck, I hate matchmaking shit in games. Just let me pick a game from a list of games being hosted, is that so fucking hard? The only real multiplayer games I ended up playing in WCIII were the custom maps: DotA, tower defenses, mauls, etc.

[Venkman]

The only "online" I'll do for strategy games is LAN/local. I'm not going to invest the kind of time these games take just to the random intertard. It's mostly about the focused/exclusive attention in this kind of game that also keeps me from raiding. I can't play the kinds of games that require I ignore my surroundings anymore. Which kinda sucks for really immersive games like DA:O, which I try and only play while traveling or after everyone's asleep. Everything else is either I-don't-give-a-shit FPS team deathmatch (which is more about personal skill/grind that caring about who I'm playing with) or a long series of repetitive pausing.

[ffc]

Did you re-buy Demigod later on? Were you offered a discount if you re-purchased? I'm curious of these peoples' motivations.

I did not re-buy Demigod.  I was not offered a discount if I repurchased.  I would have never bought the game had the option to return it not been present.  If there was a single-player campaign I would have just kept it.  However, with no single-player campaign even a discounted price to $1 would be too much since the game revolved around multiplayer action which was not working.

If the price was discounted right now along with the same return guarantee so I could test the multiplayer I still would not be able to play it now because I am drowning in a gaming bonanza. 

[Zar]

Myth multiplayer was gold, if anyone here played that.  No stupid build orders or base management, just carnage.  Bungie's matchmaking service was pretty well done for that time too.  The various game modes were well done as well.

[Venkman]

Myth (The Fallen Lords) had online multiplayer? Both that and 2 are some of my alltime favorites. Fantastic pacing. Real shame what happened to the IP once MS dumped it.

[ffc]

I really liked the ranking system in Myth with the sun, moon, etc.  I never got higher than the first or second crown.

[UnSub]

Myth (The Fallen Lords) had online multiplayer? Both that and 2 are some of my alltime favorites. Fantastic pacing. Real shame what happened to the IP once MS dumped it.

Yes - Myth 1 and 2 both had free multiplayer services on Bungie.net (? - or related site). It was my first real attempt at online multiplayer. I sucked and it was an education in online communities for me.

[Ratman_tf]

The last RTS I played multiplayer was Supreme Commander LAN at work, but it was either that or actually work.  The majority of my RTSing is solo offline.

[Azazel]

I used to do some Age of Empires online years ago with a couple of friends - we'd play us vs randoms. in team games. Back in the mid-90s, I also played some Perfect General via the modem with a friend across town.

More recently, I've played some Dawn of War via LAN. I suck at RTS too much to take on other humans and live. Non-RTS strategy games (ie turn-based) are probably a bit difficult (long) to play online with the exception of stuff designed for a fast game,. like Blood Bowl (or Space Hulk).

[Khaldun]

My brother and I used to do Alpha Centauri over dialup. Was pretty fun, actually.

Also hotseat Warlords and HOMM, good.

I hate playing RTS online with other people, though. Always fucking boring: either a single strat, determined by who can do it slightly faster, or it's a cheater. Just have never had a good time with it. But maybe that's because I don't like RTS much anyway.

I'd love to play a squad-type turn-based game multiplayer, something like a souped-up Jagged Alliance.

[Ingmar]

I didn't play TA online much, but mostly because turtling doesn't work in that game at all, and I fail at micro.

Huh. Most of my TA experience was turtle-rific.

[Kovacs]

  Empire http://www.classicempire.com/help.html  was the first and only real RTS I played multiplayer, both ghetto hotseat (turn your back fucker I know you're looking) and LAN but I was tempted to try again with Sins of a Solar Empire and am suprised it hasn't been mentioned yet as I thought it was much more interesting than Civ (god forbid) or AoE.

[Murgos]

Sins was okay.  It really is strategy lite though.

[tgr]

Me and a friend of mine usually played sins against the AI on the weekends, us against 8 others in a 137 planet/5 system slugfest. It was usually very fun, but we usually spent a few weekends on conquering the entire universe. :P