It could be reinterpreted as "we didn't have the scope of vision to make a multiplayer game, but added in the multiplayer elements".

When these elements were added together, they had their hands on lightning in a bottle. 

The makers of Sins actually have an AMAZING multiplayer game.  Yet they think there is very little return on investment, mainly because they don't want to invest anything into multiplayer.

Want to know how blizzard got big? RTS's and the original Battle.net

I might be out on a limb here, but I think blizzard's "choice story" is a good model for Starclad to follow.

By providing good infrastructure for their games , Blizzard allow players to revel in them.  I try to revel in the world of sins, but the developers make it damn difficult to do so.

Battle.net was the ultimate in small investment HUGE returns.  The developers of sins haven't even put in a real investment, so they have guaranteed slim to no potential returns.

Especially since the development team went out of their way to ensure the game had this functionality to increase the fun factor of the game.  

I also find it funny that the starclad developers know so much about creating cashflow.  Considering their track record and missed opportunities i'm utterly at a loss for where their confidence in this area comes from.

Minidumps are one example, the bug that single handedly killed an entire potentially thriving multiplayer community, which is still around today!

Comp stomps aren't for losers, they also aren't for winners either. 

Put it another way, I'm not going to buy a sins 2 if it doesn't come with an improved multiplayer functionality. 

/end rant

Hmm way to attempt to discredit a significant aspect of the sins gaming community.  I'll remind you goa, that over and above purchasing the game, and being loyal fans of it for years, the multiplayer community have also donated  thousands of hours to debugging and assisting developers with improving the game.

If developers can increase their core set of players via improving their game they can start thinking in the ten-hundreds of millions in the near future.  Yet I still see them thinking smaller then they should.  They are the self-limiters of their own paychecks.

Now if the developers want to crap on the dedication of their small online community, then their IP will eventually die. 

Anyone who seeks to marginalize us can also follow suit. 

I like comp stomps ._.

It is not uncommon for new people to feel insulted by someone like Qu4r or Sanchezz because they don't play online (even though I know Qu4r and Sanchezz just hope to trigger new players into proving themselves on ICO).

Why are you defending against a minority? As the quote pointed out, only a very small fraction of Sins players play multiplayer, thus that same small fraction (smaller, once you exclude the multiplayer players that like comp stomps and/or aren't dicks) are the only ones mocking comp stomps.

There's little need to be defensive about your interests when the numbers are already there to support you.

I don't understand the point of this thread. Is it from someone who has an inferiority complex and wants to show that MP was an afterthought in order to make themselves feel better about only playing comp stomps? Who cares what % plays SP and what % plays MP. If an RTS wants to be successful economically and grow a large playerbase and extend the life of its game and IP, it needs MP - end of story. If it can do so and be a creatively successful "good game" (subjective obviously), even better. Sins is a creatively good game in my opinion. The devs aimed too low in MP goals imo - and as mentioned, they would be crazy to do so again for any potential Sins2. Their Sins of a Dark Age is very MP focused from the planning get go. Comp stomps aren't for "losers" - its all about how much you want to invest in the game and what kind of experience you are looking for. Most RTS are planned to accomodate both but the communities that grow around RTS are almost always MP focused - especially in a game without a single player campaign even. It's a testament to how good a game Sins is that it still has the following it does and a new expansion in Rebellion this many years after vanlla despite not having much MP support and not having a single player campaign.

I conur...

You people just don't get it...they don't care about making a huge financial success or the game of the century...they care about making a game they the devs like, enjoy playing, and are proud of...if Starclad was in it for the financial success, Ironcald wouldn't have abandoned Sins and made it a free to play game, and Stardock wouldn't have sold impulse...

Starclad doesn't need to do anything to achieve their goals...they already have a game they love, that they are proud of, and that represents their vision...and quite frankly, they don't give a rats ass if the MP exeperience is perfect or if the game has pristine balance...if you question this claim, I encourage you to look at Gal Civ II and the magic fairy games, as both have lots of SP potential but mediocore MP and awful balance...

The point of this thread was to show that Starclad (well, technically Ironclad but SD has the same sentiments) is not aiming to make this the biggest game ever...sure, they made some business decisions to help make more money (like steamworks being required), but in general that is not their primary task...Brad didn't found the company to become ludicrously rich...he found the company to make great games that he enjoys, and the OP I think testifies that Ironclad feels the same way as Brad's company does...

@ seleucia

Hmm saying that they don't care about taking a leading role in the industry doesnt seem right...considering starclad gained the attention of the industry with thier gaming bill of rights, and touted themselves to be a shining example of how things should be in the industry.  After reading about this gaming bill of rights I then learned about sins of a solar empire and realized that this might be a game worth buying.  Years later i'm typing this. 

It doesn't seem like they are ready to pack up and call it quits and rest on their laurels as well, I see a very active and ambitious gaming company that is learning a lot.  Perhaps that original luster I saw has diminished somewhat, but it could be regained with a swipe of a towel. 

Also, setting up cashflow opportunities isn't about becoming ludicrously rich, its about reinvesting in the game once you build it to fix the issues where the game was weak, to perfect the game.  After all, they didn't have as big of a budget that they now have.  Why not make a sure thing better?  When elemental was announced I was surprised that a new IP was being introduced so early, considering a small dynamic team would have trouble working on more then one game.  Personally I thought starclad needed to grow more and release a sins 2 that could knock the socks off the RTS genre and make RT4X a new specialized genre that could hopefully attract a lot of younger gamers to ensure a longterm, large market for future games.

So, how are you so sure about what the developers care about? 

Also, what about making a huge success in both game design and cashflow?  Making better games then the current industry giants at a fraction of the cost with the same graphical quality with even better game play?  That sort of thing turns heads, especially if you aren't interested in getting bought out, and can keep your focus on making great games first, then making money.  Also, this could encourage the industry to become more competative then it is.  Gamers shouldn't want the industry form into a few stagnating "oligarch companies" that work together to influence popular demand for games and ensure that the masses are fed mediocrity for top dollar.  That is what Wallstreet wants, not the consumer.

I would love to see the gaming industry giants get off their complacent asses and start to progress the ideas behind the genres that have formed.  These giants can afford to experiment and try new things, to take even bigger ideas to more incredible heights, yet many do not.  Blizzard is a fine example of a company that could do 100x more then what it actually does, and has earned my disrespect.  They turned a few great IP's and made them into something unrecognizably average, over time. 

Games got prettier, but their quality has diminished.  Just looking at the love that went into some of those old playstation 1, nintendo, and PC games.  Look at the decline in gameplay quality of the elder scrolls series.  No real new ideas coupled with improving graphics = pretty but low replayability/boring game.  I'm still waiting for the modders to fix this.  This isn't the movie industry!

Also, if sins started to do very well financially, wouldn't that mean that the industry heads would take notice, that the entire industry could benefit from stardock and ironclad's game design philosophy?  Money doesn't just ensure that your own creature comforts and desires are met.  Money talks, it influences, it changes peoples attitudes and perspectives. 

Right now starclad is still an aspiring company that after the failure of elemental lost some of its industry cred.  They made a great game with sins, yet they are now going with new IP's instead of improving the old.  Perhaps they want to diversify, and perhaps they are running out of consistent cashflow and want to even things out a bit.  If they improve their game by using proven methods within their corporate philosophy I really don't see how they can fail.  Its not all about having the idea, its also about who is using/applying the idea. 

Sins is fun to play as long as it isn't minidumping like crazy.  Personally I wouldn't be proud of a game that I designed that had a regular crash to desktop, its sloppy.  The game is very fun to play when there is reasonable balance between the factions(which is what existed in diplomacy).  The game currently is weak in the online community, not enough people.  Grow the online community and you will not just be getting a large group of people using your servers at no monthly expense, you are actually maintaining a large customer base that is interested in what you are doing and is interested in your VISION. 

When people actually give a crap about your vision, you have something powerful, something to be proud of.  You start to lead.  Once in a position of leadership you can actually help bring about even greater games, something that a small group of 20 or so developers could only dream of.  If you really want to make great games, you go along this path.    Perhaps you will make games that will stand the test of time? 

If you want to improve the gaming experence, if you want to have a game that someone gives a damn about, you do these things.  You go through the motions even if you don't, because gamers will flock to the hope you provide them.

P.S.  Nice forum photo seleucia

Oh so much talking , i dont want even read it.

I also thing  worls is gonna end soon and itas getting  more obvious day by day since   , for the first time I AGREE WITH Seleuceia.

Creepy:P

Sins is special because devs  made a game they are proud of and like. The game that is booring for casual us moronic goons player , too compleks and take too much time to learn. Also form the start , skill was bigger then numbers.

Also at start devs played with us.

Time has passed and things changed.

Core MP, what left of it , become ,skilled. Even so called noobs are very good , better then vicious ai , much better.

Devs stoped playing , and stoped listening .

OK they listen but to the modders , make game more like they want it to be. And they dont care about MP balance cause they dont play MP any more.

If current state of affairs wont change , rebellion will be the end. MP core, thet returned   cause they  belived in promise of " multiplayer  focus , mp balanced , bug free game with titans" will be gona again. rest of us, will go back to diplomacy.

Only steamboys and modders wil stay.

thats a wasted potential.

PS . do u want to know why we , skileld say " comp stomp is for loosers" ?

Its to encorage you to play with us.To make you play with us. We need fresh blood , who can stand the ground against us. AI wont teach u this

Many singleplayers down right just pirate the game and be done with it. Why pay for the game if you are not going to use the only service you get for your money, the multiplayer servers.

So if we become friends, can I put you in my collection? You can have some prime shelf space.

The games I have played online were very educational.  Like when someone stomps on you with a big boot with nails sticking out of the bottom of it.  The player who stomped on me (and several other players) was however nice enough to answer some questions and give me some pointers.  I am a better player now because of him.  And he was also nice enough to joke around a little.  

So to recap: go stomped, learned and was treated with kindness.  

That is a recipe for growing a community.  

When better players are nice about crushing you and then picking you up off the floor when they are done.

Thank you sir may I have another!

backs out of the room slowly...

People get frustrated with multiplayer because their expectations aren't accurate.  They play expecting to win.  Beginners should expect to lose at least half their games.