Post
by CBJ » Mon, 11. May 09, 18:08
Here we go again. I think I'm going to answer this FAQ-style this time, to save a lot of quoting, and maybe give people something to link back to for future reference.
Q. Why has there been no multi-player mode in an X-series game to date?
A. Ignore all technical arguments you see. Most of them have never been an issue, and some were only relevant years ago when the idea was first mooted. Only a few present serious challenges and none of them are insurmountable with sufficient development. However, that brings us to the real reason there is no multi-player: because the money to undertake that development has never been available.
Q. Why don't Egosoft just go out and get the money?
A. You don't really have much experience business financing, do you? Game development is a relatively risky business. You can't just go out and ask a bank for cash for a development project lasting two years or more without detailed market research that clearly shows the returns they are likely to get; they will laugh in your face. Market research and funding game development is what of publishers do. They spend lots of money carefully assessing the market to find out what will sell and choose development projects accordingly. They also spread their risk across several developers to balance potential losses against potential profits. In order to make that system work, publishers have to take tough decisions about what games to finance, and what features within those games, and clearly so far no publisher has decided that the relatively high cost of developing multi-player functionality for the X series is something that would be sufficiently profitable to be worth financing.
Q. Surely it can't be that expensive: what about a "simple" LAN-based multi-player implementation?
A. Multi-player doesn't come cheap. There are degrees of complexity, of course, but there is no such thing as a "simple" multi-player implementation. If you think you've come up with a clever way of making the development cost cheaper then think again. The only suggestions I've seen that could genuinely achieve this would also result in a form of multi-player that most people would barely recognise as worthy of the name. And that LAN-based idea? It solves nothing; in fact it makes matters worse. MMOs mostly make their money from subscription charges, which over time can add up to many times higher than the cost of a single game box. The only way a LAN-based game would be likely to happen would be as a side-effect of the development of an MMO game, or as a stepping stone on the way to one. Why? Because profit from additional sales of a LAN-based game over and above the sales that would be made with just single-player functionality, couldn't possibly hope to pay back the cost of developing the multi-player element. You don't need to take my word for it: if it were a profitable model then you can be pretty sure there'd have been a Freelancer 2 by now!
Q. But what about all the people who would play the game if it were multi-player? Surely the extra sales would solve the problem?
A. I'm afraid a handful of your friends don't constitute market research. The reality is that the market for space trading/combat games is finite, and it's considerably smaller than that for FPSs or RPGs. How big is that market? I don't know; I'm not a marketeer, but it shouldn't be too hard to Google for the relative active gamer base sizes for representative games in each genre. The same figures can also be used to further confirm what was said before about LAN-based games and the potential additional income they'd generate. Numerous polls on this forum have also shown that many existing fans would be put off by a multi-player element. You can argue all you like about how great you think multi-player would be, but these people disagree, which in turn cuts down the numbers.
Q. Why are these people so hostile to the idea?
A. You seem to be forgetting that time and money (actually they are effectively the same thing in business terms, but let's keep mentioning both so that people don't forget either of them) are finite. Time and money spent on one feature is time and money that can't be spent on something else. And "do both" isn't an option, because that puts up the overall cost of development meaning that you have to sell many, many more copies of the game to make any profit. So all the people saying they don't want multi-player aren't missing the point or being churlish. What they are really saying is that they want that time and money to be spent on something else that will benefit them, the single-player fans.
Q. So will there ever be a multi-player X-series game?
A. It has always been Egosoft's intention to create one. Every successful single-player X-series game contributes to the chances of that happening. The trick will be to find the right way to present it so that publishers want to fund it, and the right way to develop it so that single-player fans don't suffer. In my personal opinion (and it is just that: a personal opinion, not a statement, official or otherwise) Egosoft is in a better position to do both than they've ever been, and if things continue to go well then multi-player may yet see the light of day.