Any chance of a multiplayer X?

[Corsair1]

How could you make this game into a multiplayer game?

It may be just me, but if the AI were as smart as me, I wouldn't stand a chance. For example if it were multiplayer, how could you defend your stations remotely, it simply wouldn't be possible...Well maybe you could, but you'd need 10x the ships as the attacking player. The sheer amount of data transfer would turn me off.

Second, this game takes hours, has no finish or end. If it were to become multiply player, it would have to cease being an empire building game....and become WoW in space.

I don't mind the single sector 1 ship each slug fest idea. But that's more of a trivial addon that I would get bored of in an hour or so and go straight back to single player.

[CptStables]

X multiplayer experience :

random newbie get into his buster for the 1st time, trying to cruise around the starting sector, 5 minutes later, some random more experienced player comm him and say :

exp player : "hey you!"
newb : "huh? me?"
exp player : "yes you! drop your freight or die!"
newb : "eh how do I do that?"
exp player : raaaargh....! shot the buster with his 8x HEPT on a M6....
newb : wtf is this game?

later on somewhere on the space

exp player : tralala... entering west gate... entering system... BOOM! wtf?
exp player 2 from his M7 : huahahah die you fool, nobody enter this gate safely, hence I parked my M7 right in front of the exit way... now I'm going to collect your cargo...

that's the kind of experience in X online...

Totally ignoring my post and proving my point. That's an MMO, not a multiplayer game. Multipalyer games are ones you pick and chose who you are playing agianst or with; Usually 1-7 other players. This setup is not a vast open world where all is madness, and lends heavily to a games replayability (See Dawn of War). Many games, in fact, are purchased for the skirmish mode over the campaign. Last time I played X3, I admit I forgot there was a campaign after a while and instead became a freelance space trader.

How could you make this game into a multiplayer game?

It may be just me, but if the AI were as smart as me, I wouldn't stand a chance. For example if it were multiplayer, how could you defend your stations remotely, it simply wouldn't be possible...Well maybe you could, but you'd need 10x the ships as the attacking player. The sheer amount of data transfer would turn me off.

Second, this game takes hours, has no finish or end. If it were to become multiply player, it would have to cease being an empire building game....and become WoW in space.

So your argument is that you don't want difficult enemies and prefer to steamroll them? Again, in the multiplayer scenario, you start at the same time. I state again: THIS IS NOT AN MMO. Have you people ever heard of a multiplayer game before? Is gaming so truly lost that you've never heard of non-MO multiplayer? Or if you all have, you're simply too blind in your opposition that you refuse to accept that such gaming modes still exist throughout all genres.

The one-ship-slugfest, as you call it, is probably the most dull idea for multiplayer there is, in my humble opinion. All the glorious complexities of empire building and you'd want to have a simple ship deathmatch? Surely if you're complaining that multiplayer will have you killed by equally skilled opponents, the idea of a single ship vs 10 other players is worse? In addition that would require dedicated servers, which cost money. Using Steam or a LAN connection in my example model of a multiplayer would alleviate this for the most part

alot of people vote no because they are more into single player games
adding multiplayer will reduce the single player part of the game.

there is only a finite amount of development time to create the game, the more time thats spent adding multiplayer, the less time is spent on single player

The only sensible argument in this entire thread, and I thank you for stating it. It is the one thing I can agree with and is the only reaction that isn't a knee-jerk reaction against mutliplayer because one or two of you have lost your boyfriend to WoW. Developer time is indeed best spent on improving gameplay, I again use Skyrim as my evidence for this. At the same time I use my Skyrim Online mod as well in saying that amateur modders managed to 'fool' Skyrim into believing that other players were NPCs and let them act as normal. If amateur modders can do this 3 months before the Creation Kit (which was used to make the game) came out, surely a professional team can tack this on? I know this isn't the attitude to have -just sticking it on as an afterthought- but I cannot express how much more fun the X universe would be if I could have me and my friend both piloting huge vessels through uncharted space together.

plus theres no guarentee that adding multiplayer is goign to dramatically increase the userbase

people who arn't into space games arn't suddenly goign to buy the game because it has multiplayer
and most of thoses that are into space games will already buy the game anyways

True on both counts, but much can be said for every feature of a game. None of it guarantees success, but if the same formula is not changed, it grows stale. People who arne't into space games, as you state, will not suddenly like a game simply because it has multiplayer, but people who are interested in them, such as myself, woulld be swayed by the ability to play with friends. Quite often AI grows repetative or gets to a point that you simply dominate it and wish there was someone to share the world with. As an avid Total War player, I can tell you without shame that I rarely finish the campaign because of this. Once your economy can let you buy the world, your armies can crush everything underfoot, the game tires and is put down. If I could just do the same, but with my friend, there would be alliances and backstabbing galore.

Once again, l'll state that l support to Egosoft for their single player experience, really. I'm going to buy X Rebirth when it's out and I'm sure I'll love it. My other two friends, however, will not simply because it lacks the function to play together. And I can promise you this; We aren't the only ones who would have fun with it.

[A5PECT]

If amateur modders can do this 3 months before the Creation Kit (which was used to make the game) came out, surely a professional team can tack this on?

Here's the thing about amateur third-party modifications: they're just that, amateur, third-party. There is zero risk on the developer's part.

They're unaffiliated, unfunded, and (usually) untrained. If they release a mod that adds multiplayer to a game, people won't care that much that it's buggy, unstable, and incredibly inefficient; they'll be too busy applauding the fact that an independent group managed to actually accomplish anything at all. Modders can take crazy risks and release unstable, unrefined work* because there are no consequences if they screw anything up; their mods are free and used at your own risk.

Imagine if Bethesda released Skyrim with multiplayer functionality as (un)developed as the mod you mention. That would never fly. Bethesda, as a formal, established development company is required by their consumers to released a finished, reliable product. The customers paid for the game; they have license to bitch and they will use it. For Bethesda to add multiplayer they would need to commit development resources far beyond that amount spent by the third party.

Egosoft is in the same situation; it's the same reason they don't release X games with the radical functionality developed by modders. It's not that they can't do it, it's that they can't do it reliably and cost-effectively. Remember, they're a company.

So don't go judging the ease of incorporating game elements based on the work of third-party modifications. I will admit they show that it's possible

but so is anything.

*I'm certainly not saying that all third-party work is unrefined or faulty. But dramatic things like adding multiplayer to singleplayer games as complex as Skyrim invariably turn out as untidy endeavors.
___________________________________

In the end, this isn't a conflict of interests. It's logistics.

Egosoft wants to make a multiplayer game.

Q. So will there ever be a multi-player X-series game?
A. It has always been Egosoft's intention to create one.

They just can't.






Yet.

[Falcrack]

Once again, l'll state that l support to Egosoft for their single player experience, really. I'm going to buy X Rebirth when it's out and I'm sure I'll love it. My other two friends, however, will not simply because it lacks the function to play together. And I can promise you this; We aren't the only ones who would have fun with it.

I'll bet if we could have a coop multiplayer mode for X:Rebirth (where we both have access to player resources, and cooperate in making decisions and doing missions), I could convince my wife to buy a second copy for just such a purpose.

[rrfarmer]

I vote for CO-OP play, not PvP mode, but Co-OP where two people could run missions together.

Or another way to put it, look at Fable 3 (bad game but proof of concept),
you could have single player world, but have the ability to have a friend come in and help with missions and then go back to their own game.

If there's any multiplayer for X games I think this will definitely be the way to go. And also if the devs haven't thought about it I hope they see this post.

the only thing that ruined my game in Fable 3 was I had a friend who had beat the game give me all his money that he had and I was able to beat the game too easily in my instance. lol

[Brinnie]

I think too there are many ways to implement multiplayer in a game but in a game like X not all would be good.

This is of course only my opinion :

1 - Coop game with friends, would be the best way (and possibly the only one) to introduce MP into X.
The game would be exactly the same as it is now but with the ability for friends to join the host (with permission) and take control of the player's property normally controlled by the AI.
A bit like Borderlands, Dead Island, L4D.
Friends could make sure to have the same content installed and the game would play as usual but your wings could be controlled by your friends for example.
This type of MP X, done properly, would be so addictive that it should probably carry some sort of warning on the box.

2 - Usual PvP (DM - TDM - Capture the sausage...), would only be applicable if X had a dumbed down version, reducing its features by 99.9%, separate from the SP only focusing on combat.
Basically a MP component which is effectively a different game alltogether, not X as we know it.

3 - MMO, an absolute NO NO the way I see it. The game is far too complex to appeal to the masses, and I also think it would be impossible to balance it so that it could play as an MMO, not without turning into something else.

- - -

There is something about big single player games and some people's panic reaction at the mention of having MP added to them which is quite amusing.
Something stuck in my mind when I read a similiar thread about "Oblivion. (a game that although is as different as it can be from X, is very similiar to it in terms of open gameplay and mod support)

This forum user was clear quite upset at the prospect of Oblivion MP and said something along these lines:

"... we are going to have lots of spotty teenagers breaking into our houses and looting our stuff.."

I m pretty sure he was serious.

Just cause a single player game has a multiplayer side to it, it doesn't mean you have to play it as a multiplayer, nor does it make it a MMO.

[Nanook]

....
3 - MMO, an absolute NO NO the way I see it. ....

And this, for financial reasons, is the only one that Egosoft would do. It's the only one guaranteed to bring in extra income. There's absolutely no evidence to support the idea that a significant number of gamers would buy any other type of multiplayer game above and beyond what would normally buy the game, at least not enough to make up the increased cost of development. And if you read through CBJ's and other dev's various comments in those linked threads, you'll see they've said as much. So I'm not just making it up. Sorry, it's MMO or it's single player, from everything I've ever heard from Egosoft.

[David Howland]

As most people who say Egosoft cannot afford the time and cost to develop a less ambitious MP?
The fantastic massive TC extension games that are available on the Modding forum makes me wonder would it not be possible for the moding community to develop one of the less ambitious MP versions for TC if they had full cooperation and some help from ES?

[Morkonan]

....
3 - MMO, an absolute NO NO the way I see it. ....

And this, for financial reasons, is the only one that Egosoft would do. It's the only one guaranteed to bring in extra income. There's absolutely no evidence to support the idea that a significant number of gamers would buy any other type of multiplayer game above and beyond what would normally buy the game, at least not enough to make up the increased cost of development. And if you read through CBJ's and other dev's various comments in those linked threads, you'll see they've said as much. So I'm not just making it up. Sorry, it's MMO or it's single player, from everything I've ever heard from Egosoft.

This is fundamentally un-think thinking. I don't mean that personally, I mean that as a way of viewing multiplayer vs "MMO" and profitsssss.

I'll cut to the chase - Take a look at MMOG's successor, MMOData:

mmodata.net

I've been watching how MMOs have developed for the past 15 years, with various levels of personal attention. From participating in things like the Daedalus project to watching industry chuckleheads laugh it up at Brokentoys, I have to tell you that conventional ideas of "it must be humongous in order to be profitable!" are simply darn wrong. Wrong in a big way.

Take a look at mmodata. Let's take the names that anyone who is interested in this genre should recognize. What were their peak numbers?

Everquest - 550,000
Star Wars Galaxies - 300,000
Dark Age of Camelot - 250,000
Ultima Online - 250,000

These were big names, in their day. These were big numbers, in their day. Then, came huge enterprises like World of Warcraft and Second Life that broke the internet with millions of subscribers. Today, people envision "MMO" as something that has millions of subscribers and a horde of marketers pushing addons and micro-transactions. It wasn't always that way and you can't, for one second, tell me SOE didn't make a nice sum of cash, and doesn't still continue to do so, with Everquest. (Which, now has something like 50k active subscriptions.)

But, you don't have to have millions of subscribers in order to be profitable. The REAL problem is that it is very difficult to attract investors to projects with stated goals in the realm of "hundreds of thousands" or even just "thousands" of subscribers. THAT is the issue. And, it's a very practical concern. What do you want to tell your potential investor? "We are planning a project that will attract millions of subscribers!" or "We are planning a project that will attract hundreds of thousands of subscribers!" or, lastly, "We are planning a project that will attract tens of thousands of subscribers!"

Which sounds better to the investor that is planning on investing a large sum of capital?

The truth is, most "MMO" projects never get off the ground and all the money gets eaten up in development costs long before there is a product that is marketable. But, it doesn't have to be that way. There are literally thousands of "micro-mmos" out there, everything from raising and trading virtual pets, racing cars, sailing in online regattas to dogfighting in the skies of a WW-II-B world. These don't have hundreds of thousands of subscribers. They have, perhaps, tens of thousands and a few thousand online, at any one time, sometimes with numbers in hundreds. They are micro-mmorpg-like enterprises that hide in the shadows and quietly make a tidy little profit thanks to low overhead and very dedicated cost management.

Egosoft could not "do" an MMO, IMO. They don't have the infrastructure for that and I doubt they could get the financing, not having anything in the way of an established (even failed) background for that sort of thing or any noted developers who sign on for big up-front cash so their name can attract investors.

Take a look at the market shares listed in mmodata. Where is the market, by genre? Well, overwhelmingly, it's in fantasy. But, those other markets, including "other", exist for a reason - They have ventures that are making a profit catering to those interested in other genres.

An "X-like" micro-mmo or multi-'o title would, IMO, work if overhead was kept to a minimum. A simple "multi-player" version with direct IP or some such could not be counted on to draw additional shelf-purchases, on it's own, though. In that respect, there'd be no reason to consider radically altering the game just so you could add multiplayer features - There'd be no purchase incentive that could be expected to be truly expressed in terms of profitsss. So, it wouldn't be a big marketing tool to just add multiplayer support. But, if a sort of online mode could be offered, something in the way of competitive or cooperative play in X-flavored style, then that could be a value-added, and profit-added, feature.

I'm talking about a massively-single-player-with-some-multi-player-online experience, here.

I'm personally not interested in an X3-MMO at this point. I like my X3 as it is. If Egosoft ever created an MMO title, I doubt I would play - I mostly game online with real-life friends, so I don't think I'd be drawn to an Egosoft MMO. However, regardless of how I feel personally about MMO gaming, I can't let what I see as a failed argument stand.. Someone is wrong on the internet and I must respond!

While I don't believe that an MMO-X3 title would be something that Egosoft should work on, I do strongly believe that a micro-mmo or single-player with online options title is something that would add to saleability of the game and could, within reasonable bounds, be expected to return profits that are, in part, largely due to the attraction of some online play.
The important part, which I haven't touched on, is retention of current customers and word-of-mouth marketing. Friends like to play games together and Egosoft tapping into that might help increase their sales and their margins.

The financial case for micro-mmos must be understood. They can be profitable ventures, provided the developers do not "overplan" for some huge WoW-Killer, only to underdevelop their potential. MMORPGs, when successfully published, are almost always profit-making endeavors as long as a minimum number (usually very low, around 100,000) of subscribers are retained. But, one does not have to shoot for "MMO" status in order to make profits by utilizing online-play in their game. (That's especially true of profitable, competitive gaming titles like Blizzard's "Starcraft" series, Riots "League of Legends" or iD's "Quake" series. And, that's not even touching the idea of micro-transactions, the current hot-topic surrounding MMOs.)

If I was going to advise Egosoft in regards to their title and any sort of online play, I'd tell them to work in online components similar to Diablo, with limited cooperative play opportunities for their players, and also put together a Competitive Play mode for Teams of players that could tap into the Competitive Gaming arena. Online Competitive Gaming is.. huge. And, done well, could be a nice little marketing tool and profit generator. But, otherwise, I'd leave the core, single-player, game elements much the same as they are in X3.

[Nanook]

....
3 - MMO, an absolute NO NO the way I see it. ....

And this, for financial reasons, is the only one that Egosoft would do. It's the only one guaranteed to bring in extra income. There's absolutely no evidence to support the idea that a significant number of gamers would buy any other type of multiplayer game above and beyond what would normally buy the game, at least not enough to make up the increased cost of development. And if you read through CBJ's and other dev's various comments in those linked threads, you'll see they've said as much. So I'm not just making it up. Sorry, it's MMO or it's single player, from everything I've ever heard from Egosoft.

This is fundamentally un-think thinking. I don't mean that personally, I mean that as a way of viewing multiplayer vs "MMO" and profitsssss.

etc...

Well, it's obvious that Egosoft believes otherwise, or else they'd have added MP by now. And since it's their business, and their money, I guess I'll believe them rather than you and all the other non-MMO mulitplayer proponents. No offense intended.

[Morkonan]

...

Well, it's obvious that Egosoft believes otherwise, or else they'd have added MP by now. And since it's their business, and their money, I guess I'll believe them rather than you and all the other non-MMO mulitplayer proponents. No offense intended.

As it is, indeed, their business whether they do that or not, I agree - It's their choice and they can do whatever they want.

What I was responding to was the idea that one has to have a giant "MMO" in order to make a profit. That is false.

Now, that doesn't mean I believe that every game company should pursue online-able versions of their game. That would be crazy. Not every company is able to develop such a thing nor should they. Plus, not every product out there is suitable for such development. Online solitaire would be sort of pointless...

I don't have a dog in this "fight." I don't care whether or not Egosoft goes multiplayer, massively multiplayer, co-op, competitive or play-by-mail. All I care about is that the prevailing attitude of many that the only way to make nice profits is by going "MMO" is false. You can make a nice profit by still having online offerings, but staying small and not taking on all the overhead of a large MMORPG production. There's also no need when adding online play features to make them as immersive as in a full-on MMORPG. Many very popular "online" games, especially in the competitive arena, are in no way like an mmorpg. But, their claim to fame, and profits, is that they are very multiplayer and online friendly.

Lastly, MMO does not mean MMORPG and it does not mean "micro-mmo" ala the Diablo series. There are plenty of ways of promoting online features and interactions without the customization, overhead and fairly unpredictable nature of a full-on MMORPG.

Of note, if you read my post, you will see that I completely agree with your point in regards to the idea of any additional revenue being gained by marketing the X franchise as multiplayer. There would be none. (I've never read any comments by Egosoft employees on this subject, btw.)

But, while I agree that a standard mulitplayer feature isn't worth the trouble (and neither is an MMORPG, for that matter), I also believe that that adding certain types of multiplayer features could significantly increase its shelf appeal. I briefly described some of those in my post.

[Cycrow]

What I was responding to was the idea that one has to have a giant "MMO" in order to make a profit. That is false..

no one said anything about making a "giant" mmo

its just that an MMO will bring in additional funds in the form of subscriptions or other payment methods.

adding a simple multiplayer will still cost money but will not generate any extra income

[zibafu]

no one said anything about making a "giant" mmo

its just that an MMO will bring in additional funds in the form of subscriptions or other payment methods.

adding a simple multiplayer will still cost money but will not generate any extra income

and since absolutely everything is about them pieces of paper it just won't happen

[Corsair1]

So your argument is that you don't want difficult enemies and prefer to steamroll them? Again, in the multiplayer scenario, you start at the same time. I state again: THIS IS NOT AN MMO. Have you people ever heard of a multiplayer game before? Is gaming so truly lost that you've never heard of non-MO multiplayer? Or if you all have, you're simply too blind in your opposition that you refuse to accept that such gaming modes still exist throughout all genres.

Ignoring half half your post which was dedicated to insults, you want this game, to be exactly the way it is, just multiplayer? I'd like to see how.

I play DoW DC online, I know what non MMO's are, infact I don't own an MMO. The reason games like DoW work online is that the games are relativily simple, 10-60mins, 2-6players and the game is done. 60minutes in this game is nothing, this would be even worse as SETA wouldn't function in Multi. And then you'd get the people like me, who'd jump, spam missiles and jump straight out, destroying hours upon hours of someones work.

The game would have to be significantly changed to work online, I didn't suggest the slugfest either, if you read what I posted, I said I'd get bored of it in an hour...

If you can fix the data transfer problems and the immense time needed(My current SP game has over 100hours on it), that would be cool and I'd probably play it. I just don't see any way how without destroying what I like about this game.

[Morkonan]

...its just that an MMO will bring in additional funds in the form of subscriptions or other payment methods.

I would doubt that. As it stands, the market is already flooded as it is. It's not that the market couldn't bear another "good" MMO. It's that investment in MMO schemes has peaked and many of those weren't worth publishing, but they made it to the shelf, anyway. Those unsuccessful and wasteful enterprises failing in big and very visible fashion have squeezed out worthy opponents or reduced their funding prospects to nil.. Also, I don't see how Egosoft could turn the current X3 game into an MMO of any size. But, innovation is something I am always in favor of and if they could pull it off, I'd love to see it. (I don't think they will. Don't forget, Blizzard is about to introduce their own WoW-Killer in another year or so.)

The F2P model, however, is growing in popularity. With microtransactions being both attractive to consumers and developers, along with the opt-in for standard subscription fees, it seems to be the best of all possible worlds. It has saved a few franchises, already. (Star Trek online, which should have never seen the light of day, in its original form, and Everquest I. Yes, the old stand-by recently went F2P, but since it is under SOE's general Station umbrella, I don't regard it as a truly independent title.)

adding a simple multiplayer will still cost money but will not generate any extra income

I agree 110% and have always agreed with that consensus opinion, even before I knew there was a consensus on it.

But, there are other online and multiplayer schemes available in the universe of gaming options. Some of those could be profitable opportunities, with little overhead or up-front costs aside from development, of course.

Some things to take note of - The number of games that are uniquely dedicated to a single-player experience is rapidly shrinking... There's a reason for that, obviously. Part of it is market driven - Consumers like having that option and like gaming with other people. Another part is driven by technology - What used to be very expensive tech solutions and high bandwidth costs have been getting cheaper by the microsecond. And lastly, funding - Since such online models have proven profitable, there are also more investors willing to front such projects.

[bluenog143]

Only problem with a multiplayer X is the lack of individual preference. Meaning that we wouldn't be able to have mods. Although an MMO would not be bad though (i guess) since we wouldn't have to really worry about GOD controlling economy (at least not as bad) and combat may become more difficult. I could become a pirate and harass other players or become a trader and be harassed!


Either way EGOSOFT can do it. But like I said, we wouldn't really have as much individual preferences, since the X series is multiplayer we don't need to worry about others opinions about mods etc. not like we could even use them anyway since it would be multiplayer.

The other problem is internet connections since especially players that don't have very fast internet could experience some lag for example.

[David Howland]

You are all still talking internet MP, which I would not play anyway. X games apart I have bought a number of games over the years, about 50% had MP options. The only ones left on my computer shelves are the ones that had an MP option, that is because besides personal use they can be enjoyed socially. So if we talk about games on disks, of course those companies made money by selling an MP option not only are those games more attractive initially but someone who plays games socially looks to update and stay loyal to MP games.
This is however why ES are now less likely than ever before to develop a simple disk based MP version; they have turned their back on selling games on disk, they ONLY want to rent on the internet!

[Brinnie]

The MMO type of game has never appealed to me, for one thing the idea of paying a monthly subscription is one that I reject and from the little that I ve seen of MMO games I ve always found them to be lacking in gameplay when compared to single players.

I ve always seen them as sitting in between single player and the other multiplayer types that I m used to play, in my opinion they fail in both respects.
I am clearly far from an expert as I ve never played a MMO but what I ve noticed is that MMO are harldly ever single player games too or allow you to play with your friends only as the game world is usually rather empty without the online players.

Other thing is that the gameplay is always rather simplistic when compared to SP games of the same type, I assume that is because of technical reasons and cause the strength and the appeal of these games must be that you can play them with hundreds/thousands of other players.

X, particularly in its last releases is the total opposite of a simple game, indeed if there is one fault with the game is its complexity and sheer size that hits the newcomers to game.
New players find themselves at a loss, not just they don't know how to do things in the game but they do not even know half of the things that they can do in X.
The above is IMO a byproduct of the game's magnitude, free open play, variety of options and sheer brilliance. I don't think much can be done to help that unless maybe including many optiional tutorials.
It is the relative complexity of the game that make it special and trying to make the game simple enough to appeal to more casual gamers would mean it is not X anymore, not even close to it.

The problems I see with a MMO version of X is that (again IMO):

- is far too complicated to appeal to the standard MMO player who just want to step in the game and play it.

- in its current form it be very hard if not impossible to turn into a MMO for technical reasons.

- it s such a big project that unlike most standard online games that have a single player component and a multiplayer one, would have to be Multiplayer only game(if the MMO path is chosen)

- If the game would be changed considerably to adapt to MMO I think it would lose most of its die hard supporters while I m not sure it would gain as many.


In the case of standard MP version of X, I don't think it needs to be separate game, from a marketing point of view it remains what it is an X game, it plays the same as ever only better being a newer version.
The fact that it can be played online is only a bonus and an extra feature to the game that would add to the game value for some while not affect the ones not interested in it.

It would work best if the MP side of the game would be as close if not identical to the way the SP is and it should be made with the small coop among friends concept in mind.
Like I said something like L4D, Dead Island, Borderlands...

That being said I accept that I do not know anything about making games, especially one as complex as X, so my opinions are rather shallow as they are not backed by any technical knowledge.

but to sum it up:

I think a future version of an X game with a good MP coop component to it could only help the game sell more copies, without any change to its SP will still appeal to the fans of the game.
The main thing is, could it be done and how hard would it be to achieve from a technical and financial perspective.

[Sinxar]

i would be happy with some online game modes, like deathmatch, CTF, maybe fleet 1v1s, etc.

prolly already mentioned in the huge amount of post on the subject though.

[zibafu]

an invasion mode would be awesome, you have like a 6 man team and wave after wave of baddies in fighters, and corvettes come in to get you, gets progressively harder and harder