Vatdim

Let me ask you this: If a poll was held to ask if Linux support for PE should be developed as a stretch goal, wouldn't there have been many people voting "no" just because they'd think resources for this kind of thing are going to waste? After all, probably less than 10% of the world's PC users use Linux. So, what use is such a port, right? It's good that Obsidian know better than to listen to the crowd in cases where it's vital to go against the most obvious and most repeated piece of street wisdom. Why? Because Linux support, for example, provides more than enough gains to offset the losses associated by such a port. In the long run, Linux support generates significantly higher pledges from the Linux users, gains the support and trust of their community and all the good things that come with them (increased publicity, increased sales after launch, etc.). In the case of modding tools, multiplayer and multiple language support, things are very much the same. While for some reason modding tools do gather increased support here, on this board, most such features are not intended for the average player to tap into for many hours. Instead, they're almost always made especially for the minority of players. Yes, a minority of BG2 players use the co-op feature in their playthroughs. Yes, a minority of NWN 1&2 players have actually created one half-working area with the incredible toolset provided by BioWare/Obsidian. Yes, a minority of the players of all these games actually depend on a localized version to play. All these minorities add up, though, and it turns out it's not bad at all to supply minorities with optional features that are well liked by them. The addition of modding tools means more content and replay value added to the game (and this extra value is added mostly by people who are not paid for by Obsidian, which is also a win). The addition of multiplayer means again more replay value added to the game, which means increased sales throughout the coming years, because of people inviting their friends who don't own PE to come play together, etc. Multiplayer also adds to the attractiveness of modding tools and more modding work gets done in order to meet the demand for multiplayer-oriented adventures. What is learned from the development of such adventures can often be applied to new single player content made by modders. The translation of the game into multiple languages may now not make much sense to people who are perfectly comfortable with English and may also seem like a waste because of the obviously high costs and perceived small returns. However, people don't seem to take into account the fact that the returns of such an investment far outweigh the costs. Translating the game in the right languages may only help it enter new markets which were previously off-limits or poorly exploited because of language barriers. This brings in not only increased revenue for Obsidian, but also widens their fan base into previously "uncharted" regions, which means increased support for and sales of their future titles in the respective regions. All the suggestions are good and need to be carefully considered. They all deserve to be included in the game, but it's questionable as to which one should be included at what funding level. While these "extras" target mostly minorities (at least on this board), this is not necessarily a bad thing or a waste. Keep in mind that PE as a whole wouldn't exist if Obsidian had only catered to the interests of the majority of today's gamers.

Wasn't the whole point of this project to bring back what was lost from true RPG classics such as Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale? It really blows me away. I mean, there are dozens of other games with nice story too, so why add this now? Really, co-op is a feature, not something that will be forced on you when you want to spend some quality time with yourself. Co-op is a feature that belonged to the genre defining classics that PE is trying to embody. And co-op doesn't exist because of publishers, it's actually the one thing that connects a CRPG to its roots in the PnP RPG session which is usually played together with other people.

Asking for an option for Russia or the UK or the Middle East is nonsensical here. Obviously, the poll asks you about which continent you're from geographically, not geopolitically. Evidently, Israel is in Asia. UK is in Europe (which is a bit of a shame because most Britons aren't very fond of it, but that's the way it is, guys ), and Russia lies in both Asia and Europe. Now, if you live in St. Petersburg or Moscow, you know well enough that's not in Asia, so you'll answer Europe. If you happen to live in Vladivostock, you again know that you're not living in Europe or North America, but in Asia. On topic, I really like how almost 60% of the people here are fellow Europeans. I believe there's huge potential in both Asia and South America as markets for this game, if the necessary level of localization is carried out. At least one out of two Europeans speaks or understands English, but I don't think the same applies to the people living in these continents.

I believe it's really not helpful and rather selfish to say "no" to one of the features being discussed here just because you don't plan on using it yourself. Also, it's a bit misguided to believe that these extra features may somehow harm the core experience of the game. Feargus said they've enough money to make the game. What I gathered from his words is that they're looking at other possible extras. I don't see why adding any one of the items being discussed here as a stretch goal would be bad, since they will all have a positive effect towards the replay value of the game and/or the possible customer base for this title. Ultimately, all features will add to the quality of the final product. I like incubus9's comment and I agree with him: the poll results can be interpreted as showing the order in which the community wants these features to be added as potential stretch goals. Of course, the features will all help the game become better, but a choice between which goes in first is needed, since there is the possibility that the available funding won't be sufficient for all of them.

A lot of people say the funds that could go into adding co-op multiplayer should instead go towards making the single player game "even more awesome". While a lot of people will agree with this statement, we need to keep in mind the law of diminishing returns: adding more and more resources towards only one feature will at first increase its quality and attractiveness by a large amount, but after a while these increases in quality will tend to become smaller and smaller. Basically, you keep adding the same amount of resources you used to when you started making the whole thing, but the benefit of these spent resources is less and less visible to the players. On the other hand, if you choose to invest the same amount of resources to develop another previously non-existent or poorly developed feature, such as, for example, modding tools, multiplayer or the support of multiple languages, the spent resources will result in a much bigger increase of quality of the final product. I think it's vital not to make one feature "overfunded" while the rest are simply non-existent. A given amount of resources spent in only one direction of the game's production does not lead to a proportionally larger increase in the quality of the given feature, not to mention the quality of the whole game.

You have never played a classic old-school RPG with like-minded friends, have you? RPGs are indeed a form of escapism but that doesn't mean this escapism cannot be achieved while playing together with a group of people who share your ideas about escaping the world. Actually, if you think about the original pen and paper RPGs, they were all invented as an exclusively multiplayer experience. Playing a game like Baldur's Gate together with a few friends is almost the same as playing it on your own, but you have real people who you can rely on for helping you make choices and survive encounters and who will also have their own desires and thoughts about where your journey should take you next (a lot like NPC companions, only real). In games like Neverwinter Nights this experience is taken to a whole new level - with the help of a toolset and a dungeon master client you can create your own unique story and this is probably the closest thing to what a true PnP session feels like. I know that a DM client and toolset a la NWN are probably too much to ask. However, I feel that even just the co-op type of multiplayer (akin to BG) will add immensely to this game's replay value. Also, the appeal for this game will still be alive in many years, just as it is now for games like BG and IWD.

We don't want a "multiplayer game", for God's sake. We want a game that allows multiplayer as a mode of playing. Do you consider Baldur's Gate 2 a multiplayer game, just because you could play it together with a few friends, if you so desire? To me that's a really misguided assumption.

Results from the poll so far seem quite interesting. While according to this poll most people don't want multiplayer in PE, the majority of them do want modding tools to be present. That seems a little odd to me, considering the way modding tools in a game like NWN are used to create a great amount of multiplayer content. I've always thought of multiplayer and modding as going hand in hand, but the results so far seem to reject that hypothesis, at least for PE.

You've a good observation and I see your point. However, while you don't desperately need multiplayer, you're not necessarily against it, right? I keep seeing a lot of people who are against the idea as a whole and that really startles me. The poll here clearly asks if we'd like multiplayer to be an advanced stretch goal, not if the game should be exclusively played in multiplayer, after all. Whether one uses it or not, depends on their own personal preferences and possibilities.

In the world of MMO's? - Yes, that's mostly true. In the world of real multiplayer with 2-4 friends playing together the master campaign of a game like Baldur's Gate? - Not really.

Yep, it looks like the biggest opponents to multiplayer remain the people who have not had the chance to play in multiplayer or just the people who have a predisposition that they won't be playing this game in multiplayer anyway. Why bother making such a mode, right? To someone who hasn't had the chance to engage in meaningful multiplayer in legendary games like BG 1&2, IWD 1&2 and NWN 1&2, I really don't know what to say. I tried my best in a few posts back, but I can't describe this feeling, you've to try it yourself in order to see what it's like. But whether you want to give it a try or not, you shouldn't respond to the idea as a whole in such a negative way just because you've no plan to make use of the feature. It's an optional thing and I think it's selfish to say you want no multiplayer as a stretch goal higher up, even if the money for PE is already enough to develop the game as a wonderful single player journey.

Yep, I forgot to add the "Don't care" option, now it's in. As for the multiple language support, I have also never seemed to understand why people like this. I mean, if I've to watch a movie that's been originally filmed in English, I'd prefer to watch it in English, even if I'm not sure I'll understand everything. If I do need a translation, I'd much rather get some subtitles than have the whole film voiced over in my own language. But if people really do want this, I think it's fine as a stretch goal, considering the fact that Obsidian have enough money to fund the game as it is.

Eh, actually too many things today lack multiplayer, unless you are counting the multiplayer only games, such as WOW, SWTOR, etc. For example, KOTOR 1&2, DA 1&2, as well as ME 1&2 did not have multiplayer. On the other hand, in the past more things used to have multiplayer: BG 1&2, IWD 1&2, Arcanum and NWN all had multiplayer.

In this radio interview Feargus Urquhart said that Obsidian have enough money to "make the game" (and I think I heard him say something about being able to make it pretty big, but I couldn't really catch that part). He also stated that things like multiplayer, modding tools and multiple language support are still "open-ended". You can listen to him saying those things . Personally, I'm very hopeful that multiplayer gets to be a stretch goal for PE, even if it's just a co-op mode of the single player experience a la BG and IWD. However, modding tools sound like an even cooler addition and I'd love to have access to something of the sort. I can also imagine what amazing things the community can achieve with such tools. Now, I don't know about languages and if the game needs to be localized. I've always played games in English and this has only helped me learn the language better than I'd have if I'd only relied on studying it at school. However, I do notice that a lot of people have called for support of more languages so I guess it wouldn't hurt to add this as a stretch goal. It may actually bring up the pledges of people who have a strong preference for localized versions. So, what's your take on the things that are still open-ended?

I'm from Bulgaria, Europe. I also find it interesting that so far the results suggest there are more fans from Europe than from North America. Maybe it's due to an ongoing exodus towards Antarctica? :D