Valid points.  Better late than never, if I may summarise it.

So there is a kernel hope, yes.  If FE is exceptional and a future expansion brings MP then I may well buy it, despite these meta-issues. I know some people like to post about boycotting Stardock and never buying another game from them but I'm not about to cut off my nose to spite my face. I own Sins, Demi and all side-ons.  I like Stardoc which is what compounds my frustrations. Overall I'm primarily interested in playing quality games with my circle and something to dethrone SM in terms of MP TBS. But I would do it all with a bitter taste in my mouth.

Also relevant - it appears that the future of any expansion and thus any MP component seeing the light of day seems to be linked to the commercial success of FE. Given the reception of WoM that seems like a large hill to climb without appealing to wider sub-demographics.  Like the multiplayers for instance.

lolz, a good thing you did not lose your sense of humor

I'm pretty sure that's what they did spend on multiplayer, even if it doesn't exist. Hence why Frogboy personally wants to add multiplayer eventually , because he has already invested money in it.

I am a huge multiplayer fan but I don't really care about this announcement. I actually do play multiplayer Civ5, and that is still almost unplayable because of glitches, feature cuts, and lack of mod support. That the game reaches a certain level of quality is much more important then multiplayer support, in the end multiplayer in a game like this is the iciing on the cake. Hopefully it gets in eventually, but I won't hold my breath.

The assertion that "Also, most multiplayers will learn a game in singeplayer before they bring their game to the lobby.  Is there anything to disprove that 60% of users didn't buy Demigod with the intent of playing multiplayer, but didn't like it enough to continue beyond the 'campaign'?" as support for his argument is unprovable.  

Besides, just because WOM sample may be biased does not mean it is not relevant.  It just means that you have to understand the bias when considering the numbers.  That's why Frogboy gave other unbiased numbers to show that the WOM numbers were consistent with what you would expect to see.  When you combine WOM's sample with the Civ4 sample, which is certainly not biased in the way WOM is, you begin to see a larger picture about TBS multiplayer.  

My larger point, which I realize I did not make clearly, was that there is a reason companies use data analysis and empirical evidence.  It's because the world "as we see it" is often not actually the world as it is.  Each one of us color our observations with any number of things based on our personal preferences.  Empirical evidence allows us to have the discussion without dealing with our own personal bias.  You can't dismiss the numbers simply because you don't like what they say.  You can further analyze them and see if there is other data to pull out, but numbers don't lie.  

Well argued.

Okay, 'from a friend' was hyperbole but I do it only to illustrate that figures without transparency are not really valid. In the Civ 4 case not only is the method of collection not stated it's also second hand. It was ripe for spin, sorry. Regardless, the fact it's Frogboy may be enough for some but the method of collection is surely relevant in assessing the value of the figures? e.g. A mandatory government census is a more valuable statistic than a poll on Facebook.

Empirical evidence does matter, of course but I'm forced to repeat myself when I say that how that evidence came about is absolutely relevant. Are we talking about flagging accounts when the enter the lobby or are we talking about polling the community on the forum. It is absolutely relevant.

"There's also nothing to disprove the fact that 60% of Demigod players intended to play multiplayer exclusively but didn't for fear that it would trigger the aliens living on the moon to kidnap them and subject them to uncomfortable anal experiments."

Nothing except common reason, perhaps. I'm not hinging any argument on this assertion I'm again merely highlighting the limitations in this collection of data. I see people treating these figures as one-dimensional when they're not.

It's my number now? Not i'm not suggesting that 23% went on to become consistent MP players. What we're seeking to quantify is people who are 'interested in a MP aspect'. People who went into the lobby to see what it was like have an interest, no? Granted the minimal amount of interest possible. I still maintain that it is quite probable that people buying the game with some interest in multiplayer never got as far as the lobby. I don't say that because Demigod SUCKED SO BAD (I actually enjoyed it a lot) but merely because I believe it.

In terms of revenue there is certainly no direct value to be placed on a longer term but I'm pretty sure I addressed that in my post. However, there is certainly value for a studio in creating long running communities that interact on multiple levels. And I would challenege your assertion that a single player would play a game as long as their multiplaying counterpart. And a person who plays both would play it even longer still.

Is it that you disagree that games with solid multiplayer components go on to life lives and foster active communities far longer than games without?

And yes I'm aware that multiplayer games are predominantly other genres. But the point is the MARKET is becoming more multiplayer and anybody entering that market needs to consider it. These games share the shame shelf space. Most people only have X amount of money to spend on games.

"I get that you feel shafted for the MP experience of EWOM, but that doesn't entitle you to a MP experience in EFE."

Doesn't it? I paid for something, it wasn't delivered.  I don't really see the distinction between our shaftings.

'You're experiencing recency bias.'

Yes, probably.

It seems the core rebuttal being thrown my way today is demanding I admit that these are only my opinions. I have no problem with that, these are my opinions. I have no evidence to back them up.

As I said original, I only came here mostly to express my dissappointment and that of my contemporaries. Yes, it was spiced with vitriol that's because I was sold a product and it was not fit for purpose, that much is inarguable in my opinion (I never claimed FE committed to multiplayer, WoM certainly did).

I never came here to debate, I did a lot of that in the early development of the game and it achieved diddly squat.

It was Frogboy's response that enticed me to say more. A chance at his ear was tempting. For the most part I have done nothing but share my opinions, which again, are just opinions and attacked the value of the statistics provided because without knowing how they were collected we can never truly asses their value. I stand by that.

For the remaining part, I have only suggested that forgoing multiplayer because the cold hard dollars don't add up is a shame and that not catering to it because 'historically' the demand is 'fractional' is possibly in err. Why is it a good thing that the genre should not adapt to a changing market? You say yourself that we're predominantly the older players in this genre, is it not then a good idea to bring younger and newer players into this genre? What is bad about that? Do we want this genre to stagnate or innovate?

I am a single player just as much as I am a multiplayer. All I am pushing for, ultimately, is to share the single player with my friends and relatives, which to me adds an even more enjoyable dimension to the experience. What is SOOO bad about that I don't understand.

I am verbose and arrogant, which no doubt attracts most my fire but I think the core of my stance is positive if not at the very least benign. I think the people say "**** MP if it means I gotta wait two months" are more deserving of scath, personally.

@srw46 Frogboy is very specific when he explains the MP in E:wom

That's your method right there.

And here it is in fact Heaven.

"Granted, clocking users as they come into the lobby is a seemingly viable way to measure such a thing but I have little faith in polling and the like.  Although even then, bear in mind that myself and my circle of friends are die-hard multiplayers and the reason that some or all of us never entered the lobby with WoM is because we already know that the multiplayer just wasn't there. Thus the figure is skewed and unreliable.  As impressive as your 1% sounds I think it says a lot more about the state of multiplayer in WoM than it does about demand"

To add - I knew how buggy and broken the MP was before I'd even left the office as the forums plastered with such reports. I personally entered the lobby, to see for myself but as a gaming circle the decision was made that trying to setup a game would just be an exercise in frustration.  So that's at least four people who we definitely interested in multiplayer but never made 'the count'. Extrapolate, and just how reliable is that 1%?

But in saying that you inherently agree that the number IS in fact unreliable.

Semantics. It is 'imperfect' then.  Which was kind of my whole drive.

I'd rather he base his decision purely on what I want. 

Usually if you have to make a decision and the only information you have is unreliable, the answer is to solicit better information.

Finally, I am part of the 1%.

How could he even start to get better information? He is already getting information from exactly 100% of his customers (all who got EWoM). From a marketing point of view this is incredible good information.

Statistically only about 20% to 30% (*) of your customers will even answers to a question like "Are you using feature XYZ of my product." Some of those answers will be a lie. The rest wont even answer ... at all.

(*) Depending on lentgth of the survey, rewards for completing etc.