Derrick CB:
Allow me to reiterate. The reason I am against DLC is because it allows Firaxis to get away with selling amounts of content for high prices. The principle behind this is that when there is a small supply of new content for civilization V, the developers are able to charge $5 for a leaderhead. Whereas, if they followed the expansion model, they would not be able to maximize prices so effectively.
The whole driving force behind DLC is that Firaxis is intentionally using market forces to get away with selling small amounts of content for high prices. It is more profitable to sell small amounts of content at a time. Simply, saying that it is right because people are buying it proves nothing. Simply based off of the desire to save money, it would be more economical to release an expansion. In such a case, more content= cheaper per item. Less content= more expensive per item. Obviously, DLC's only purpose is to make.
And this whole argument that "DLC is good because people buy it" is too funny.
I don't see why it's funny, and I don't see what's objectionable about a for-profit company maximizing its profits legally by delivering content that is being purchased by its clientele.
You say "get away with," as a way of spinning the activity as if it were a crime, even though it's perfectly legal, and is driven by the same market forces that determined the optimum selling price for BTS.
I don't know where there's anything to prove, or what your point ultimately is. You've yet to make a solid case or statement against DLC pricing that isn't just some sort of negative spin on a purely economic activity, and one that's both reasonable and commonly practiced. Yes, it's to maximize pricing returns. So what?
An important factor that everyone repeatedly misses: Supply and demand states that the value of something will go up when there is a high demand and low supply. Therefore, Firaxis is able to charge $5 per civ via DLC. If they would release an expansion, they would never get away with that because said expansion would cost several hundred dollars.
Clearly, the reasoning behind that is because the barrier for entry on a product several hundred dollars in costing is prohibitive. It's not because of content/cost ratio. If we presented Firaxis as a slave producing Civ content forever for a millions bucks, it would still be better value than BTS, but no one's going to buy that. It's a stupid way to do business.
You're misattributing causes and effects. DLC is bought because people like the content, and the price is reasonable/the barrier for entry is low.
At a similar point in Civ IV's lifecycle, it didn't quite have Warlords, so the content being released is equivalent. I could even argue that there's comparatively more content for less in Civ V due to inflation and because the
bundled price of available DLC
now is more or less equivalent to if they'd waited to bundle it all into an expansion pack and sold it new sometime this fall or Christmas. Hell, it's cheaper if you get it on sale. Way cheaper.
Who says that you are forced to buy anything?
jtb1127. It's part of his definition of what "ripoff" is. In all frankness, I think he's more honest about his wording. There's nothing wrong about the DLC if you just pretended it didn't exist.
Im not in a state of rage, just a state of disappointment. I am concerned that Firaxis will be able to continue to follow the DLC model by releasing small amounts of content at a time. Perhaps, they will do this until they have released enough content that it could constitute as an expansion. The only difference would be it would be far more expensive than an expansion.
Substantiate.
Piece Of Mind clarified that the costing of ALL bundled DLC up to this point would only amount to about $42, and only if you paid the premium of getting each content new just as it released, hot off the press.
How is this more expensive than getting a brand new expansion right about now? Are you saying that we should have gotten a BTS-sized expansion 4 months after Civ V released?
TIME is the important factor here. Factor it in.
You're making things up. If any such small population exists, then I am not apart of it. I want an expansion and Firaxis is not a non-profit company. Of course they won't release everything for free. However, that by no means makes it justifiable for any reason other than the sake of profit to purportedly milk the consumers.
Clarify. What do you mean by "milk," if it doesn't imply some kind of forcing? How is Firaxis "milking" me if I waited for a 75% sale on Steam this Christmas and get every single DLC up to this time for $10. Would that not be cheaper than a comparable expansion, containing all relevant updates, released new for $30 at a similar time frame?
Just take a look at what you get with DLC and what you get with expansions another time. Analyze the two and you tell me which one comes with less.
Point 1 against: BTS is far later in terms of age than every DLC for Civ V up to this date, and it released for $30. Given that all the DLC so far can be had for cheaps at particular times, projected pricing at a similar time frame as BTS would make them similar value for cost, especially given inflation.
Point 2 against: Civs in Civ 4 are an amalgamation of two pre-existing trait codes, and one UU and one UB. This is less than the UA, plus two uniques of Civ 5.
Point 3 against: much of the great added scenario content of Civ 4 was made by enthusiastic modders and conceptualized on the forums by
constructive input from forum-goers.
This added value comes directly from people who sought to make Civ 4 better by participating constructively on CivFanatics and other enthusiast sites, and is hampered by continual disruption of such activities, by whoever and through whatever activites that you might imagine.
This content was not made by Firaxis, but by people like you and me. Whether or not you choose to participate in making similar content for Civ V is your decision.
No duh they are only releasing DLC for money. 
