DLC Model Discussion

HappyBuilder said:

Not quite, as chess pieces of different shapes and colors would still play the game in the same manner. A bishop is a bishop; a rook is a rook. But civilizations play the game differently; Polynesia is not America. To make the analogy complete to chess, there would have to be a new piece that behaved in a new manner from the existing pieces.

(Chess is actually a bad analogy in general because no one's forcing you to make a rook only go in straight lines, etc. You can do whatever you want with the pieces once you buy the game.)

HB

Click to expand...

It's like when you buy a car.
You pay a price, say 100, but it's the base version.
Do you want the stereo? it's an extra 5.
Do you want the air conditioning system? It's an extra 5.

DLC is the same. You can play without it, but if you like it, it's an extra.

I like how people are explaining me with 1000 analogies how DLC is just like coffee, just like chess, just like a car, just like...

I mean we get it. Thanks.

The difference is the opinion on this statement: DLC isn't giving me more for my money.

@ViterboKnight:
If I buy a car with stereo, conditioning system...I have the possibility to resale it.

Also an expanding pack has the advantage over DLC´s that it sets a standard, all have, as base for mods and scenarios.

In addition one new civ do not provide enough incentive to start a new game, in some case.

By the way, i bought the polynesia dlc and i enjoy playing it. This dlc is good work, but this has not anything to do with steam and the dlc-system.

Lexicus said:

Every single video game has become a DLC profit-making model...literally every single game. Call of Duty has been using a DLC model to treat its fans like ATM machines since the first modern warfare. Even my beloved Halo has gone that way, so why would anyone expect Civ to be any different? I don't much like the DLC model, either, but I'm pretty certain it's a lot more profitable than an expansion model, and in America profit is what matters, and nothing else.

Click to expand...

Thats what needs to change in this country and we will become weaker until it does. The problem with the DLC model isthat it leaves out the benefits of expansion packs, which are important additions to make the game better.

Hey y'all. Interesting to see some familiar veterans from the Great Release Wars still lingering around.

DLC as a distribution method is neither good nor bad, in my estimation. I've seen great DLC and crap DLC for various games. For me, whether it's good or bad comes down to a few factors, primarily the discrepancy (if any) between value and cost. Basically, does the content it contains merit the pricetag?

Good DLC: Mass Effect 2's "Shadow Broker" update. It rolled out for $10 but contained quite a bit of rich, well-developed content for ME2. Overall it's an excellent addition to the game IMO.

Bad DLC: Civ 5's various downloadable civs and maps. Very little content for a price that hard to justify. Worse yet, some of the first civs were clearly held back from the full game to be sold separately.

Players tend to hate 'release day DLC' or content that was clearly developed in conjunction with the game but kept back to sell separately later for an additional price. IMO, most of the Civ5 DLC has fallen in this camp - minimal additions that aren't significant enough to merit the price tag.

It's not a matter of being poor or unable to afford a $3.00 pricetag; it's the fact that I think that pricetag is about 300% too high. If these were 0.99 apiece, I'd probably pick up a few.

There's also the big-picture questions about the full game and in Civ5's case they're relevant. Civ5 was released in really poor shape, and no matter how much I love a franchise (and I've loved Civilization for 20 years now), I'm not going to shell out MORE money for extra content when the $50 I spent for the original game was a bad investment at the time.

This is pretty much my opinion, SuperJay. Hard to put it better. It's all about worthiness of the product, which we're not seeing most of the time. You could argue that it's a matter of personnal perception and opinion, but when I compare with how I used to be treated as a customer not that long ago compared to what we get now, it's not hard for me to conclude that I'm getting shafted a lot of the time with DLC if I buy it full price.

Rub'Rum said:

This is pretty much my opinion, SuperJay. Hard to put it better. It's all about worthiness of the product, which we're not seeing most of the time. You could argue that it's a matter of personnal perception and opinion, but when I compare with how I used to be treated as a customer not that long ago compared to what we get now, it's not hard for me to conclude that I'm getting shafted a lot of the time with DLC if I buy it full price.

Click to expand...

I agree too. I'd hate to say it, but like many of you, I feel kind of cheated. Firaxis should pay us all back for buying up all the DLCs, by creating something that adds some new and interesting concepts to the game. I feel we have all paid our dues for that common courtesy.

As it is now, the Civ5 DLC model isn't as abusive as some other models. But this is a faulty comparison. Remember the tea tax that the British used to try and gently introduce the idea of taxation to American colonists? it wasn't brutally expensive, but it was opposed as a matter of principle because it could lead to despotism.

This is the same, as it stands the civ5 DLC model may be a non-exploitative thing now, but if people swallow the pill this once, more flagrant abuses could occur, such as the next iteration of civ being released partially unfinished and the content needed to finish it being released as a DLC or several DLC's.

It seems I'm a little late to the discussion here. No matter! My two cents:
I got all the DLCs all at once when I bought the Civ5 gold package, so I didn't really have to buy each one separately. (Kinda pricey, too... I sunk a good $50 into the gold edition!) So I'm not really aware what it's like to purchase each and every DLC individually but it seems like it would be a tedious task, and each one is... what, like, $5? Heck, as a modder I could just make any of those civs myself for free. And there are enough DLC civs to make a whole new expansion pack, which would just be more convenient for grouping, albeit I'm sure several people would complain that they bought an expansion pack and instead of having better AI or the likes they got a bunch of scenarios.

For pretty much the sole purpose that DLC is a relatively new concept to the civilization series, and that there's enough of it that it could have more conveniently been bundled into an expansion pack, I voted that I have all the DLC but dislike the current model. Although I really don't have any strong feelings one way or another.

I'm sure someone else has already contributed the same argument, but I didn't bother reading through the entire 14-page thread.

What jackelgull posted worries me though, or more specifically it makes me worry that Firaxis will make us buy game patches just to extract more money for us...

Another problem I see with DLC is this, the consumer pays money for a small amount of content. What if the consumer realizes they have been mislead by the marketing and doesn't like the content. then they have just wasted their money. In an expansion by contrast, so much content is released that even if one or two civs don't pan out then there is still other stuff to play with. Expansions can still suck, but they are less likely to be complete waste of money.

I bought Civ 5 on release, but was not pleased with it at all, compared to Civ IV. One the the most blaring reasons : No religion.

Why no religion? They wanted to add it in a DLC. So, a feature of Vanilla Civ IV is not included in Civ V for no real purpose except to create dlc, to make more money.

I refuse to buy any DLC on Civ V for this reason, nor do I ever buy DLC for games which have "day 1 dlc" or "pre-order dlc" for no real reason except for to make more money

I much prefer the older model of large expansions


The main reason I dislike this new DLC model is that it is crippling the mod community. The model flat out gives less potential for modding

The reason why religion was not included in vanilla because it would not have been right, especially considering how awful it was in Civ4. They took the time to do it better in a large expansion pack (G&K) and improved in another large expansion pack (BNW) - which were NOT DLCs in the way you are ranting about them.

Besides, with costs of development and production going up, we should favor providing on-going revenues so they could produce the large expansion packs which we all love, not to mention BE and Civ6. How do you think they could have produce such quality products if they did not have the revenue streams to make them happen?

jackelgull said:

This is the same, as it stands the civ5 DLC model may be a non-exploitative thing now, but if people swallow the pill this once, more flagrant abuses could occur, such as the next iteration of civ being released partially unfinished and the content needed to finish it being released as a DLC or several DLC's.

Click to expand...

This is already happening... you just described the release of Civ 5