Anybody Else Worried About Purchasing Civ5 On Release?

Are You Going to Wait to Purchase Civilization 5?

  • I already pre-ordered it.

    Votes: 49 20.9%
  • I am going to buy it as soon as it comes out.

    Votes: 62 26.4%
  • I am going to wait a little after it comes out to gather information.

    Votes: 55 23.4%
  • I am going to wait until an expansion or DLC combo package comes out to buy it.

    Votes: 24 10.2%
  • I am not going to purchase Civilization 5.

    Votes: 16 6.8%
  • I am not yet sure if I will be purchasing Civilization 5.

    Votes: 29 12.3%

  • Total voters
    235
People, DLC in the form of civs and a map isn't "completing the game."

In a game like Civ, these are add-ons.

It's like complaining that you bought a base model car that "wasn't complete," because it didn't have the spoiler that the more expensive option pack includes.

I can sort of understand the fragmenting the community argument, but I don't think that holds any water either, because that same argument applies to add ons like Warlords, BtS and Colonization AND its the same problem other games with DLC have and you don't see companies like Bungie suffering because of it.

In fact, Bungie has made it a point to maintain at least some online playlists that require nothing more than the base game.

If the DLC proves popular then it won't be hard to get people to buy it.
 
For some of us, civs are more than cosmetic.

And you can't compare DLC to expansions like that. For one thing, expansions provide a base for modding, and are standardized. There will be zillions of permutations of civ5, while with civ4 there was only ever vanilla, warlords, and BtS (and in a practical sense, only BtS, because who really supports vanilla and warlords these days?).
 
I bought each of the previous civs (starting at 2) vanilla first, each expansion and then the complete as well (for several reasons).

I am not going to buy 5 until I can get it with the whole game. I will find some way to play it before that though.
Moderator Action: At a friend, i'm sure, right? Don't forget: No tolerance for piracy at CFC.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Sigh... yes, Piracy is the answer here. :rolleyes:


Listen, I think its fair to say mods are either going to be for the base vanilla game or for full (as of mod release time)DLC. Again, that's the way it seems to work elsewhere.


Edit: Modified post to clarify my stance on piracy.
 
So in other words, because you don't like spending money on DLC or missing 1 civilization out of a game of 18, you're going to illegally download the game. Way to keep up your principles.
 
For some of us, civs are more than cosmetic.

And you can't compare DLC to expansions like that. For one thing, expansions provide a base for modding, and are standardized. There will be zillions of permutations of civ5, while with civ4 there was only ever vanilla, warlords, and BtS (and in a practical sense, only BtS, because who really supports vanilla and warlords these days?).

I'm not sure I follow. Will it really be that big a problem for a mod to work for both Civ5 and Civ5 + Babylon. In other words, is the inclusion of Babylon going to be breaking a lot of mods?
 
So in other words, because you don't like spending money on DLC or missing 1 civilization out of a game of 18, you're going to illegally download the game.

I'd guess he was going to pirate anyway, and now has his rationalization.

Anyway, I think of DLC as a way to get a bit more out of a game you really like. If you're crazy for Civ5 and the DLC seems like something you want at the price they're charging then you buy it. No one's forcing you to get it, and if Firaxis/2K just release civs and scenarios I don't see what the problem is. Perhaps if something like "the ability for workers to chop forests" was DLC then I could see getting pissed about it.
 
I have no problem with DLC which takes a game in another direction (eg. Fallout 3, Red Dead etc) or minor packs that are priced appropriately. The zero-day DLC in particular is just arrogance on the part of 2k.

btw I said nothing of obtaining it illegally (I'll probably buy it second-hand or pool with the 10 or so people in the office who want it).
 
I have no problem with DLC which takes a game in another direction (eg. Fallout 3, Red Dead etc) or minor packs that are priced appropriately. The zero-day DLC in particular is just arrogance on the part of 2k.

btw I said nothing of obtaining it illegally (I'll probably buy it second-hand or pool with the 10 or so people in the office who want it).
You do realize that that's not possible due to steam? (Unless you're going to share one account among X people, which isn't a good idea).
 
I fail to see what the point of your "wait two months" rule would be. You essentially would prefer them to just "take the content out" and sit on it for two months before releasing it---because that would be the practical effect. And why? Because it makes you feel better?
The point is that it has been customs and habits to release games with everything available at release data.
Civ4 came with 18 civilizations and there weren't more available. In terms of civilizations, vanilly Civ4 was complete.
Also, this argument that they are "taking content out" is all wrong.
To the best of our knowledge, at release date there will be a basket containing at least 19 (!) civilizations, of which you as purchaser of the "standard" (better: limited) version get 18.
In my books this is limiting the number of available civilizations.

Furthermore, we have learned that at the moment there are internal version which provide for more than 18 civilization to be played at the same time.
This roster of 18+x civilizations determines what is "complete".
If I cannot fill that roster completely, due to missing civilization in my version of the game (although they are available in other versions at the same time), it is incomplete.
Releasing DLC along with release is not somehow a violation of business ethics. Consumers have a right to a complete game, but that means complete as in all the features work, there aren't any crippling bugs, the game is balanced, etc.
So you assume to get an "extra special" version, since your version is not limited to say 3 nations (which is the minimum to not have you restricted to a 1:1 game)?

Or do you indicate that you would agree to an (assumed) Civ6 which comes with just 10 civilizations?
I mean, all the other 15 civilizations available at release date you might buy via DLC....

Again, we are complaining because they are letting us buy more stuff. I fail to see the problem here.
Because it has been customs and habits that things being available from day 0 on would have been included in the sold version.

What people complain about is that the publisher tries to change customs and habits to the disadvantage of the customer, and I am quite baffled that there are people who actually applaud to this move.

I'm not sure I follow. Will it really be that big a problem for a mod to work for both Civ5 and Civ5 + Babylon. In other words, is the inclusion of Babylon going to be breaking a lot of mods?

Depends on the fact in which way a certain map may work?
What would happen if a modder would fix Babylon to #2 in the list, but you're missing it? Would the map generator crash? Would in-game messages be faulty? Would events crash?
I don't know - do you?
 
Except DLC payments end up being far more expensive than games were in the past. You can expect loads of DLC AND expansions that will cost the same price as they used to.

I love Steam, I just hate 0-day DLC and just overpriced DLC in general. It's true you tailor the product to your needs, but these are features and downloads we used to get for free or they used to be part of the expansions.

Or maybe we get the game and expansion like we are used to, and the DLC are extras. I predict that this model will result in more content than we would get otherwise.
 
More official content anyway.

There's some tortured logic going on in this thread.

By all the information I've gleaned from 2k, no matter what version of the game you buy, the DLC will be available. The only question is whether ALL of it is available Day Zero.

All reports indicate that if you buy Vanilla and later decide you just have to have Babylon and the mystery civ, then they will be out there for you to get....at a price.
So the only question to answer is what do you want to spend your money on up front?
 
The point is that it has been customs and habits to release games with everything available at release data.

That was the custom, but this wasn't because there was something just or honorable about only releasing a base game at release. It was because DLC didn't exist yet, and thus they couldn't very well create content for a separate product they had no way to sell. It was the way it was because there was no alternative.

Civ4 came with 18 civilizations and there weren't more available. In terms of civilizations, vanilly Civ4 was complete.

To the best of our knowledge, at release date there will be a basket containing at least 19 (!) civilizations, of which you as purchaser of the "standard" (better: limited) version get 18.
In my books this is limiting the number of available civilizations.
In my book it is a standard version, or the "base game", and Babylon and the DLC are extra bonuses. So why is it you are right and I'm wrong?

Furthermore, we have learned that at the moment there are internal version which provide for more than 18 civilization to be played at the same time.
This roster of 18+x civilizations determines what is "complete".
If I cannot fill that roster completely, due to missing civilization in my version of the game (although they are available in other versions at the same time), it is incomplete.

An incomplete game would be one in which the tech tree is missing or bugs cause the game to crash after five minutes. Civ5 is a complete game (at least I hope it will be :(). If you were to play it without knowing about the DLC you wouldn't notice anything wrong with it. You would be perfectly happy with it. So why does that knowledge of additional content somehow ruin the game?

So you assume to get an "extra special" version, since your version is not limited to say 3 nations (which is the minimum to not have you restricted to a 1:1 game)?

Or do you indicate that you would agree to an (assumed) Civ6 which comes with just 10 civilizations?
I mean, all the other 15 civilizations available at release date you might buy via DLC....

You have it entirely wrong. If Civ6 came with only ten civilizations, or--god forbid--only three civilizations I would of course be annoyed at Firaxis, because they had cheaped out on the base game and included less civs than in the previous version of the base game.

But the Civ5 base game does not have 10 or 3 civilizations, remember? It has eighteen. The same number as in the base game when Civ4 came out.

So let's turn the situation around. Let's say Civ6 comes out and has 24 civilizations in the base game. This would be even better than any version of Civ5, right? But wait, Firaxis is also offering 10 civs as DLC. So what is the reasonable reaction to this? I, personally, would be excited by this deal, whereas you would shake your fists at the heavens and curse the name of Firaxis, presumably. Now consider an alternative: lets say Civ6 comes out with only six civilizations (fitting, no). However, these are the only six civilizations anyone could get; there are no extra civs or DLC of any kind. This would, presumably, satisfy you? After all they are releasing everything available on day one in the base game. You'd be happy with that, right?

Because it has been customs and habits that things being available from day 0 on would have been included in the sold version.

What people complain about is that the publisher tries to change customs and habits to the disadvantage of the customer, and I am quite baffled that there are people who actually applaud to this move.

But you've failed to prove that DLC is in fact bad for the customer. Without DLC, Babylon and those two bonus Civs would not be in the base game. Firaxis would simply not have made them, because they would have had no reason to. People would be perfectly happy with 18 civs. The custom of releasing all day 0 content in the base game did not benefit the customer. It gave the designer no incentive to create additional content for the game, and the consumer no option to purchase said content. DLC benefits both designer and customers, because it allows them to engage in more mutually beneficial transactions. All it takes to understand this is a rudimentary knowledge of economics.

Depends on the fact in which way a certain map may work?
What would happen if a modder would fix Babylon to #2 in the list, but you're missing it? Would the map generator crash? Would in-game messages be faulty? Would events crash?
I don't know - do you?

You're right, we don't know. So why assume the worst? Maybe what happens if you attempt to load a map with Babylon is that Civ crashes and uninstalls itself from your computer and then writes the faulty civ data to your boot drive. Or maybe the game just replaces it with France. It's probably something the designers have thought about, you know? We'll find out soon enough anyway, no reason to freak out about it yet.

All I see you do all day is constantly assume the worst about Civ5, Bello. You should lighten up a bit. ;)
 
If those civs were ready at the time of release, they should be in the base game. I can't believe you don't consider the civilization roster to be core to the game. Everything but mods and scenarios is the core game.

By the way, civ5 is coming with less than civ4 did. Remember that civ4 had more than one leader for some civs.

By the way, saying we should lighten up a bit is just plain wrong. Every single time we have come up with predictions of things that are bad, people reply "there's no evidence that will happen, so it won't happen, everything will be happy happy in the end", and every single time we have been proven correct within a couple months. I don't see that trend changing any time soon.
 
I bought each of the previous civs (starting at 2) vanilla first, each expansion and then the complete as well (for several reasons).

I am not going to buy 5 until I can get it with the whole game. I will find some way to play it before that though.

Really lame excuse for piracy. This is a game .. it's not like it's something that you will die from if you go without. All this entitlement bull is really getting old. If you like the game you should pay for it since these people that worked on it are trying to make a living just like everyone else.

DLC and add-ons .. who gives a crap. This game was designed to be modded. If you don't like having to pay for DLC then DONT PAY FOR DLC. Make your own DLC or addons.
 
Sigh.

Maybe, Firaxis has like 30 civs they developed and they chose the best 18 and they just didn't TELL YOU about the other 10 (Babylon and mystery civ we know about).
Is the game incomplete if there's content you don't even know you don't have?
 
That was the custom, but this wasn't because there was something just or honorable about only releasing a base game at release. It was because DLC didn't exist yet, and thus they couldn't very well create content for a separate product they had no way to sell. It was the way it was because there was no alternative.
Oh, there would have been alternatives.
It is not as if additional "expansions" would not have existed. I seem to remember that Civ3 and Civ4 had expansion packs. And some of them even contained some new civilizations.

It was possible to sell additional content - it was possible since the invention of the disk, latest since the invention of the CD.

It is just that customs and habits already have changed for some games and now they (2k) are happily jumping onto that train.

An incomplete game would be one in which the tech tree is missing or bugs cause the game to crash after five minutes.
No, that would be a broken, or bugged game.
Civ5 is a complete game (at least I hope it will be :(). If you were to play it without knowing about the DLC you wouldn't notice anything wrong with it. You would be perfectly happy with it. So why does that knowledge of additional content somehow ruin the game?
It does not ruin that game yet makes me aware of the fact that the publsher is trying to change the rules while the fans are looking.

Example:
At your favourite restaurant, you've been used to get some fries, some water and a salad (even with a choice of different dressings) to your steak. That was the way you liked your steak, therefore you went there.

Starting tomorrow, they offer you the fries as an extra, for which - of course - you have to pay.
Salad will be an extra, too. (Did I mention you would have to pay for it?)
Order both, and you will get the water for free.

Great deal?
Benefit for you?

You have it entirely wrong. If Civ6 came with only ten civilizations, or--god forbid--only three civilizations I would of course be annoyed at Firaxis, because they had cheaped out on the base game and included less civs than in the previous version of the base game.
We will note this down for a moment, but we will come back to it in a second.
lets say Civ6 comes out with only six civilizations (fitting, no). However, these are the only six civilizations anyone could get; there are no extra civs or DLC of any kind. This would, presumably, satisfy you? After all they are releasing everything available on day one in the base game. You'd be happy with that, right?
No, I would be disappointed for the same reason as you. But you seem as you would applaud them for the clever idea of offering 12 civs via DLC, then.

But you've failed to prove that DLC is in fact bad for the customer. Without DLC, Babylon and those two bonus Civs would not be in the base game.
With DLC, they aren't in the "base" game, either. :)
The custom of releasing all day 0 content in the base game did not benefit the customer.
It did not?
Did it not benefit you that all 18 civs were available without having to buy them in addition, when you got Civ4?

May I ask in which way it hampered you?

It gave the designer no incentive to create additional content for the game, and the consumer no option to purchase said content.
Now that you mention it, I remember that there haven't been expansion packs and that they have not been bought by anyone...
DLC benefits both designer and customers, because it allows them to engage in more mutually beneficial transactions. All it takes to understand this is a rudimentary knowledge of economics.
The benefit for the user - if at all - may be to avoid the least appealing parts of the content (just under the assumption, that it won't come with something which he may desire).
Yet, even the rudimentary understanding of economics tells us, that these portions in total will become more expansive than compared to the current way of expansion packs.
All I see you do all day is constantly assume the worst about Civ5, Bello. You should lighten up a bit. ;)
Well, I just have learned my lessons. What can go wrong, will go wrong.

And if we as customers do not complain about undesirable decisions at vendor's side, we will just have to swallow them.
Bowing in shock and awe is better?
 
Really lame excuse for piracy. This is a game .. it's not like it's something that you will die from if you go without. All this entitlement bull is really getting old. If you like the game you should pay for it since these people that worked on it are trying to make a living just like everyone else.

DLC and add-ons .. who gives a crap. This game was designed to be modded. If you don't like having to pay for DLC then DONT PAY FOR DLC. Make your own DLC or addons.

Except said mods are probably going to be inferior to official content, at least in terms of graphical quality and polish. With leaders it's pretty much guaranteed. There are only a few civ4 mods that rival official content in terms of quality and polish.
 
Example:
At your favourite restaurant, you've been used to get some fries, some water and a salad (even with a choice of different dressings) to your steak. That was the way you liked your steak, therefore you went there.

Starting tomorrow, they offer you the fries as an extra, for which - of course - you have to pay.
Salad will be an extra, too. (Did I mention you would have to pay for it?)
Order both, and you will get the water for free.

That is not what is happening. You will note that the steak comes with everything it used to come with. The fries are still there, as is the salad, as is the water. And it is all the same price. However, today the restaurant has started offering shrimp along with the steak, for an additional price. In response, you storm out of the restaurant in a fit of rage. Do you see what is wrong with this picture?

Civ4 had 18 civs. Civ5 will also have 18 civs, but there is also shrimp you can buy. And this is an outrage?
 
Top Bottom