Civilization 5 and DLC

How will the availability of DLC affect your decision to buy Civ5?

  • DLC makes me more likely to buy the game, I may buy DLC.

    Votes: 18 7.0%
  • DLC makes me more likely to buy the game, I will NOT buy DLC.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • DLC will not affect my decision to buy the game, I may buy DLC.

    Votes: 78 30.4%
  • DLC will not affect my decision to buy the game, I will NOT buy DLC.

    Votes: 44 17.1%
  • DLC makes me less likely to buy the game, I may buy DLC.

    Votes: 29 11.3%
  • DLC makes me less likely to buy the game, I will NOT buy DLC.

    Votes: 61 23.7%
  • I will not buy the game, because of DLC.

    Votes: 27 10.5%

  • Total voters
    257
I'd expect Firaxis to have some responsibilities in regards to preventing some mods from being distributed. This is much more relevant to them than it was before if it is true they will allow the distribution of mods using their own servers (or Steam's). Previously they had no responsibility over what was distributed on fansites like cfc, IIUC.

A theory that Firaxis will ban mods they don't like (most probably before they get far into development I'm sure) is not crackpot, but maybe alarmist.

As for opposing the idea of adopting a "sky is falling attitude", we've already seen that it's hard to argue with a game feature if it's announced well after the actual decision was made to go ahead with it. Unlike the requirement of Steam, complaining about how mods get handled or DLC will be handled could actually have an effect on future decisions by Firaxis or 2K. People have every right, and almost a responsibility IMO, to voice their concerns about which direction the game is going in.

The only reason we didn't have people complaining about Steam around here before it was announced was obviously because it was not expected. I bet you would have happily called someone's suggestion that civ5 will be a Steamworks game a crackpot theory, because it had no evidence to support it. If everyone always waited until final decisions were made before complaining they would have effectively zero influence on the decisions made about the game's development. For many people, experience tells them that once a publisher or developer starts to employ DLC, they rarely back down on it later - it only can get worse. So while it's definitely pessimistic, it is from their point of view expected.

And none of this is helped by the fact that Firaxis are known to have a very silent strategy in regards to community consultation and involvement. People have to speculate about possible future scenarios because they have little real info to go on and know they need to get in with complaints early.
 
You said that you feel entitled to use an extra bonus feature you purchase from Firaxis/2K in a fan-created mod.

It's not really a 'bonus' at all. It's actually the opposite of a bonus since for the extreme little extra content, people are paying dearly $ for it. It's the Deluxe Unbonus.

Ahriman said:
But when these hypothetical scenarios start getting treated as established fact, and when people get all worked in a lather about something that isn't real, thats what gets bizarre.

Same thing happened with Global Warming, and happens with the Big Bang... those were/are treated as fact; and the 1st turned out to be a globally-aimed money grab scam. Why should this be any different? :cool:
 
b) Firaxis/2K are going to release a long string of content DLC, none of which will be compatible with each other or with any mods

Except she didn't say that.
 
I bet you would have happily called someone's suggestion that civ5 will be a Steamworks game a crackpot theory, because it had no evidence to support it.

Agreed. I remember the early threads on steam, before it was announced that civ5 would require steam, that the common position was "there is no evidence that civ5 will require steam, so there is nothing to worry about". Many of us learned our lesson when it was announced that civ5 would require steam. It is regretful that many people are making the same mistake again.
 
It's also the most accurate. Greed is a part of human nature. Just a quick look at the business practices of the large companies (particularly banks) confirms this.

Drawing banks into this will turn it into an off-topic political argument.


It doesn't have to be greed. In the present economy, it could be simple desperation to survive. If a product doesn't roll out on the announced schedule, if the profits don't live up to anaylist's expectations, the stock price can suffer enough to make a company thhe subject of a hostile takeover or divission the subject of a firesale. Duty to co-workers and employees might come before faceless customers. We've got 4 corps. in this mix.
An individual might be reluctant to draw a line in the sand based upon their principles when there are no jobs to be found. Nobody is nescssarily stupid or evil.
 
And if Wall Street still lived up to its purpose of providing capital for new businesses instead of providing short term profits for stock traders, we wouldn't have that problem in the first place.

If you mean something like a 4 year horizon instead of a quarterly one... Amen.
 
As for opposing the idea of adopting a "sky is falling attitude", we've already seen that it's hard to argue with a game feature if it's announced well after the actual decision was made to go ahead with it. Unlike the requirement of Steam, complaining about how mods get handled or DLC will be handled could actually have an effect on future decisions by Firaxis or 2K. People have every right, and almost a responsibility IMO, to voice their concerns about which direction the game is going in.

This is exactly right! Well said! I would only add to it a glimmer of hope that 2K might create a non-Steam version of CIV V for those who want it at some point.
 
People have every right, and almost a responsibility IMO, to voice their concerns about which direction the game is going in.

Except.. people are extrapolating a "direction" that isn't there.

They have a deluxe edition with some extra features - like many games have had in the past. It is just incorrect to conclude from that there is a "direction" towards having a stream of pay-for-DLC.

It's not really a 'bonus' at all. It's actually the opposite of a bonus since for the extreme little extra content, people are paying dearly $ for it. It's the Deluxe Unbonus.
This makes no sense to me.

You cannot simultaneously argue that:
i) Hey, there is this big, significant piece of extra content that only some people are going to get. This is going to fracture the community!
ii) The extra content is extremely small and trivial, and its not worth paying money for.

Except she didn't say that.
People have been saying exactly this, eg:
The deluxe edition will be enough to fracture the mods, at least partly.
Not: "Oh, there might be some mod compatibility issues. I hope they think about those." But instead: "the deluxe edition will fracture the mods, the sky is falling!"

Oh, and as for crackpot theories:
2. The only workably functioning mods available will need to be sanctioned by Steam, and you may only get them from Steam, effectively shutting down most of Civ's online modding community. - Fail
3. You may have to pay a "handling" fee for downloading those mods, in effect making them DLC. - Fail

They've denied that things like this happening. So yes, going around saying they might to this (on the basis that, oh, they might be explicitly lying to us) is crackpot.

In the present economy, it could be simple desperation to survive.
Yes, companies want to survive. To do that, absolutely they're trying to get a bit more revenue- eg by having a deluxe edition so that hard-core fans can spend a bit more money and get a little more content by doing so.
We should welcome this; if you don't think the content is worth it, you don't have to buy it. But others might buy it, which helps support the studio which makes the games we love.

But this doesn't mean that they're going to destroy the long-term appeal of their product and shoot out their sales of expansions by messing up mod compatibility.
Interested in getting revenue does not necessarily mean short-sighted and stupid.
 
If they're interested in raising net income, perhaps they should stop over-paying the top executives.

Civ has NEVER had extra content that affects the game in a deluxe edition. Civ4's deluxe edition included a tech tree poster, a soundtrack CD, and a special box. There is no reason the same couldn't have been done for civ5.
 
E
xcept.. people are extrapolating a "direction" that isn't there.

They have a deluxe edition with some extra features - like many games have had in the past. It is just incorrect to conclude from that there is a "direction" towards having a stream of pay-for-DLC.

CIV V Deluxe = overpriced DLC. So we're already there. Yes it's just the first time. Care to wager your Steam account whether they'll be any CIV V DLC offered in the future?
 
If they're interested in raising net income, perhaps they should stop over-paying the top executives.

Civ has NEVER had extra content that affects the game in a deluxe edition. Civ4's deluxe edition included a tech tree poster, a soundtrack CD, and a special box. There is no reason the same couldn't have been done for civ5.

Well I see it as a test to see audience reaction. I mean if they can find a market for DLC then surely they are going to utilize it. I don't have much experience with other 4x games but from what it seems ciV sets the standard. So like how EA is testing waters against used games, 2K/Firaxis is seeing whether there is a market for DLC.
 
perhaps they should stop over-paying the top executives.

Source?

CIV V Deluxe = overpriced DLC.
Again, how can people simultaneously complain that the Deluxe is both over-priced and useless, and yet is also critical data that they Must Have?

So we're already there.
Say it with me; Deluxe Editions or pre-order bonus content are common and have appeared in previous games, including those with no DLC. One-shot Deluxe Edition content is not the same as a strong of for-pay DLC.

We're NOT "there".
 
I love the rubbish overpriced DLC. Other people will buy it, I won't, therefore they subsidize my coreCiv 5 experience. win-win.
 
For my concern, DLC are the worst ever invention of the game industry from the gamer point of view... and the I can't understand why people are buying them in the first place, because if they wouldn't, DLC would rapidly be extinct.

One word on the Deluxe edition : I can't understand that the real game is the Deluxe edition and that the cut version is the normal edition... Deluxe should be something more than normal, and not normal something less than Deluxe. Also, I would like to see a "real" Deluxe edition, with some infos on the game development, on the game mechanics, on the ideas that were tested and rejected, with some physical goodies, like a map, a statues or whatever, or in other word, something that is only interesting for a big fanatic, but something which a normal average gamer wouldn't care about... and this is clearly not the case with a complete civilization being omitted from the normal game.
 
Deluxe should be something more than normal, and not normal something less than Deluxe

How is it possible for the former to be true without the latter being true?

And you'll have everything you need to play the game without the Deluxe edition.

Also, I would like to see a "real" Deluxe edition, with some infos on the game development, on the game mechanics, on the ideas that were tested and rejected
The Deluxe Civ5 is going to include a Maknig Of thing, IIRC.

and this is clearly not the case with a complete civilization being omitted from the normal game.
There are dozens of civilizations that are omitted from the game. Only 18 are included. Which is a similar number as other Civ games I think?

Suppose someone made a mode that added a new civ. You do not have an incomplete version of the game because you aren't running that mod.
 
Hehe, I see, you read carefully... So

For your first remark, of course, physically, it is the same, but not in the spirit. I mean, a deluxe edition should give some bonus to the game. In our case, the normal distribution reduced version of the game, ie. Civ 5 with 19 civs, or the Deluxe version.

Second, yes your right, there will be making of, so this is good for me :) .

To make my point again : For me, a deluxe edition is some extra, and not the full game and the normal version a cut version. Extra's should not change the very basics of the game. So for example, they could propose some special graphics int the Deluxe edition... which doesn't really change the gameplay, but which can be very fun for a fan.

You can off course agree or not, but do you understand what I mean ?
 
This makes no sense to me.

You cannot simultaneously argue that:
i) Hey, there is this big, significant piece of extra content that only some people are going to get. This is going to fracture the community!
ii) The extra content is extremely small and trivial, and its not worth paying money for.

It's quite simple.

BONUS: something in addition to what is expected or strictly due

How is it a bonus, when:
1) You get less, because you receive no box, no disc, no nice packaging, no manual, etc... No tangible products.
2) You get extremely minimal content. 1 civ and a map. They stated making maps is extremely simple and quick to create (his 9 yr old could do it <-- this is probably the map they threw in).
3) You are Paying ALOT more for hardly anything at all ($10 bucks is alot for a civ); perhaps even less since you don't get an actual product.
4) Digital Download is extremely cheap for companies compared to tangible product distribution; by huge amounts. Valve and 2K are pushing this with a "Not-Free Crappy Present" so they can make boat-loads more money off of it.
4) All of these things do not meet the definition of 'Bonus'. Because the normal Civ 5 game at a given price is what is expected. The UnDeluxe Edition gives a civ and a map minus the box which costs more than expected (yet costs nothing but bandwidth to Valve). This is not something in addition to what is expected.

It is the UnDeluxe UnBonus that almost punishes you for purchasing! :devil:
 
You can off course agree or not, but do you understand what I mean ?

Everyone agrees with you, even those that do not ;)

It's the exact same thing if they did this:

Regular Game at Stores comes with: 10 civs and costs $40. You get retail package.
Deluxe Game at Steam comes with 19 civs and a map and costs $50. Digital Download only.

Same thing that is going on here, just a bit more to the extreme. Buying at the store you get ripped out of 'core content'. It is Core Content because the name of the game is "Civilization" and you are getting less "Civilizations" (literally) at the store.

Everyone should know why they are doing this.. it's pretty obvious. Again, Valve and 2K are probably the ones behind it... I would hate to think Firaxis was (you never know though). PR stunt to make people think they are getting something (which is core content cut from the store version), while a higher price and lower production cost make them boat-loads more cash.
 
Top Bottom