DLC Model Discussion

BobDole · Aug 19, 2011

I am against DLC it is just unfair against the customer it add new contents that change the gameplay and every gamer should get that for free its like a patch... I dont want to pay for that it should be free

No game should let you pay for patches..

Oh yeah with such a great community 2k forums civfanatic forum mods on the main menu adding contents that not every player can acces to is a really bad thing and has a negatif impact on the community as result less people play the game

And DLC's are just patches it adds new maps and civilization wich change the gameplay drasticly it olso adds different AI typs..

Last time I checked, all the patches, and the bug fixes/AI tweaks/balance change/additions (Stone/Stoneworks, Circus Maximus, a few other things) that are part of a patch HAVE been free. You don't need DLC to take advantage of those things, seeing how all DLC has done is add are some civs and maps/scenarios, minus the Wonders DLC that was just released (which again, is optional and certainly isn't needed for balance, seeing how it only added 3 Wonders to the base game). Firaxis has been doing a lot of patching free of charge.

Oh, and no one would give out all the stuff released as DLC for free, nor should they have to. Maybe some of the maps/map scripts, but other than that, no.

Snuffleupagus · Aug 19, 2011

Yes, I hate continually adding new content to a game in a way that keeps money flowing to the developers so they remain engaged in the game itself.

I also hate paying $50 for a game that provides way way way more playable hours than other $50 games.

I think PC gamers don't realize where gaming is going. The world of smaller games, pay to play, 'free' to play games is changing the landscape. If games like Civilization don't add DLC to increase profits then it won't meet the bottom line to make them anymore.

Bottom line: without DLC there is no "next iteration of Civ"

PieceOfMind · Aug 20, 2011

Moderator Action: Moved two posts to DLC Discussion thread.

Tambien · Aug 28, 2011

Snuffleupagus said:
Yes, I hate continually adding new content to a game in a way that keeps money flowing to the developers so they remain engaged in the game itself.

I also hate paying $50 for a game that provides way way way more playable hours than other $50 games.

I think PC gamers don't realize where gaming is going. The world of smaller games, pay to play, 'free' to play games is changing the landscape. If games like Civilization don't add DLC to increase profits then it won't meet the bottom line to make them anymore.

Bottom line: without DLC there is no "next iteration of Civ"

Put the DLCs in a $50 expansion pack. I will buy it!

dexters · Aug 28, 2011

As noted, Civ, at least under Firaxis, has had 2 expansions per game. The first tend to be new units.new civs.new wonders with only minor feature adjustments.

Assuming they drop the 1st expansion entirely because perhaps they feel they need keep patching instead of working on making features, we're just about where we need to be DLC-wise in terms of new content/wonders.

marioflag · Aug 28, 2011

dexters said:
As noted, Civ, at least under Firaxis, has had 2 expansions per game. The first tend to be new units.new civs.new wonders with only minor feature adjustments.

Assuming they drop the 1st expansion entirely because perhaps they feel they need keep patching instead of working on making features, we're just about where we need to be DLC-wise in terms of new content/wonders.

Warlords was a mediocre expansion but even without considering mechanics, it had far more content than all the DLCs and content given for free in patches, released so far.

I'm not against DLC infact i have bought everyone of them except maps, but it seems clear that if there is no expansion and all development goes towards DLC the interest in this game will drop significantly, considering that the core-gameplay will remain the same.

apocalypse105 · Aug 29, 2011

Like a user of the steam forum said:

imagine a store selling a chess board without the bishops, and you would need an extra $5 for them. this is basically what they are doing with civ 5.

I agree with him 100% You basicly have to play for something that should be in the game allready...

This DLC destroys online gameplay and the community If a player doesn't have a DLC he can't join some game's or discussions and other things

anandus · Aug 29, 2011

apocalypse105 said:
Like a user of the steam forum said:

imagine a store selling a chess board without the bishops, and you would need an extra $5 for them. this is basically what they are doing with civ 5.

I agree with him 100% You basicly have to play for something that should be in the game allready...

This DLC destroys online gameplay and the community If a player doesn't have a DLC he can't join some game's or discussions and other things

But the same argument can be used for expansion packs as well.
So it's better just to have a game out, never to release DLC or expansions and after immediately start on the sequel (or none)?

Kerosene31 · Aug 29, 2011

By the way, too many people are assuming that we won't see expansion packs for Civ V. The "DLC" model doesn't mean we can't have a more "traditional" expansion pack. I would be surprised if we didn't see some sort of add-on that changes/expands core gameplay. An expansion may or may not include the DLC Civs, but I bet we'll see something.

People compare Civ V to Civ IV + BtS + years of patches without giving Civ V the time for these things to happen.

dexters · Aug 29, 2011

marioflag said:
Warlords was a mediocre expansion but even without considering mechanics, it had far more content than all the DLCs and content given for free in patches, released so far.

I'm not against DLC infact i have bought everyone of them except maps, but it seems clear that if there is no expansion and all development goes towards DLC the interest in this game will drop significantly, considering that the core-gameplay will remain the same.

The exponential cost of adding new civs aside, what were the 'considerable' content from Warlords?
Civs we got so far via DLC free and otherwise - Mongols/Vikings/Spain/Inca/Korea/Polynesia/Babylon

Ok, it added an early version of vassal states. But you also have to consider new buildings like stoneworks, the new natural wonders they patched in January? which were released via patches that would have otherwise been XP material five, ten years ago.

whirl · Aug 29, 2011

Well, the DLC model would be easier to stomach if core functionality (Multiplayer, for instance) was working before they started selling their overpriced 5-minutes-of-programming packages.

ohioastronomy · Aug 29, 2011

DLC is just bad value for money compared to games, or even to (good) expansions. This isn't a problem with Civ 5 alone; you see the same thing with Bioware, who had a good track record before jumping on the DLC bandwagon.

Pre-DLC game companies were able to provide players with minor updates without charging extra for them (and new civilization definitely qualify as minor). Expansions were worse value than full versions, but even they are better than DLCs.

apocalypse105 · Aug 29, 2011

anandus said:
But the same argument can be used for expansion packs as well.
So it's better just to have a game out, never to release DLC or expansions and after immediately start on the sequel (or none)?

NO
If you buy a expansion pack its basicly a "new game" new feautures civilzations and options

With DLC's They add things that change the game but you have to pay for it...

As a Expansion They just add new stuff ad once

Like giving you a new version of chess for example Not just one piece

marioflag · Aug 29, 2011

dexters said:
The exponential cost of adding new civs aside, what were the 'considerable' content from Warlords?
Civs we got so far via DLC free and otherwise - Mongols/Vikings/Spain/Inca/Korea/Polynesia/Babylon

Ok, it added an early version of vassal states. But you also have to consider new buildings like stoneworks, the new natural wonders they patched in January? which were released via patches that would have otherwise been XP material five, ten years ago.

In Warlords we got UB for civs, which added value was really great, because it gave life to civilizations that in vanilla game were quite shallow, with only a UU and leader traits (shared among leaders).
Great General and Vassals weren't gamebreaking features but they improved and increased the scope of gameplay.

I agree that the post release support has been better than in civ4 but again the add-on of Acqueduct, Stoneworks, more National Wonders was very nice for balance and overall level of gameplay but they didn't increased the scope of it.
Natural Wonders were present from the beginning, their differentiation was just a needed act of balancement.

Without the introduction of new mechanics, patches and DLC are just going to make the gameplay more varied and interesting but they can't replace the added value of a full expansion.

ohioastronomy said:
DLC is just bad value for money compared to games, or even to (good) expansions. This isn't a problem with Civ 5 alone; you see the same thing with Bioware, who had a good track record before jumping on the DLC bandwagon.

Pre-DLC game companies were able to provide players with minor updates without charging extra for them (and new civilization definitely qualify as minor). Expansions were worse value than full versions, but even they are better than DLCs.

Bioware DLC can't be compared to Civ5 ones. CIv5 DLC are pricy but of really high quality(except maps); DLC for Dragon Age were mostly reused assets and are just a better investment than civ5 maps or the renowned horse armor in Oblivion.

anandus · Aug 30, 2011

apocalypse105 said:
NO
If you buy a expansion pack its basicly a "new game" new feautures civilzations and options
With DLC's They add things that change the game but you have to pay for it...
As a Expansion They just add new stuff ad once
Like giving you a new version of chess for example Not just one piece

No, they don't give you a new chess set, they give you 5 pieces at once instead of one, even the pieces you don't want

I like the way it's handled with Civ5, it works very well for multiplayer games and such. Everyone plays with the chess pieces everyone has. if one has a chess piece less (for instance Babylon), then they play the game without that piece.

With an expansion pack this person would be locked out most multiplayer games until he bought the expansion pack, even if he doesn't want to play with that chess piece. Just to play multiplayer.
You're much more forced to buy an expansion pack than you are forced to buy the DLC.

baldfalk · Aug 30, 2011

apocalypse105 said:
Like a user of the steam forum said:

imagine a store selling a chess board without the bishops, and you would need an extra $5 for them. this is basically what they are doing with civ 5.

I agree with him 100% You basicly have to play for something that should be in the game allready...

Actually, the counter-analogy would be Civ 5 = complete chess game as we know it, DLC = new pieces.

Although Babylon kinda blows that to smithereens.

Civsassin · Aug 30, 2011

anandus said:
With an expansion pack this person would be locked out most multiplayer games until he bought the expansion pack, even if he doesn't want to play with that chess piece. Just to play multiplayer.
You're much more forced to buy an expansion pack than you are forced to buy the DLC.

The bolded statement isn't true. CiIV has been working with its three versions very well for years. You just have to make the distinctions between vanilla and its variants. Not everyone bought Warlords and not everyone bought BTS, yet somehow 2K managed to have separate infrastructue and events for each.

marioflag · Aug 30, 2011

anandus said:
No, they don't give you a new chess set, they give you 5 pieces at once instead of one, even the pieces you don't want

I like the way it's handled with Civ5, it works very well for multiplayer games and such. Everyone plays with the chess pieces everyone has. if one has a chess piece less (for instance Babylon), then they play the game without that piece.

With an expansion pack this person would be locked out most multiplayer games until he bought the expansion pack, even if he doesn't want to play with that chess piece. Just to play multiplayer.
You're much more forced to buy an expansion pack than you are forced to buy the DLC.

That was certainly true until they released the wonders pack.
If they are gonna release more DLC which affect gameplay the mp community will be likely split even among the most loyal fans, because there are a few chances that all the people buy all DLCs or have the same DLC to avoid compatibility issue.
With expansion packs the only splitting was made between casual and regular players which followed the development of a game.
Infact i have never seen on forums people complain that an expansion split the community.

apocalypse105 · Sep 1, 2011

anandus said:
No, they don't give you a new chess set, they give you 5 pieces at once instead of one, even the pieces you don't want

I like the way it's handled with Civ5, it works very well for multiplayer games and such. Everyone plays with the chess pieces everyone has. if one has a chess piece less (for instance Babylon), then they play the game without that piece.

With an expansion pack this person would be locked out most multiplayer games until he bought the expansion pack, even if he doesn't want to play with that chess piece. Just to play multiplayer.
You're much more forced to buy an expansion pack than you are forced to buy the DLC.

Lol You can still play online on the old game I still play red alert 2 without the expansion pack online and there are even more people online then yuri's revenge So I dont thinx it blocks you from playing multiplayer you have more a choise

Becomedeath · Sep 1, 2011

I've got to say that I do actually like the DLC model as it allows you to pick and choose what you upgrade. I can see how in the future this could take the form of new techs, new buildings, new terrain types etc.

However, I've recently purchased Babylon and Korea and found them to be rather forced additions. While they clearly are Civs geared for science, they feel very much like the were build entirely for that purpose and pursuing any other VC feels clunky (although with a massive tech lead, what's not hard to achieve?)

So while I do like the DLC concept, I'm not overtly keen on what's currently available.

So thumbs up for the "DL" and not so much for the "C".

Will be interesting to see how it develops, particularly if they create DLable AI upgrades. Advanced tactics or something similar. There's a lot they can do, the question is, will they...

DLC Model Discussion

Choose the applicable option

I have purchased DLC for Civ5, and I like the current model.

I have purchased DLC for Civ5, but I dislike the current model.

I own Civ5, but have not purchased DLC. However, I like the current model.

I own Civ5, but have not purchased DLC. I dislike the current model.

I do not own Civ5, but I like the current DLC model.

I do not own Civ5, and I dislike the current DLC model.

I neither like or dislike the current DLC model.

American Leader in Civ VI

Warlord

Drill IV Defender

Theseus, Duke of Athens

Gods & Emperors

History Addict

Deity

Errorist

Prince

Gods & Emperors

Chieftain

King

Deity

History Addict

Errorist

Warlord

Immortal

History Addict

Deity

The Destroyer

Similar threads