DLC Model Discussion

Choose the applicable option

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

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    370
It is? Your whole argument assumes that we won't see more "expansion pack" type content, and we very well still could (I think we will). You're completely turning a blind eye to this possibility and to the cold fact that prices drop. Civs are rarely $5 each and all have been on sale for a significant discount. (I don't know how many more times I can say this until you acknowledge it). :crazyeye:

No. My whole argument assumes that there is not a lot of additional content available, which there isn't. People want more stuff and Firaxis knows this. They also know that if they release only a couple things at time they can get $5 for a leader head.

More or less I am just saying what is. DLC civs cost $5. In an expansion each civ would be valued at less than a dollar.

If they released 18 civs at a time, would they be able to charge $5 for each one?
 
Who are you to tell me I am wrong, I can buy what I want, you are the one making everything difficult! I still can't get over the fact you said error in their ways! I do want I want with my money. I must ask you something have you played any other video games? Really since all of them use DLC and out of all of them Civ5 charges the best. Times have changed, dont think Civ5 is the second Civilization 4, see it as something new to the series. And if you say modding and the leaders are easy to make, I would like to see you make one, and I am expecting orchastra music

Moderator Action: Please don't get so worked up about what others have posted. If you have a problem with a post, report it rather than responding.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
I have noticed that many other video games are adopting the same model and that is why I am so worked up about it. I see ti all across the board and some of the newer games (most particularly facebook ones) I find it disturbing by how much of the game itself it reliant upon the consumer's purchasing power. I think the whole concept of manipulating the supply and demand system in such a way that DLC even becomes necessary is terrible.

I would also add that in the Age of Social Networking/Media, consumers demand everything to be available and accessible now, with the option of picking and choosing. 2K or Steam did not invent this model but supplemented the huge marketing model for smartphone apps, itunes music and Japanese-centric micro-content. It all goes back the original model of service contracts, which has been around for a long time, both in business and in retail.
I bolded the word "demand" as to emphasize that point. The demand that consumers are experiencing is a result of developer action.

And follow on to the post above mine, the outcry and fury would have been great if there had been no add-on content and instead, we would had to have waited until 2012 or 2013 before we got anything noticeably extra. It doesn't work that way any more, not in this age.
I am not sure if you can say that it wouldn't be until 2012 or 2013. Warlords was released in 2006, just one year after vanilla civ iv. Beyond the Sword was released in 2007. But the DLC model makes so much more money so there is no need to release expansions. By releasing one or two things every few months it makes the consumers think it acceptable to pay $5 or more for one civilization when they should pay less than half that price.

That's the price for Australia according to Stream. But don't worry, I actually paid ~$90-100 for the retail version, which I then couldn't install for almost a week as Telstra, my ISP decided that it would be a great time to complete maul my neighbourhoods phonelines to hell. My phoneline got hooked up to next door, their's to down the street and after 2 weeks they finally got my phoneline working again, of course not actually giving us our money back for the time they were screwing us over. Australia is a complete rip off though. Also, before anyone says anything about the exchange rate the Australian dollar is on parity with the American dollar as things stand and its been like that for a long while now. Ah... Getting ripped off... Most of that's a bit irrelevant to the point, but yes, I did actually pay more than the $80 for the game and that's what its listed as on steam for me.
Well, now I at least understand why you think the DLC price is acceptable. Because you paid $100 for what everyone else got for $40. I would think they'd charge around $16 for each DLC in Australia. :lol:
Moderator Action: Making it needlessly personal here too.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

It is? Your whole argument assumes that we won't see more "expansion pack" type content, and we very well still could (I think we will).

Civ 4 + BTS + countless patches did not happen overnight.

You're completely turning a blind eye to this possibility and to the cold fact that prices drop. Civs are rarely $5 each and all have been on sale for a significant discount. (I don't know how many more times I can say this until you acknowledge it). :crazyeye:
I'll just say it again. When comparing the prices of two items (in general, not at a specific time) and one object is on sale, you should take into account that fact that the other object also goes on sale, too. So, if a DLC is on sale for %50 off then you cannot say that it is a better deal then BTS. BTS has had %50 off sales too.

Also, you can add more variables and just say, "my friend gave me BTS, therefore it is a better deal that DLC". I have not used that argument because it is ridiculous, but I am using the possibility as one. The prices upon release must be compared and if one is on sale then the other must be too.
 
Australia just over charges for computer games. Here's a bit of fun:

Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 for the Xbox - Australian EB Games

Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 for the Xbox - American EB Games

The Australian Dollar in recent months

That's right, we're above parity and yet we pay how much for games?

Thankfully Steam allows us some cheaper options... sort of.

Aussies could get civ5 for $40 AU at release. All thanks to ozgameshop.
Now it's $21.49. Prices on Steam are a joke.
 
My whole argument assumes that there is not a lot of additional content available, which there isn't.

Relative to what? I think you'd find that many on this board would be angry at an expansion pack coming out before they fixed the fundamental flaws with the base game. I know I would.

I don't buy that they are "holding back content". I think they are too busy trying to improve the game. Sadly, Civ V was not released in the most ideal state, so things like game changing expansions are going to be pushed back.
So, if a DLC is on sale for %50 off then you cannot say that it is a better deal then BTS. BTS has had %50 off sales too.

Prices have gone up since 2007. Nobody is arguing against this. :)

Many other games has overpriced and garbage expansions back then too, it just so happens that BTS was one of those fantastic ones. I remember being disappointed with Warlords. I don't remember why honestly and it could have just been the state of the game at the time (people seem to forget that it was 2+ years before Civ 4 became really fantastic with BTS and the patches along with it).

The point is DLC is not as bad a deal as people say. The new Korea dlc will be on sale before the end of the year most likely (probably sooner).
 
Prices have gone up since 2007. Nobody is arguing against this. :)

Many other games has overpriced and garbage expansions back then too, it just so happens that BTS was one of those fantastic ones. I remember being disappointed with Warlords. I don't remember why honestly and it could have just been the state of the game at the time (people seem to forget that it was 2+ years before Civ 4 became really fantastic with BTS and the patches along with it).

The point is DLC is not as bad a deal as people say. The new Korea dlc will be on sale before the end of the year most likely (probably sooner).
If prices have changed then why is that I paid about the same for civ v as I did civ iv? And the average xbox game has remained $60 since then too.
 
If prices have changed then why is that I paid about the same for civ v as I did civ iv? And the average xbox game has remained $60 since then too.

Because the profit from DLC allows them to charge less?

...

...

...I'll be leaving now.
 
jtb1127:

But it's a little presumptuous to assume. If the business model incorporates maximizing the profit curve on additional content by charging a premium on early adopters, Firaxis could lower the barrier for entry into the franchise for newbies by charging less for the game. Just the fact that you paid the same nominal price for Civ V means that they charged less in the absolute, because they didn't account for inflation like they should have.
 
My opinion on DLC varies on a case-by-case basis. A lot of companies' DLC is tremendously overpriced, but Firaxis is usually pretty good. The Civs are pretty well priced, and when added up are around the same cost as an expansion. The map packs and particularly the recent Wonders DLC are pushing it, however.
 
jtb1127:

But it's a little presumptuous to assume. If the business model incorporates maximizing the profit curve on additional content by charging a premium on early adopters, Firaxis could lower the barrier for entry into the franchise for newbies by charging less for the game. Just the fact that you paid the same nominal price for Civ V means that they charged less in the absolute, because they didn't account for inflation like they should have.
That is a possibility, but what I used xbox games as an example too. I did this for the purpose of suggesting video game prices haven't actually increased.
 
I don't buy that they are "holding back content".

Of course they are. Give me one reason why they wouldn't be holding back content.

I think they are too busy trying to improve the game.

:lol: Too busy improving the game to make money? You realize that they are not a non-profit company, right?

Sadly, Civ V was not released in the most ideal state, so things like game changing expansions are going to be pushed back.

Yet they release DLC? :confused:
 
By this stage in its development, Civ IV had received a traditional expansion pack, Warlords.

Spoiler Content of Warlords :

Six new civilizations
Carthage
Celts
Korea
Ottomans
Vikings
Zulus

Four new leaders for existing civs
Augustus
Stalin
Churchill
Ramesses II

Three new Wonders
University of Sankore
Temple of Artemis
Great Wall

Two new units
Trireme
Trebuchet

One new building
Stable

Eight new scenarios
Chinese Unification
Rise of Rome
Barbarians
Vikings
Genghis Khan
Alexander
Peloponnesian Wars
Omens

Two new mechanics
Great General
Vassal States

A new unique building for each civ: 24 in all

New traits


Price at launch: $29.99

Civ V has had numerous paid for DLC, one free DLC and a number of gameplay additions from free patches.

Spoiler Civ 5 extra content since launch :

Six new civilizations
Babylon
Mongolia
Spain
Inca
Polynesia
Denmark
Korea

Three new Wonders
Temple of Artemis
Mausoleum
Statue of Zeus

Three new Natural Wonders
El Dorado
Fountain of Youth
Cerro Potosi

One new terrain type and one new resource
Atoll
Stone

Two new buildings
Stoneworks
Circus Maximus

Six new scenarios
Genghis Khan
New World
Paradise Found
1066
Wonders of the Ancient World
Samurai invasion of Korea

Thirteen new maps/scripts
3 Cradle of Civilization
5 Explorer Maps
5 Explorer Map Scripts


Standard price (bundled where appropriate): $41.90.


The standard disclaimers apply: not all content would be considered by everybody to be of equal value: Civ V buildings don't have new art assets, whereas I'd wager Civ IV leaders were less labour-intensive to produce than V's. Both games also received new music and other tweaks that usually go unmentioned.

So certainly Civ IV had got more substantial content (although not much), and was cheaper to boot (but not hugely). I just think this is a fairer comparison than BtS, or at least one that sheds a slightly different light on the point some people have made.

What Civ V has not had is any new mechanics, although it has to be said a lot of what Warlords added (Great Generals, and a second Unique for each civ) were part of Civ V from the beginning.

I don't think anyone can quite say with certainty what Firaxis have in mind for future updates. The current model works well enough, at least for Civilizations, but if they want to meet demand for new features they will make more money froma more traditional expansion. I'd be doubtful that continuing at their current rate of releases for a couple of years would be as profitable for very long.

Also to apply the current Civ V pricing scheme to every piece of content in BtS is disingenuous, to say the least.
 
You know, what's really scary is the whole DLC concept was initially implemented to 'combat' the boom/flourishing of used-games trade. Because of the way legal trade-in like Gamestop work, developers/publishers get less pie per person who paid for games. DLC insures tying content to an account, meaning each person that wants to play it HAS to pay for it, and it can't be re-sold (unless we're talking about selling entire accounts). It was generally a console thing for quite some time, with the rise of the PS3/X360 era.

The fact that this model has now crossed borders into computer gaming, and on a digital platform where the games themselves are also already tied to accounts (i.e. not resellable anyway) is a little worrisome and like has been mentioned in the thread quite representative of the sad state that the average gamer has come to expect out of games.

Remember when games couldn't be patched easily, and developers made every conceivable effort to get it right the first time, or on the flipside, make realistic deadline goals?

Yeah. I do.

All that being said, I don't really mind the DLC model as a whole, CONCEPTUALLY. If the extra overhead that comes from selling 4 quarters instead of a dollar makes the content 5-10% more expensive, that's fine. The first page of this thread has highlighted what's wrong with that particular pipe dream of numbers, and the runaway train the entire concept has devolved into, though.

edit: FWIW voted 50-50.

edit2: Quoting myself on an older post re: DLC vs expansions with regards to a framework like Civ5


Welcome to my awful MSpaint world

Consider a game's evolution to take place along 3 seperate axes through its lifespan.

X-axis: DLC - new civs
Y-axis: expansions - new features (religion, vassal states, opening up a second leader, whatever) that also apply to all DLC you have purchased.
Z-axis: Patches for balancing, fixing stuff that obviously was meant to be in the base game but broken, tactical AI improvements, quality-of-life improvements like replay graph, etc.

You can play the game with any combination of X and Y. Z gets applied automatically and doesn't cost money.

edit: This blueprint solves the "oh my god which DLC civs will they include in the expansion?" answer with "none of them". Of course, nothing's preventing a GOTY with e.g. all expansions AND dlc bundled together somewhere down the line though,
 
I voted "Bought and disliked". Here is how it goes for me:

I own... lots of games... I virtually never buy DLC for any of them. There are only certain circumstances I do:

- The DLC is worth it (this is very rare and happened in only a few games, namely some of Fallout 3's DLC' and Borderlands'). Even in these cases, I wait until it's heavily discounted. I bought all of the DLC for these games for about 2$, when it's usually 10$ each. This is what I value it at.

- The DLC is for a game I am a huge fan of. Basically only happened for Civ 5. I'm not too sure it's worth it... As above, I only bought it when it was heavily discounted. I would never pay the full price for the value we get.

- Apart from this, the other DLC I own is some that came with "Game of the Year" editions and such.

So basically, I buy when it's priced decently (at a level that is about the same as what we get for the expansion pack value), but most of the time I don't bother.

Most importantly: I never buy DLC when it comes out at the highway robbery prices they ask for it.
 
I dislike the DLC model. I feel they are focusing too much on releasing new Civs instead of improving the overall game. I personally really stick to 3 or 4 Civs, which are already included in the original game. So the DLC has nothing really to offer me.

On the other hand, the expansions in Civ4 were great! I like Civ5, and feel it has alot of improvements (espciallly with combat/zones of control), but Civ4 was more complex with corporations, religion, vassals, espionage, etc. Civ 5 seems dumbed down, and I was hoping expansions would only make it better as time moves forward. However, the DLC has greatly disappointed me. I feel they are stealing from real expansions. If people buy the DLC content they will never make an expansions. Thus, I'm refraining from buying anymore DLC in protest (even you Korea though I wanted to play you).
 
By this stage in its development, Civ IV had received a traditional expansion pack, Warlords.

Spoiler Content of Warlords :

Six new civilizations
Carthage
Celts
Korea
Ottomans
Vikings
Zulus

Four new leaders for existing civs
Augustus
Stalin
Churchill
Ramesses II

Three new Wonders
University of Sankore
Temple of Artemis
Great Wall

Two new units
Trireme
Trebuchet

One new building
Stable

Eight new scenarios
Chinese Unification
Rise of Rome
Barbarians
Vikings
Genghis Khan
Alexander
Peloponnesian Wars
Omens

Two new mechanics
Great General
Vassal States

A new unique building for each civ: 24 in all

New traits


Price at launch: $29.99

Civ V has had numerous paid for DLC, one free DLC and a number of gameplay additions from free patches.

Spoiler Civ 5 extra content since launch :

Six new civilizations
Babylon
Mongolia
Spain
Inca
Polynesia
Denmark
Korea

Three new Wonders
Temple of Artemis
Mausoleum
Statue of Zeus

Three new Natural Wonders
El Dorado
Fountain of Youth
Cerro Potosi

One new terrain type and one new resource
Atoll
Stone

Two new buildings
Stoneworks
Circus Maximus

Six new scenarios
Genghis Khan
New World
Paradise Found
1066
Wonders of the Ancient World
Samurai invasion of Korea

Thirteen new maps/scripts
3 Cradle of Civilization
5 Explorer Maps
5 Explorer Map Scripts


Standard price (bundled where appropriate): $41.90.


The standard disclaimers apply: not all content would be considered by everybody to be of equal value: Civ V buildings don't have new art assets, whereas I'd wager Civ IV leaders were less labour-intensive to produce than V's. Both games also received new music and other tweaks that usually go unmentioned.

So certainly Civ IV had got more substantial content (although not much), and was cheaper to boot (but not hugely). I just think this is a fairer comparison than BtS, or at least one that sheds a slightly different light on the point some people have made.

What Civ V has not had is any new mechanics, although it has to be said a lot of what Warlords added (Great Generals, and a second Unique for each civ) were part of Civ V from the beginning.

I don't think anyone can quite say with certainty what Firaxis have in mind for future updates. The current model works well enough, at least for Civilizations, but if they want to meet demand for new features they will make more money froma more traditional expansion. I'd be doubtful that continuing at their current rate of releases for a couple of years would be as profitable for very long.

Also to apply the current Civ V pricing scheme to every piece of content in BtS is disingenuous, to say the least.
I think it is safe to compare it to Beyond the Sword because Beyond the Sword set the standards and part of the reason I am so upset with the DLC model is because I know they can do better and they have with BTS. And even though Warlords is not as great as BTS, Warlords still seems to be a better deal than DLC as well.
 
I purchase almost everything. Not the maps though, but all civs and I will todat buy Korea and the Wonders.
Since my wife and I both have a very good job I can afford all DLC easily. If I was still a student however, I would be probably be quite mad at the way things are right now. And maybe wait for a discount.

I don't really like Civ5 as much as I adored all the previous ones (been playing 20 years now). But everytime a new Civ or patch comes along I can't stop myself from trying it again. Usually I end up being bored after two or three goes, but then I have got hours of fun before that for only a couple of euros.
 
I think it is safe to compare it to Beyond the Sword because Beyond the Sword set the standards and part of the reason I am so upset with the DLC model is because I know they can do better and they have with BTS. And even though Warlords is not as great as BTS, Warlords still seems to be a better deal than DLC as well.

...and here's the problem with that argument. The assumption is that there will be no new mechanics, no new expansion packs and so on. Wait until this time next year before claiming such things, because at least then we'll know whether any kind of expansions are on the cards.
 
Top Bottom