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
deanej said:
Except:
A. The content in Warlords and BtS was not even conceived of at the time vanilla was released.
B. The expansions offer better value for your money.
C. There are only two expansions, compared with what will likely be dozens of pieces of DLC.

Put in terms your brain can understand, the expansions don't fail a cost-benefit analysis the way DLC does. You also get a standard version that everyone has at any given time (because nobody plays vanilla and Warlords anymore, right?).
Click to expand...
A: So what? The DLC wouldn't have been realized if the funds hadn't been available, it's part of 2K/Firaxis's budget/cost-benefit analysis.
B: Sure, but you aren't getting gameplay changes. That is: you can not buy a DLC civilization and not be playing a 'different game'.
C: See above about it being much more optional. You can not have a civ and still be playing the 'same game'. The same is not true of expansions.

If you don't think DLC is worth it, then don't buy it!. You're still playing the same game. Only maps and Civs have been announced as DLC (anything else is baseless speculation). If you really, really want all the civs, then get them! If you don't think they're worth it, then don't! Your position is inherently contradictory. You're saying they're not worth paying for, but that your game won't be complete without them. And I don't appreciate the insults.
 
In case you haven't noticed, I'm one of the loons that actually cares about what civs are in the game. I'm also one of the loons who prefers the way the games market was ten years ago and hates the way it is today. In the old times, we wouldn't have this stuff as DLC, we'd get it in an expansion, or the base game (the horror!). It was so nice when everyone had the same game. Now we'll have people with Babylon, people without it, and a million other combinations. It's going to be hell for modders (you'd be suprised how many mods change the civilizations file).
 
deanej said:
In case you haven't noticed, I'm one of the loons that actually cares about what civs are in the game. I'm also one of the loons who prefers the way the games market was ten years ago and hates the way it is today. In the old times, we wouldn't have this stuff as DLC, we'd get it in an expansion, or the base game (the horror!). It was so nice when everyone had the same game. Now we'll have people with Babylon, people without it, and a million other combinations. It's going to be hell for modders (you'd be suprised how many mods change the civilizations file).
Click to expand...
The playability (not presence in MP based on DLC in the past) of a few civs doesn't make the game especially different. If Civ 4 hadn't had Babylon at all, then would it have been a 'different game' enough to be relevant? And speculating on how it'll effect modding is pointless. It wouldn't be difficult to mod the game without Babylon in it you know.
 
Unless you're advocating a ban on DLC civs appearing in all mods, it's going to have an effect on modding (like I said, you'd be surprised by how many mods change the civilization files).

We're just not going to see eye to eye on this because we're polar opposites. You're a modern strategy gamer. I'm an old fashioned (relatively speaking) alt history type person.
 
bjbrains said:
It wouldn't be difficult to mod the game without Babylon in it you know.
Click to expand...

Except for modding something which would have come with Babylon, like one or two UU's or the UB or the flavour, or leader.
And some weeks later there will be addtional two civs, which then cannot be used.

And since DLC is used to generate profit, more may be expected - which can't be used either.
 
deanej said:
It was so nice when everyone had the same game. Now we'll have people with Babylon, people without it, and a million other combinations. It's going to be hell for modders (you'd be suprised how many mods change the civilizations file).
Click to expand...

That is the point you should be focusing on IMO.

It's not about whether the game is complete or not - each individual has the option of purchasing the DLC. There is only a very minor problem with some of the special versions having mutually exclusive content (the D2D pack includes all 3 civs). If that was all it was about, then you have to ask would there be the same complaint if the game was released complete but with all DLC content and its price added on top of the regular price.

The real point is that with more and more DLC, the differences between everyone's game - the gap - will keep getting bigger. Not necessarily hell for modders but it's definitely extra complications and more hassle, and possibly fewer modding freedom (speculation) because of strong copy protection of DLC, for modders to worry about.

At civfanatics we are a big community and there are advantages with being able to assume everyone has the same game. That is what we had with civ4. When we saw expansions, they were reasonably priced and so everyone was more or less required to get on board or get left behind. With DLC, there are a lot more people unwilling to get on that train until perhaps the time it's all released in an xpac. Until that time though, the community will have all sorts of divisions in it created by this DLC.

People will play down these divisions, and yes it's still possible for a community to get along well with each person having slightly different games, but I believe the extra hassle will only harm the game in the long run. To me, the health or success of a game is not measured by its sales or revenue but to those with more of a business mind that might be how it's perceived. If DLC does bring more revenue for the game than it costs (e.g. from people boycotting or waiting for price drops) of the game, there will just be more money for them to make another game that goes down the unfriendly route even further. As consumers I think we need to judge the impact on us and the community - not the profit margins of Take Two - when it comes to getting behind or criticizing things like DLC. If you're a TakeTwo shareholder on the other hand, it's of course reasonable to have a different position.

Disclaimer: I'm not suggesting that anyone here is a TakeTwo shareholder but that some appear more prepared to look out for the interests of them than the interests of the community.
 
Moderator Action: Please remain civil in this thread or I will close it
 
deanej said:
Except:
A. The content in Warlords and BtS was not even conceived of at the time vanilla was released.
B. The expansions offer better value for your money.
C. There are only two expansions, compared with what will likely be dozens of pieces of DLC.

Put in terms your brain can understand, the expansions don't fail a cost-benefit analysis the way DLC does. You also get a standard version that everyone has at any given time (because nobody plays vanilla and Warlords anymore, right?).
Click to expand...

A. Partial art for some of the Civs that appeared in Warlords was already included in vanilla Civ4, but not exposed. It's not like from the very beginning they know exactly which 18 civs are going to be in the final version. A number are always going to be in (India, China, Japan, Russia, Germany, England, France, Rome, Greece, Egypt, America and maybe Persia) but that leaves another six slots to be filled and more than 6 civs are going to be developed for that to see which work best. And the ones that get cut out from vanilla end up in an expansion or DLC.

And of course there are ideas that are discarded during initial development that will be revisited for a future release. Happens in all software projects. Stuff that ended up in Warlords and BtS was already partially conceived during initial development.
 
PieceOfMind said:
That is the point you should be focusing on IMO.

It's not about whether the game is complete or not - each individual has the option of purchasing the DLC. There is only a very minor problem with some of the special versions having mutually exclusive content (the D2D pack includes all 3 civs). If that was all it was about, then you have to ask would there be the same complaint if the game was released complete but with all DLC content and its price added on top of the regular price.

The real point is that with more and more DLC, the differences between everyone's game - the gap - will keep getting bigger. Not necessarily hell for modders but it's definitely extra complications and more hassle, and possibly fewer modding freedom (speculation) because of strong copy protection of DLC, for modders to worry about.

At civfanatics we are a big community and there are advantages with being able to assume everyone has the same game. That is what we had with civ4. When we saw expansions, they were reasonably priced and so everyone was more or less required to get on board or get left behind. With DLC, there are a lot more people unwilling to get on that train until perhaps the time it's all released in an xpac. Until that time though, the community will have all sorts of divisions in it created by this DLC.

People will play down these divisions, and yes it's still possible for a community to get along well with each person having slightly different games, but I believe the extra hassle will only harm the game in the long run. To me, the health or success of a game is not measured by its sales or revenue but to those with more of a business mind that might be how it's perceived. If DLC does bring more revenue for the game than it costs (e.g. from people boycotting or waiting for price drops) of the game, there will just be more money for them to make another game that goes down the unfriendly route even further. As consumers I think we need to judge the impact on us and the community - not the profit margins of Take Two - when it comes to getting behind or criticizing things like DLC. If you're a TakeTwo shareholder on the other hand, it's of course reasonable to have a different position.

Disclaimer: I'm not suggesting that anyone here is a TakeTwo shareholder but that some appear more prepared to look out for the interests of them than the interests of the community.
Click to expand...

This is actually a valid complaint about the DLC, I think. Because it would be a problem if the modding community gets segregated camps, depending on whether you have a particular piece of DLC (something like that arguable happened to a certain extent with the expansion packs for civ4, but this would involve even more groups). But what we don't know yet is exactly how much this is going to effect modding, because we know know yet how Firaxis is going to handle everything. We don't yet know how they plan to protect the DLC, or how the game would handle a mod or scenario with a civ you haven't purchased. And we don't know yet how many mods this will actually effect. It may be a big problem, but on the other hand it may effect only a handful of mods. So while this is something worth watching out for, I don't see the use in freaking out about it just yet.

However, this concept of having to have a "complete game" is, again, as absurd as yelling at a waiter because the restaurant started serving shrimp. "I want a complete meal! I used to be able to get a complete meal here without paying extra!" The problem is that "complete" now means something different after a new item is added to the menu. It now means "steak and shrimp" where it used to just mean "steak". The customer is not any worse off, but by employing misleading terms, he convinces himself that he is.
 
Aramel said:
The problem is that "complete" now means something different after a new item is added to the menu. It now means "steak and shrimp" where it used to just mean "steak".
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Yet, you only get the steak if you ask for the complete menu.
 
Quick question that may have already been answered:

IF I buy the D2D pack for 60 bucks, will I be able to activate it on Steam? So basically, I can get more than what Steam offers but still activate it all on Steam?

I know this may have been answered already, but please bear with me as I'm in kind of a hurry this morning.
 
Default said:
Quick question that may have already been answered:

IF I buy the D2D pack for 60 bucks, will I be able to activate it on Steam? So basically, I can get more than what Steam offers but still activate it all on Steam?

I know this may have been answered already, but please bear with me as I'm in kind of a hurry this morning.
Click to expand...

Not only can you activate it on Steam, you MUST activate it on Steam.
Wherever you purchase the game, it cannot be fully installed and run without being activated on Steam because the Steamworks platform from Valve is integrated into the game as its DRM and online multiplayer support.
 
Aramel said:
This is actually a valid complaint about the DLC, I think. Because it would be a problem if the modding community gets segregated camps, depending on whether you have a particular piece of DLC (something like that arguable happened to a certain extent with the expansion packs for civ4, but this would involve even more groups). But what we don't know yet is exactly how much this is going to effect modding, because we know know yet how Firaxis is going to handle everything. We don't yet know how they plan to protect the DLC, or how the game would handle a mod or scenario with a civ you haven't purchased. And we don't know yet how many mods this will actually effect. It may be a big problem, but on the other hand it may effect only a handful of mods.
Click to expand...
So while this is something worth watching out for, I don't see the use in freaking out about it just yet.
Click to expand...
I agree. It's why it's a good idea to calmly ask questions to 2K about it. But wait... They ignore our questions (or at least don't make it obvious they're being acknowledged and tell us "the answers are coming". Several people have waited patiently for their simple questions to be answered. Instead 2K insist on waiting until every single question is answered in a 100% correct (their wording - not mine) way before even answering the most basic of questions. Technically they have answered a few questions but pretty much every one of them has been fairly obvious and usually just confirmations of what retailers are offering in their civ5 packs.

I'm not freaking out about it yet, but I'm concerned about it. I was concerned about it several months ago and was assured in late May that by the end of June we'd have the important questions about steamworks answered.

These days the issue has shifted more to DLC but 2K have shown as much engagement with the community over the issue of DLC as they have with Steamworks - that is, practically none. People are simply left to speculate on the reasons for the silence and continue to post their fears.
However, this concept of having to have a "complete game" is, again, as absurd as yelling at a waiter because the restaurant started serving shrimp. "I want a complete meal! I used to be able to get a complete meal here without paying extra!" The problem is that "complete" now means something different after a new item is added to the menu. It now means "steak and shrimp" where it used to just mean "steak". The customer is not any worse off, but by employing misleading terms, he convinces himself that he is.
Click to expand...

I don't care much for the "completeness" argument. I'd rather leave that to others.

Overworked metaphors don't get us very far either, IMO. I thought the whole steak and shrimp one was meant as a humourous exaggeration to be honest.
 
I dunno - I think its an apt metaphor for the situation.

I see a lot of strong feelings in this thread, and can respect that - as game consumers, we want what we want, and we have a forum here to vent our feelings to the world. Keep in mind, though, the game companies.... well, they want to make us happy, but they also want to provide the best environment for themselves that they can... and that means marketing and profit.

Personally, I have some mixed feelings about the idea of selling DLC for games. However, I'll save them - because the truth is, for better or for worse, I think companies have seen the advantages (for them) of DLC - and, to be fair, there are some advantages for the consumer as well (more ability to be selective in what you want to buy, quicker access to content, etc). But the bottom line is, like it or not, DLC is here to stay. This just happens to be the first Civ release to be in the DLC era, so it's the first time we as a community see it in our beloved series. But it's already here, and it's not going anywhere.

With that said, we are of course free to vote with our pocketbooks. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Of course, I look around at a community based on folks that love Civ, and see many here who have been playing for years (decades, even!)...


...and I think I can say that I'd feel comfortable betting that the vast majority of us, regardless of how we feel about steam or DLCor marketing or 2K games etc etc - we're going to buy this game... :p Wemay protest, or rage against the changes, but at the end of the day, we're going to make the purchase.

At least initially, for Civ V. Now, if they REALLY mistreat us, then Civ VI will see some fallout... but we'll have to wait and see! :p
 
Calouste said:
A. Partial art for some of the Civs that appeared in Warlords was already included in vanilla Civ4, but not exposed. It's not like from the very beginning they know exactly which 18 civs are going to be in the final version. A number are always going to be in (India, China, Japan, Russia, Germany, England, France, Rome, Greece, Egypt, America and maybe Persia) but that leaves another six slots to be filled and more than 6 civs are going to be developed for that to see which work best. And the ones that get cut out from vanilla end up in an expansion or DLC.

And of course there are ideas that are discarded during initial development that will be revisited for a future release. Happens in all software projects. Stuff that ended up in Warlords and BtS was already partially conceived during initial development.
Click to expand...

Not quite true - if there's anything, it amounts to flags only. While there is some leaderhead stuff labeled Augustus Caesar, Sitting Bull, etc., it's quite clearly concept art. And while some stuff got cut, it wasn't so they could release it later in an expansion (though this did happen in the case of Augustus Caesar, but I'm inclined to believe Firaxis when they said many of the vanilla leaders got cut because too few people had heard of them).
 
deanej said:
Not quite true - if there's anything, it amounts to flags only. While there is some leaderhead stuff labeled Augustus Caesar, Sitting Bull, etc., it's quite clearly concept art. And while some stuff got cut, it wasn't so they could release it later in an expansion (though this did happen in the case of Augustus Caesar, but I'm inclined to believe Firaxis when they said many of the vanilla leaders got cut because too few people had heard of them).
Click to expand...

You might want to look up the definition of the word "conceived" in the dictionary before you use it again. It's not a synonym of "completed".
 
The stage the art was in was so far from completed that it might as well be the same thing. They don't go straight from concept art to completion (btw, the entire directory was concept art, even for leaders that got finished). You should listen to episode 3 of the Official Firaxis Games Podcast, "You Gotta Have Art". I also recommend the DVD that came with civ chronicles.
 
Concept Art is only a portion of what is needed though. Unless you have access to the meeting minutes for the planning meetings and the discussions of the development process, you can't really know which civs were in the process of being "storyboarded" already and were thus just fodder for the next expansion.

I really really don't get the Vitriol on this topic. Civilizations appear to be just as modular in V as they were in IV if not more so. You can plug and play with them. Pull this one out, add this other one. I would have to say that for any modder not making an explicit scenario, it would be best to assume that any set of Civs could be in there. And I don't see why that's so hard. The idea that a mod requires Babylon to function is just weird to me. Or, if it does require Babylon, then you note that and the player has to pay for it. Simple as that.

This is a concept that has been working for video games for a couple years now. It's not like Firaxis just pulled it from their posterior fresh for Civ 5.

Now, If they start releasing gameplay altering DLC, THEN you have something to worry about....a little.

The fact is that all experience with DLC up to this point has not indicated that the fears expressed in this thread are justified.
 
I'll be waiting a week or two after the game is released but-to be fair-I've done that with *every* version of Civ to date. At least this time around I've got a version to play that I'm still utterly engaged with, & will probably still play even *after* I get Civ5 ;)!

Aussie.
 
Aussie_Lurker said:
At least this time around I've got a version to play that I'm still utterly engaged with, & will probably still play even *after* I get Civ5 ;)!

Aussie.
Click to expand...

:goodjob:

And some people have even said (perhaps half seriously) they didn't want civ5 to come yet because they weren't done with civ4!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PDX Firefly
Release Date! | Ages Part Two
Replies
12
Views
2K
Sephi
S
K
Top 10 setting I liked about civ 6
Replies
1
Views
230
Bonyduck Campersang
Bonyduck Campersang
pokiehl
Thoughts on the state of the game since New Frontier Pass
5 6 7
Replies
129
Views
12K
The_goggles_do_nothing
T
Solver
Millennia: Age of Verbosity [long-form review]
Replies
13
Views
936
Taefin
Taefin
Hinin
  • Locked
  • Poll
[Vote] (6-49) Unique Improvement Enhancements Reworks
2 3
Replies
54
Views
4K
pineappledan
pineappledan
Top Bottom