Korea and Ancient Wonders DLC Video!

150$??? even if somehow they release dlc's that add up to 150$, theyre only asking for a few bucks for THEIR time and effort (Yes, They have job like the rest of the world). 5 bucks at MOST per DLC every 2-4 months adding up to 150$ isnt bad man.

Actually it's quite terrible for a non-mmorpg.

People are talking about value per $, and it's just not there with this DLC.
After the next DLC, we're at nearly $50 in DLC. It's not a stretch to think they could hit $150. Also keep in mind, for civ 5, if it's successful at $5, maybe for Civ 6, they're going to see if they can get away with $7 per civ. DLC is a horrible cycle of gouging the customer. Most DLC for a lot of games is extremely trivial, and they make a killing on it. What exactly has been added for Korea or any civ?
Leader Art
Art for any unique units/buildings/improvements
a little bit of unique code for those special items (which more or less copy/pasting the similar one and changing a couple values)
and...?
How long do you really think that takes? Especially after they've done it so many times at this point and probably have it down to a very efficient process.

Look at the bloody wonder DLC. $5 for 3 pieces of art, and 3 minor code changes
I'm guessing that it was knocked out in less than a week by a very tiny group of people (perhaps even just 2 an artist and a coder). This is exactly the kind of DLC that should be 99 cents at best.

Has anyone ever seen any sales data on DLC sales? This is something that they should be providing since it has an impact for Multiplayer. You can't play it if you don't all have it, and I'd hate to buy a DLC for multiplayer only to find out very few people have it.
 
I don't really care much for Sumeria and especially Gilgamesh, who's barely historical. To me, they're the prototypical civ with an extinct language. Hittite interests me more since they have the earliest attested Indo-European language and fought Egypt to a standstill at Qadesh. Leader for Sumeria should be someone like Ur-Nammu, or Gudea. Leader for Hittite is definitely Suppiluliuma, the greatest king.
 
UA: Scholars of the Jade Hall (Never Shown)
- Extra Science from all specialists and GP Tile Improvements
- Science boost each time a science building or wonder is built in capital

Wow that is overpowered.
 
At 7.49 for both DLC... nothing will stop me from getting challenged with more Wonders in the Ancient Era, adding a slick Ying_Yang logo to civs pool diversity and enjoying these complex scenarios. Thanks to the OP for the teaser Videos.
Good job, Firaxis.

(PS; Organic greens for a new Z-UI -- comin' right up once i'm through with Denmark/Korea achievements quest!!)
 
Actually it's quite terrible for a non-mmorpg.

People are talking about value per $, and it's just not there with this DLC.
After the next DLC, we're at nearly $50 in DLC. It's not a stretch to think they could hit $150. Also keep in mind, for civ 5, if it's successful at $5, maybe for Civ 6, they're going to see if they can get away with $7 per civ. DLC is a horrible cycle of gouging the customer. Most DLC for a lot of games is extremely trivial, and they make a killing on it. What exactly has been added for Korea or any civ?
Leader Art
Art for any unique units/buildings/improvements
a little bit of unique code for those special items (which more or less copy/pasting the similar one and changing a couple values)
and...?
How long do you really think that takes? Especially after they've done it so many times at this point and probably have it down to a very efficient process.

Look at the bloody wonder DLC. $5 for 3 pieces of art, and 3 minor code changes
I'm guessing that it was knocked out in less than a week by a very tiny group of people (perhaps even just 2 an artist and a coder). This is exactly the kind of DLC that should be 99 cents at best.

Has anyone ever seen any sales data on DLC sales? This is something that they should be providing since it has an impact for Multiplayer. You can't play it if you don't all have it, and I'd hate to buy a DLC for multiplayer only to find out very few people have it.

"Everything is worth what it's purchaser is willing to pay for it."

The DLC model is a successful business model. If they don't deliver 5 dollars worth of product people will refuse to buy them. The fact is that people want them, and are willing to pay for now. If it hits a point where they price their game out of the marketplace then Civ will be dead. But for now that simply hasn't happened.
 
Probably 'cause it was already frickin' ready when the game came out and should have been in the game to start with! (bla bla insert deluxe edition feud here, let's go reread that thread instead)

That's not really germane to the discussion. My point is, without the scenario, they likely would charge the same price anyway. Most of the cost is in artwork and voice and audio recordings. Therefore, the scenario is a little extra to give more value to the price, not something that increases the price. So it's not worth complaining about the scenario, which can at least be a little fun.
 
Do you know why the Korea civ have science UA?

They are science based because that's the kind of leader that Sejong was. He was very much into academia and in the game that comes across in science generally.
 
"Everything is worth what it's purchaser is willing to pay for it."

The DLC model is a successful business model. If they don't deliver 5 dollars worth of product people will refuse to buy them. The fact is that people want them, and are willing to pay for now. If it hits a point where they price their game out of the marketplace then Civ will be dead. But for now that simply hasn't happened.

That's a false premise. There are many reasons why people might buy something even if they don't feel it's completely worth it. They might buy it:
1 - So they have everything
2 - They play a lot of multiplayer, and don't want to miss any game
3 - They like the franchise and will buy anything civ regardless of the price


The DLC model is a successful business model for the same reason unlockables are a successful gameplay mechanic. It's psychological and they're exploiting that.

They will never price the game out of the marketplace, because the investment for creating DLC is so low as I pointed out above. If a particular map/civ tanks, it's okay because they've made it up 10 times on another one.

Quantity =/= quality and something being popular or successful doesn't mean it's actually good. History is full of examples of things which become popular or successful but which aren't actually good.
 
That's a false premise. There are many reasons why people might buy something even if they don't feel it's completely worth it. They might buy it:
1 - So they have everything
2 - They play a lot of multiplayer, and don't want to miss any game
3 - They like the franchise and will buy anything civ regardless of the price


The DLC model is a successful business model for the same reason unlockables are a successful gameplay mechanic. It's psychological and they're exploiting that.

They will never price the game out of the marketplace, because the investment for creating DLC is so low as I pointed out above. If a particular map/civ tanks, it's okay because they've made it up 10 times on another one.

Quantity =/= quality and something being popular or successful doesn't mean it's actually good. History is full of examples of things which become popular or successful but which aren't actually good.

Actually, you just affirmed my point. The people involved feel that owning a "complete" version is worth paying 7.50 dollars. They feel the product is good as is, like the patching and support and they want to support further additions. And usually, they feel the cost is minimal and they'd rather pay a small amount to refresh and enliven their game then to wait a year for an expansion. In short, DLC is cheap to make, sold at a price point consumers are willing to pay and enhances a game they own and like.

The psychology is the same as those advertisements for knives or food dehydrators, instead of quoting a you a price of 200 dollars they bill it as "Four easy payments of 49.95." People would balk to pay that much money at once but are very willing to pay a small amount up front and incur longer term costs. It's a people thing.

But bottom line, nobody buys DLC unless they think it's "worth" it. You can tell, because those who bought it thought it worth the expense, those who held off didn't. There are all kinds of people on this forum who own all DLCs and many more who refused to buy either Babylon, Polynesia, Danes, etc. If you don't like DLC, don't buy it, you still have the same game you paid for initially (actually, with all the patches it's even better, but I do believe much of their patching should have been done pre-release) and not getting DLC does not cheapen the experience in any way. So pay for what you want and enjoy.
 
Actually, you just affirmed my point. The people involved feel that owning a "complete" version is worth paying 7.50 dollars. They feel the product is good as is, like the patching and support and they want to support further additions. And usually, they feel the cost is minimal and they'd rather pay a small amount to refresh and enliven their game then to wait a year for an expansion. In short, DLC is cheap to make, sold at a price point consumers are willing to pay and enhances a game they own and like.
No you're making a lot of assumptions about what they feel the price is. They might feel the price is high, but their overriding desire to own 100% compels them to pay it. It doesn't mean they feel it's a good value for the money.

The psychology is the same as those advertisements for knives or food dehydrators, instead of quoting a you a price of 200 dollars they bill it as "Four easy payments of 49.95." People would balk to pay that much money at once but are very willing to pay a small amount up front and incur longer term costs. It's a people thing.
That's not remotely the same. It's exactly like the unlockables as I said. They're releasing it in smaller pieces so people feel a need to "collect it", which as we've shown over countless games, gamers like to collect.

But bottom line, nobody buys DLC unless they think it's "worth" it.
Worth it doesn't mean it's a good value for the dollar. You're trying very hard to confuse a number of terms. It being worth it because I want to have 100% doesn't mean I think the particular DLC is actually worth $5, but I need to have it because I need to have 100%.

There are all kinds of people on this forum who own all DLCs and many more who refused to buy either Babylon, Polynesia, Danes, etc. If you don't like DLC, don't buy it, you still have the same game you paid for initially (actually, with all the patches it's even better, but I do believe much of their patching should have been done pre-release) and not getting DLC does not cheapen the experience in any way. So pay for what you want and enjoy.
Actually it does. It creates disparity in multiplayer games, and tiers of players. Rather than the previous model of simply an EP or not, you end up with all these various pieces floating around that everyone has to match, or they can't use them all together in the same game. Instead of just EP yes or no, we've now got to go through this giant list of DLC to see if everyone has it, if not, well I guess we can't all use that one now can we?
 
@ Crossmr

You seem confused, I'll clarify. YOU listed in your earlier post three reasons why people buy the DLC and do not think it is "worth" it. I said that the value they derived from their 5 dollars is not necessarily that they got Korea, but there was something else about the DLC that was worth the money to them. I mentioned some reasons why a person may not think a Korea DLC should be 5 dollars yet still find value in getting it. If that seems like a lot of speculating, please remember it was in response to your hypothetical situations.

Bottom line though, if they paid the five dollars for the DLC it was worth it to them. WHY it was worth it may have nothing to do with their individual liking of a particular DLC, but they paid the money therefore there was value in it for them. That's my point.

As for MP, without DLC you'd never have the option to play those other civs, they wouldn't exist. So you're complaining that the DLC has created a MP disparity, in reality it created an opportunity that wouldn't have been there otherwise. Worst case scenario you will still be able to play with the basic 19 civs, and if everyone paid for one than that civ is also an option. So DLC doesn't harm the multiplayer experience, it creates an opportunity to use new civs in MP games.

There's no such thing as overpriced, at the end of the day. If people are paying for it, then it is properly priced. No one makes people buy the DLC, you can always forebear or simply wait for it to come down to the price you are willing to pay.
 
You seem confused, I'll clarify. YOU listed in your earlier post three reasons why people buy the DLC and do not think it is "worth" it. I said that the value they derived from their 5 dollars is not necessarily that they got Korea, but there was something else about the DLC that was worth the money to them. I mentioned some reasons why a person may not think a Korea DLC should be 5 dollars yet still find value in getting it. If that seems like a lot of speculating, please remember it was in response to your hypothetical situations.
No you seem confused. You seem to think that if people are paying for, "it's a good thing"
The reasons that it might be "worth it" were exactly my point. If people aren't buying it simply because the gameplay experiencing being provided is worth the money paid, then it isn't really worth it, despite them justifying it via another means (collection, fanboyism, everybody's doing it etc) Once again: Popular and successful doesn't mean something is actually of high quality.

Bottom line though, if they paid the five dollars for the DLC it was worth it to them. WHY it was worth it may have nothing to do with their individual liking of a particular DLC, but they paid the money therefore there was value in it for them. That's my point.
Yes, and that's a problem for all gamers and impacts us all. If enough people buy it, not because it's of genuine value, but for other reasons, it creates a DLC spiral which ruins a franchise/game.
 
No you seem confused. You seem to think that if people are paying for, "it's a good thing"
The reasons that it might be "worth it" were exactly my point. If people aren't buying it simply because the gameplay experiencing being provided is worth the money paid, then it isn't really worth it, despite them justifying it via another means (collection, fanboyism, everybody's doing it etc) Once again: Popular and successful doesn't mean something is actually of high quality.


Yes, and that's a problem for all gamers and impacts us all. If enough people buy it, not because it's of genuine value, but for other reasons, it creates a DLC spiral which ruins a franchise/game.

Interesting. You say I'm confused, but you quoted something that never appears in my posts. I never said "it's a good thing", search the previous posts if you're unsure. I said "Everything is worth what it's purchaser is willing to pay" and if you don't want it, you're not forced to get.

Regardless, Pouakai is right. There are lots of DLC RULEZ/SUX threads on the site, this is to discuss Korea and the Wonders.

So let's discuss this particular DLC: Is there anything about this DLC that looks like it is not "actually of high quality?" Sejong looks brilliant, the murals and background are excellent, Korea is a fascinating civ, a science focus should make Korea useful in most situations, and the UUs are pretty cool: I'm looking forward to sending a fleet of turtleships to bombard destroy some enemies.

I would not pay 5 dollars for the Wonders of the Ancient World, but I will pay the 2.50 discounted price. This is because 5 dollars for an interesting and fun-looking civ is worthwhile to me, so given that the discounted price for the wonders is okay by me. In particular I think these three wonders will really diversify game strategy, especially on lower levels where it's possible to get 2-3 early wonders with a little planning. GL became a favorite for the free library, but now Artemis will really stack well with Hanging Gardens and needs to be considered. Further, Bronze Working got a lot more crucial with the Colossus revamp from the last patch AND Zeus. If I were the Mongols I'd consider delaying other aspects of empire building for a while to grab Zeus, then my fast mounted troops will suddenly have a much smaller penalty in city combat and be amazing against city states.

Mausoleum doesn't really interest me, I'd only build it if I had three or more sources of stone/marble in one city. The 100 gold per GP may be nice but it's a GM wonder and it is competing with some excellent wonders around it.
 
Yes, as I initially pointed out, none of the civs, including Korea, are really worth $5. It's just not $5 worth of work for what they've done.

What do you really get with a new civ?
leader art
unique building/unit art
a couple copy/paste code changes (to modify the values for those units)
some voice recording
and that's it.
The game was obviously made with plug and play civs in mind, so there will be very little, if any, code changes to the main game itself.
Other than the higher quality art work, this is all within the realm of a hobbyist modder. Artwork hardly justifies $5.

Will I buy it? Yes, because I want to play as Korea.
Do I think it's a good value? No.
Will I feel good about the purchase? Probably not, I'll feel ripped off, but with either a take or leave it choice..
Hence my point about people buying things for various reasons, some of which may not really make it "worth it" and your using that as justification that this is all a great idea and supporting it is false.
 
Will this be released 11 August Asia time?

p.s. wish the Korean Civ had a UB (like in Civ IV which had the Seowon that replaced the University)
 
Nice, I'm probably going to buy it, but maybe I should wait until I have time to actually play it. But waiting would only save a few bucks, so probably not worth it.
 
I thus far have been disappointed in the lack of a multiplayer option in any of the dlc. I for one am interested in seeing scenario based multiplayer campaigns. I think that the limited scope of dlc campaigns is the perfect platform for multiplayer in civ because they could be completed quicker and would not require you to dedicate a whole day to playing multiplayer.
 
Top Bottom