Win-win? Has it occurred to you that the Core game or expansion might get trimmed back a little and offered as DLC...?
Civilization 5 and DLC
- Thread starter ori
- Start date
Win-win? Has it occurred to you that the Core game or expansion might get trimmed back a little and offered as DLC...?
Ahriman
Tyrant
Has it occurred to you that it probably won't?
Lol I'm enjoying this I hope you are too -- cheers!
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
I hate DLC, its more stuff to download and often content that should have been in the game. The only reason I bought the DLC for Empire: Total War was because
1. It was on sale, 10% off (although that only saved me a pathetic few dollars).
2. There was enough of it and a campaign to make it, as a single pack, a small expansion.
In some cases, like Mass Effect 2, the DLC came out long after I had already played through the game twice and had lost interest. It was also short and was only worth it due to being free (except for the last dlc with a new character which I did buy, though grudgingly, as it had some nice content, though it was still too short).
I also like to uninstall games if I am not going to play the for a long time, but if I have to download a couple of GIGS of DLC I really don't feel like re-downloading that.
1. It was on sale, 10% off (although that only saved me a pathetic few dollars).
2. There was enough of it and a campaign to make it, as a single pack, a small expansion.
In some cases, like Mass Effect 2, the DLC came out long after I had already played through the game twice and had lost interest. It was also short and was only worth it due to being free (except for the last dlc with a new character which I did buy, though grudgingly, as it had some nice content, though it was still too short).
I also like to uninstall games if I am not going to play the for a long time, but if I have to download a couple of GIGS of DLC I really don't feel like re-downloading that.
<< Lemon's "Crackpot theories" snipped. >>
Alright. That's twice, and it will be quite enough.
I'd like to point out that I have raised some concerns and objections, and also defended my position, without personally attacking those who disagree with me, for the simple reason that I don't want this thread closed because of a flame war. The issues and comments raised by everyone are valid, and are potentially good feedback for the developers as PoM and others have indicated earlier.
I am getting fed up with your continued tactic of attacking and belittling everyone who does not share your vision or opinion. You are not omniscient, and the continued harassment and name calling of those who dare to disagree is getting to be more than a little irritating. You're acting like a badly behaved child who didn't get his own way, and was denied his cookie.
Well, you've made your point. We get that you disagree with some of us. We get that you think that you are correct. However, you are not the thread's moderator, it's policeman, and you are not the authority here. You are so sure that I, and a few others are wrong, and stupid, and idiots, and crackpots. Well, what if you're wrong as well? Have you ever thought of the possibility that you know as little as we do, and that you might just have it as wrong as we do? Perhaps we're all wrong. Did that ever occur to you? Could it be conceivable that a "doom and gloom" sayer might at least be partially correct? Would that irrevocably alter the fabric of the time-space continuum? The world won't stop turning if someone aside from you is right about something.
Instead of improving your own self image by abusing people, and reciting the same old tired mantra about how wrong and stupid we all are, why not offer up a decent theory or explanation on why you could be right? Perhaps link some relevant details that prove your point in a constructive manner? Or is this your normal, real life way of solving disputes? Do you smack around your dinner guests who don't care for the salad and are foolish enough to speak up?
There is a time and a place for ridicule, but this isn't it. People are attempting to discuss how they feel about these issues, and why they feel strongly about them. Ok, we get that you don't agree, now back off a little. You're gaining no "street cred" by being abusive and intimidating.
I am not easily intimidated. Now grow up and behave like an adult.
tom2050
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 5,516
@Lemon Merchant
It's obvious there is a double standard here... those that love Steam seem to have the right to attack those that are concerned about the things Steam intrudes on (some which may not even be legal according to the laws of various lands) without needing to provide proof of what they say. But unless we provide proof the strength of wurtzide boron nitride, we are somehow crazy crackpot haters that complain for no reason other than to complain.
It's like some volcano of hell erupted and us hating demons poured out with a misguided wrath because we are worried about Valve data-mining our personal 'aggregate' demographic data off our hard-drives to ad-spam us in the near future, Or letting 3rd party DRM auto-updating our hardware drivers.
I still have yet to hear why they stick up for Huge Greedy (and no not greedy in the sense of making money, I have no prob with that aspect of it) Power and Information hungry companies that want to take away your right to own a product you purchase (and I'm not referring to wanting to own intellectual property). It's almost like people sticking up for power hungry governments. I do respect their opinion though, and even I have been wrong on some accounts, and I am thankful for being pointed in the right direction; even while being called ridiculous names.
It's obvious there is a double standard here... those that love Steam seem to have the right to attack those that are concerned about the things Steam intrudes on (some which may not even be legal according to the laws of various lands) without needing to provide proof of what they say. But unless we provide proof the strength of wurtzide boron nitride, we are somehow crazy crackpot haters that complain for no reason other than to complain.
It's like some volcano of hell erupted and us hating demons poured out with a misguided wrath because we are worried about Valve data-mining our personal 'aggregate' demographic data off our hard-drives to ad-spam us in the near future, Or letting 3rd party DRM auto-updating our hardware drivers.
I still have yet to hear why they stick up for Huge Greedy (and no not greedy in the sense of making money, I have no prob with that aspect of it) Power and Information hungry companies that want to take away your right to own a product you purchase (and I'm not referring to wanting to own intellectual property). It's almost like people sticking up for power hungry governments. I do respect their opinion though, and even I have been wrong on some accounts, and I am thankful for being pointed in the right direction; even while being called ridiculous names.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Calling crackpot theories crackpot is not a personal attack.
Honestly, this just isn't true. Some statements are known to be false incorrect, and are thus less valid. There is a difference between hypothetical situations which haven't been directly ruled out, and spreading rumors which have already been officially debunked. The latter is just irresponsible.
Please read again what you wrote.
Firaxis/2K have SPECIFICALLY STATED that mods will not need to go through Steam, and that they will still be freely tradeable and installable through fansites like CivFanatics for free, just like for Civ4.
So these are not legitimate concerns.
Making these claims is calling the 2K staff who visit these forums outright liars. I don't think that's ok.
Other statements, while I personally think are unlikely, are *not* crackpot. Those are valid comments, whether I agree with them or not. But these? Nope. Sorry.
Don't get defensive when you're called out for deliberately spreading disinformation.
tom2050
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 5,516
Take-2K is not exactly a reputable company who tells the truth all day long to keep their moral values in check. If the publisher had their way, they would have slapped SecuRom onto Civ 5 (we all know they wish they could), because they slapped SecuRom onto Steam on another game. It has to be Firaxis that said no to this...
It's not 2K staff fault they work for such people, but I wouldn't exactly Trust in 2K. I wouldn't trust them to hold onto $10 for me.
It's almost for certain they would love all those things in... especially charging 'handling fees', only they don't because gamers make a huge statement about it saying 'no more'.
It's not 2K staff fault they work for such people, but I wouldn't exactly Trust in 2K. I wouldn't trust them to hold onto $10 for me.
It's almost for certain they would love all those things in... especially charging 'handling fees', only they don't because gamers make a huge statement about it saying 'no more'.
Moderator Action: Please keep it civil - calling other people liars is not keeping it civil
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Drakarska
Epic Dadness
@ Ahriman: Firaxis/2K have SPECIFICALLY STATED that mods will not need to go through Steam, and that they will still be freely tradeable and installable through fansites like CivFanatics for free, just like for Civ4. Would you mind linking to where 2k/Firaxis SPECIFICALLY states that no mods at all will have to go through Steam plz? also, any links stating that Steam will not interfere at all with the modding community? or how about a link to where 2K/Firaxis will guarentee that Steam will not close an account if a mod is different from what Steam wishes to allow?
While you may not consider these legitimate concerns bro, as is your right to do so, not all of us are so trusting as you to take what someone tells us at face value. Especially where monopolies and large sums of money are involved.
In addition, there are actually quite a few valid questions put forth from various members on these boards, includding modders and moderators.
While you may not consider these legitimate concerns bro, as is your right to do so, not all of us are so trusting as you to take what someone tells us at face value. Especially where monopolies and large sums of money are involved.
In addition, there are actually quite a few valid questions put forth from various members on these boards, includding modders and moderators.
Thyrwyn
Guardian at the Gate
There is no way for Company A to guarantee any behavior (or lack thereof) from Company B. They would simply never do it because they have no way to enforce the guarantee. Asking for one is ludicrous. That, by the way, is probably why Steam specifically does not guarantee users' ability to access the games that use Steam - Steam is only the distributor. If they get a court order telling them to discontinue access to some game because some publisher is in legal hot water - they will have to do it.
And exactly what mods do you foresee Firaxis/2k and/or Steam/Valve wanting to police? How would that be profitable to them?
There is no business model under which these concerns make sense. If their goal is to sell games and make money, then:
1) DLC which fractures the community - especially a persistent stream of mini-DLC - does not incentivize the community to purchase the DLC, it dis-incentivizes the purchase of said DLC because it leads to clustering and group spending behavior. That is, spending behavior in which the cluster or group only participates in the spending behavior if everyone in the group or cluster is willing to do so - this invariably leads to fewer purchases.
2) They want us to buy the game. They want us to get our friends to buy the game. They want us to buy the expansions they hope to release later. None of which we will do if we aren't happy with the game in the first place. Their production cost per unit is negligible - their development cost per unit is directly tied to how many units the sell. They have already spent the millions of dollars it took to develop & publish the game. For a niche game like Civ, word of mouth/internet in the weeks after release will make or break them. It is not in their best interest to lie to us or to screw us.
And exactly what mods do you foresee Firaxis/2k and/or Steam/Valve wanting to police? How would that be profitable to them?
There is no business model under which these concerns make sense. If their goal is to sell games and make money, then:
1) DLC which fractures the community - especially a persistent stream of mini-DLC - does not incentivize the community to purchase the DLC, it dis-incentivizes the purchase of said DLC because it leads to clustering and group spending behavior. That is, spending behavior in which the cluster or group only participates in the spending behavior if everyone in the group or cluster is willing to do so - this invariably leads to fewer purchases.
2) They want us to buy the game. They want us to get our friends to buy the game. They want us to buy the expansions they hope to release later. None of which we will do if we aren't happy with the game in the first place. Their production cost per unit is negligible - their development cost per unit is directly tied to how many units the sell. They have already spent the millions of dollars it took to develop & publish the game. For a niche game like Civ, word of mouth/internet in the weeks after release will make or break them. It is not in their best interest to lie to us or to screw us.
I think it depends on what limitations modders will have. One only needs to consider all the phallic creations in Spore to realise that if you give them too much freedom and make modding too easy, you end up having to moderate/police the distribution and access to mods. It depends also on what rating the game has, I suppose.
In some cases, certain mod content might be illegal only in some territories too. A Nazi Germany mod depicting the swastika would not be allowed in Germany, to my knowledge. Even if it technically is allowed, Firaxis would probably take measures to avoid such a thing.
I admit it's hard to speculate what control Firaxis or 2K will need over mods with how little info we currently have, but I'd expect there to be at least some policing they are going to have to do. I'm expecting that mods that can be distributed from the in-game section will need to go through an approval process.
In some cases, certain mod content might be illegal only in some territories too. A Nazi Germany mod depicting the swastika would not be allowed in Germany, to my knowledge. Even if it technically is allowed, Firaxis would probably take measures to avoid such a thing.
I admit it's hard to speculate what control Firaxis or 2K will need over mods with how little info we currently have, but I'd expect there to be at least some policing they are going to have to do. I'm expecting that mods that can be distributed from the in-game section will need to go through an approval process.
I don't believe they *need* to police any mods distributed outside of their control. They say they offer some sort of hub for mods - they will police that, even if just to prevent claims of illegal stuff being distributed via means under their control, but potentially also to prevent infringements on their copyrights. I doubt that they'll force all mods through such a hub though, so those mods won't be controlled.
There are people who fear that since they offer some kinds of DLC that they might end up removing mods from their hub or even generally telling modders to back off if mods are created that come close to official paid for content, or potentially even mods that are created prior to publication of paid for content, but that end up being similar. I doubt they'll do that since I doubt it would be good for business, but I can understand such fears.
There are people who fear that since they offer some kinds of DLC that they might end up removing mods from their hub or even generally telling modders to back off if mods are created that come close to official paid for content, or potentially even mods that are created prior to publication of paid for content, but that end up being similar. I doubt they'll do that since I doubt it would be good for business, but I can understand such fears.
tom2050
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 5,516
Valve has created more than just a distribution service. If you buy a game from a company completed un-related to Valve, and that company uses Steam, Steam specifically guarantees certain behavior on users even though they bought a non-Valve related game. Valve can shut down your account, suspend your account, and all the games on it for almost any reason under the sun; and the actual game developer has NO say in it, can do nothing about it, and probably doesn't care anyways.
Per Valve, putting a picture up with a link to Valve on any Valve related site can get you permanently banned along with all your games. They simply have created themselves this power, and all Steam users are in essence at their mercy.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that if I was the one posing a hypothetical situation, the rules are different. At no time did I say anything about what I was writing was the truth, or known fact, nor was I attempting to begin a campaign of fear mongering. I have repeatedly stated that what I was saying were my own personal feelings, and some concerns that I had about the distribution model. Those were concerns of mine, based on personal experience in dealing with a similar model of marketing, (Cell phones, cable companies, and ISPs come to mind. The product is different, but the end result does not live up to the promises made.), and a recent experience with another digital distribution network.
No. You read it again. I specifically posed those comments as hypothetical scenarios, and how I would feel if they turned out to be true, and why they would cause me not to purchase Civ5, which was on topic. Why is my hypothetical scenario invalid but one that you, or others would pose is not? At the time of my OP, I had not read that particular information from 2K. Ok, fine, you've proven your point. I remain skeptical of the explanation, and so do a number of other people, and they are also voicing concerns. It's our right to be concerned that the distributor may choose to limit the freedoms that we have enjoyed with Civ4. It's our responsibility to voice those concerns in a reasonable manner. I believe that I have done that.
Any concern is legitimate in the proper context. You are cherry picking points from our posts, and to this point, you have outright refused to acknowledge that I have repeatedly stated that my scenario is hypothetical.
Defensive? Hardly. At no time did I spread disinformation. I offered up an opinion, and I have stated so.
Since you're so obsessed with facts, here's some for you:
- I have repeatedly stated that my initial thoughts were conjecture.
- My own personal opinion is that most marketing departments will put the most positive spin on what they sell, in order to get you to purchase their product. For that reason, I am reluctant to purchase Civ5 without knowing more information.
- I do not believe everything that I read.
- I do not expect anyone reading my comments to accept them as fact, when they were offered as a hypothetical situation.
- Nobody, even you, knows any fact about this game as a 100% certainty.
You've been slagging almost everyone who has disagreed with you, and you have chosen to accuse me of fear mongering, and spreading misinformation, clearly without reading anything beyond my initial post. You have selectively quoted me to advance your argument, without acknowledging that I have repeatedly said that my comments were an opinion.
Who is spreading "disinformation" now? Other people can make a valid point, or have an opinion, and not expect it to be accepted as Gospel. Why can't you? If you want to call someone out, please do, but don't quote only the information that supports your position.
And before I log off, don't put words in my mouth. If I want to call someone a liar, I'll use the word. I'm a grown woman, and if I'm wrong, I say that I am. I am not wrong, but I am not exactly right, and you are no different than I am in that regard. If you wish to throw your opinion around, and be the king of all threads and have no one challenge you, feel free, but perhaps you should frequent a forum that hosts discussions for people who like to be controlled and told what to think. They do exist.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Hypothetically, if it turned out that Civ5 was a virus that deleted my entire hard drive and set my computer on fire, I would be against that.
Just my opinion.
Just my opinion.
But it hasn't been. We're talking *one whole civ** being the "deluxe" bonus.
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!
The people posting are absolutely surprised by DLC. DLC is not new however. DLC is a retooled concept that have been around for years in products besides video games. It's the bonus you get when you spend a little extra money. The bottom line however is: You are spending more money to get more stuff (however little it might be useful to you).
The key feature they have all shared isn't price points or content. It's the fact that its optional.
Let's talk about the point's above:
1. "You get less...". Times change. Just look at inflation and money. Money is worth less and less when it rises. Same when the exchange rate fluctuates. Nobody has ever promised you that you would get more. Look at game sequals, its the same rehash of the same thing with just new terrain or maps. No new ideas, no new innovations. Few games these days change dramatically. Either companies stick to money making formulas or they fold because nobody has the courage to try something new. This is how it is in a mature industry. And it will take a new blood to change that.
It's easy to say you get less for video games these days. Manuals are terrible and not helpful except to those who have no clue how to play a video game. There is barely anything else in those DVD boxes. Gone are the days of thick manuals and extras that come with the game. Collectors editions are still around though. People look at $100 Starcraft 2 and they think: $40 bucks for all that? I can buy another game! Its totally not worth it. That's not the point. People will buy it because they believe the game and the company is worth $100. And they can give back in $, and they can get something shiny in return. Its a win win for the consumer and the company. You can tell them off for all they care, they've justified it psychologically however.
Digital products are different of course. Nothing tangible. Ask yourself though, is a manual, a fold out map, and some other things worth the extra cash? Maybe for you, but not for all those other people. It's the same scenario. Those people don't put any value in a manual or map. Why? Because its in the game already. Because its not absolutely required. The only thing required is that the game is solid when they buy it. That's worth $50. This is like debating whether that icecream bar is worth $3 from the ice cream truck. I get satisfaction now, only to realize that it is unhealthy, and that I just spent $3 on icecream when I can buy a bucket full at the supermarket. This is relative stuff guys.
2. "Minimal Content..." I can't disagree here. 1 extra civilization is a tough sell. Note that Pre-orders all get the bonus map pack or whatever that thing is. Digital Deluxe gets the soundtrack and behind the scenes. Back to the content. It's $10 extra for the soundtrack + behind the scenes + extra civilization. Its not just for the civilization. This is where the DLC definition fails. DLC is generally small 1/2 item downloads. It's not a soundtrack. It's not behind the scenes footage like in Starcraft 2. It's not an artbook or anything. The $10 includes all of that. In fact it didn't have to include a bonus civilization. If it didn't, we might not be having this discussion AT ALL. Think about that, $10 for those things without the extra civilization. People would be less up in arms because maybe they think the game is still complete. Again, this isn't DLC.
3. $10 extra has NOTHING to do with the game. What actual product? Software is software. You get a CD. Or you download the installer file to your harddrive. Is $10 worth your harddrive? I assume $10 is worth more than that harddrive. Is the CD worth $10 or $50? No, its worth $.05 cents or less. Its the software that's worth money. Again you confuse $10 getting you 1 extra civ. It gets you a soundtrack + behind the scenes stuff (whatever that is, ie. developer commentary on the choices they made or whatever). See #2.
4. Digital distribution is cheap no doubt. Thousands of business depend on digital distribution for all kinds of products in the world. Game companies do it for patching and trailers. 2K and Fraxis are not pioneers for this concept. Rather than explain the relationship between publishers/retailers and developers/manufacturers I'll just say that because one way is cheaper doesn't mean the product should be sold at the lowest price. You don't know exactly how much money they needed to pay people to make that. Maybe it didn't cost them anything at all. They're following industry pricing anyways.
5. Look, nobody is asking you to buy off of Steam. Just because the game will require Steam doesnt mean you cant BUY it from other places. Look at this on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0..._m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=154AA7NX6GE4379DR1N8
Buy the retail copy of the game. Let marketing and others decide how they want to phrase it. If you want the "extra" civilization, buy deluxe. If you refuse to do so, buy retail. If you are that pissed and want to make all these statements then there is absolutely nothing we can do except encourage you to let it all out on here.
...what mistake? What lesson learned? Of not boycotting Civ5 if they knew ahead of time? And regretful, really?
I remember people ASKING for Civ5 to be sold on Steam. Both sides had their share to say about Steam at that time. Neither did anything wrong or is to blame. The business decision to use Steam was probably made well before the world knew Civ5 was being developed.
tom2050
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 5,516
Then you are against Steam! The truth comes out!
@avs: I was just saying... it's not a Bonus per definition. I agree it's not exactly an UnBonus either; there is no definition really.
It is paying a higher price for the same game with slightly more content which costs the company much less to distribute (compared to retail). Company makes killer profit, and with a title like Deluxe Bonus' they lure players to buy from Steam (I'm sure Valve gets a shake of it). It's a money grab scheme. After all, Take-Two was having financial problems, they need the cash.
deanej
Deity
You really haven't been paying attention. Back then, very few people honestly thought that civ5 would require steam to run. If you did, you would be told, "don't worry, there's no evidence that civ5 will require steam, so therefore it will not require steam". Then came the announcement that civ5 would require steam. I admit, I was among the people saying don't worry. But I learned my lesson then: even if there is no evidence for something, does not mean it won't happen. Now it's the exact same story all over again.
Similar threads
