I'd say this is a bit of a problem with the game in general... Roll up a completely random game, "Oh I got India, guess I'm going cultural" "Oh I rolled up Siam, guess I'm going diplomatic". I mean, you don't have to, but each civ has an obvious victory it seems to be geared for. Then you set yourself for this from turn 1 and ride that boat 'til it succeeds or fails.
DLC Model Discussion
- Thread starter Camikaze
- Start date
I'd say this is a bit of a problem with the game in general... Roll up a completely random game, "Oh I got India, guess I'm going cultural" "Oh I rolled up Siam, guess I'm going diplomatic". I mean, you don't have to, but each civ has an obvious victory it seems to be geared for. Then you set yourself for this from turn 1 and ride that boat 'til it succeeds or fails.
apocalypse105
Deity
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,705
Lol ghandi can actually be good for a domination victory because you have less hapiness in general
Ghandi is olso good in general for space race SO...
Siam bonusses are good and you can play siam like you want space race culture or domination if you like just make sure you use city states in you're strategy
Dont know what you are talking about you can play with every civ how you want
I didn't deny that.
I can also win a one-city challenge in Civ or finish Super Mario 1 avoiding all the power-up mushrooms.
I think DLC maintains the game alive and it provides the necessary funds to allow developers to continue patching the game.
IMO Civ 5 was rushed and the layoffs before the release didn't help so much. I guess the "release and incomplete product, get money and then patch the game" is a normal practice nowadays in PC games. I think consoles have ruined the PC market and practices but nothing can be done regarding this.
Given the number of hours I've played this game, I don't consider DLC pricey. Going to a cinema or a pub is more expensive, if you consider the money you pay for the time you enjoy.
As a hardcore Civ gamer, if Firaxis would need to make a campaign such as "save Civ from bankrupt", I would pay to save the franchise I've enjoyed so much for decades!
IMO Civ 5 was rushed and the layoffs before the release didn't help so much. I guess the "release and incomplete product, get money and then patch the game" is a normal practice nowadays in PC games. I think consoles have ruined the PC market and practices but nothing can be done regarding this.
Given the number of hours I've played this game, I don't consider DLC pricey. Going to a cinema or a pub is more expensive, if you consider the money you pay for the time you enjoy.
As a hardcore Civ gamer, if Firaxis would need to make a campaign such as "save Civ from bankrupt", I would pay to save the franchise I've enjoyed so much for decades!
sleepysteve
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2010
- Messages
- 47
I voted have Civ5 and havent bought any DLC. I hate the model it is not in the best interest of the consumer, Regardless of the economic climate. I will not buy this DLC, only a proper expansion pack, with similar price and content as bts. I refuse to be used as a "cash cow". ALthough my personal efforts are futile as its far too late to turn around the trend im afraid.
I can't hear this nonsense anymore.
They want to sell DLC so they need to patch the main game, which was in a horrible state, not the other way around.
DLC isn't a physical neither a stand alone product, you still need the main program otherwise it's useless.
If you don't like the main game, the mechanics won't change, than DLC isn't relevant.
Supporting a serie which is nearing its end, is as bad as the european leaders do trying to save (corrupt) Greece.
Timothy001
Optimal Сasual Dating - Real-life Females
I have almost all the DLCs. Did not get the cradle of civ maps, no interest. However, have the rest. I buy them as funds permit. I am on a very tight budget, and have very little spare cash. I know that $5-$7 is not alot, but I need to buy a VISA gift card to purchase DLCs, as my credit is shot (I have been predeclined for all major credit cards). Paying bills, and supporting my family take priority. Having to put $25 on a card is not a luxury I normaly have. So I look carefully at each DLC, and then decide.
jtb1127
Deity
You know you could compile that change and buy something of better value.
edit: 1500th post
apocalypse105
Deity
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,705
If greece falls the euro falls...
Back on topic : They should fix the game before they add DLC's. Because if the core gameplay isn't fixed then why should we buy new contents?
sleepysteve
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2010
- Messages
- 47
Great point right here
turtlefang
Warlord
- Joined
- May 9, 2011
- Messages
- 155
There a couple of points that I either don't understand or people seem to be missing or I'm missing:
1) No one has to buy any DLC AND you can pick and chose the one or ones you buy. In my case, I ended up waiting a little while and bought them for less when STEAM bundle them because I didn't have to have them immediately.
2) Fortunately, I'm not on a budget, so I can purchase what I want especially when it comes to computer games. So I do have the luxury of being able to buy just about anything I want to buy when it comes to expansions or DLCs. However, I haven't brought all the DLCs, just the ones that interest me. Anyone can do that. The company will track who sells and what doesn't and tailor future releases to what sells.
3) Given that a DLC cost about what a cup of Starbucks cost, all the DLCs together cost a heck of lot less that what it cost to take my wife and myself to a movie - if I get more than 90 minutes worth of play time from one either via discussion on this forum via comments from me (which usually aren't too bright) or reading some insightful comments from you or play time, I'm way ahead of the game as far as getting good value for buck. And at the end of the day, that's what counts.
4) Would I buy an expansion? It depends on what's in it. I would guess yes but I would, most likely, wait and see what kind of comments I would see about it first.
In any case, if you feel the DLCs are overpriced, don't purchase it. I don't purchase ones that I don't have an interest in. Having managed programmers (not for gaming but other stuff), I can guarantee it takes more than five minutes to produce this stuff and they're not becoming millionaires off selling DLCs.
But I do know that the DLCs I purchase represent a good value for me - I get more than an hour and half of entertainment out of each of them, and at $5 or so, that the cheapest entertainment that I get anywhere these days. And that the way I judge purchases of computer games - do I get enough entertainment value out of the money I put out? If yes, its a good purchase. If no, then its a bad purchase. And its ranked against all my other entertainment purchases.
And as a note, if I didn't enjoy the core game, as someone noted, then I wouldn't even consider purchasing a DLC.
1) No one has to buy any DLC AND you can pick and chose the one or ones you buy. In my case, I ended up waiting a little while and bought them for less when STEAM bundle them because I didn't have to have them immediately.
2) Fortunately, I'm not on a budget, so I can purchase what I want especially when it comes to computer games. So I do have the luxury of being able to buy just about anything I want to buy when it comes to expansions or DLCs. However, I haven't brought all the DLCs, just the ones that interest me. Anyone can do that. The company will track who sells and what doesn't and tailor future releases to what sells.
3) Given that a DLC cost about what a cup of Starbucks cost, all the DLCs together cost a heck of lot less that what it cost to take my wife and myself to a movie - if I get more than 90 minutes worth of play time from one either via discussion on this forum via comments from me (which usually aren't too bright) or reading some insightful comments from you or play time, I'm way ahead of the game as far as getting good value for buck. And at the end of the day, that's what counts.
4) Would I buy an expansion? It depends on what's in it. I would guess yes but I would, most likely, wait and see what kind of comments I would see about it first.
In any case, if you feel the DLCs are overpriced, don't purchase it. I don't purchase ones that I don't have an interest in. Having managed programmers (not for gaming but other stuff), I can guarantee it takes more than five minutes to produce this stuff and they're not becoming millionaires off selling DLCs.
But I do know that the DLCs I purchase represent a good value for me - I get more than an hour and half of entertainment out of each of them, and at $5 or so, that the cheapest entertainment that I get anywhere these days. And that the way I judge purchases of computer games - do I get enough entertainment value out of the money I put out? If yes, its a good purchase. If no, then its a bad purchase. And its ranked against all my other entertainment purchases.
And as a note, if I didn't enjoy the core game, as someone noted, then I wouldn't even consider purchasing a DLC.
dlc vs expansion
Basically I like the dlc-idea.
As long as dlc is "fancy" stuff - like civs, scenarios, maps, etc. - I see no problem.
But I doubt whether features of a dlc should be available in the basic civ though - like the wonders of the wotaw, because the line between additional and core game features gets blurred.
Expansions would guarantee that all players having the expansion have the same game, while different dlcs don't.
MP might become very complicated: player A having dlc a, d player B c, d and player C b, c.
Another point is the price-policy. Maybe much cheaper dlc would make a lot more players buy it.
I wish the devs would focus on improving the game instead of bringing out new dlc.
Basically I like the dlc-idea.
As long as dlc is "fancy" stuff - like civs, scenarios, maps, etc. - I see no problem.
But I doubt whether features of a dlc should be available in the basic civ though - like the wonders of the wotaw, because the line between additional and core game features gets blurred.
Expansions would guarantee that all players having the expansion have the same game, while different dlcs don't.
MP might become very complicated: player A having dlc a, d player B c, d and player C b, c.
Another point is the price-policy. Maybe much cheaper dlc would make a lot more players buy it.
I wish the devs would focus on improving the game instead of bringing out new dlc.
DLC's give them a good reason to keep patching.
If I'm indirectly subsidizing free to all patches with DLCs, I'm fine with that.
One of the problems with Civ games is that they are often left with a lot of bugs, and the old 'expansion pack' model is problematic in that there's 3 times the publisher can get money from you.
The 1st sale , 1st expansion and 2nd expansion, there's also milking sales from gold editions and final editions, but those tend to be well after support has ceased . So their budgeting becomes heavily reliant on those cashflows and you'll notice lots of activity around release and then a quick drop off soon after, only to build up again for the next expansion and so on.]
If DLC's can smooth over those periods of low activity and extend the tail on patching, I'm all for it.
I mean the DLC stuff are optional and will likely eventually come out with a gold edition anyways.
If I'm indirectly subsidizing free to all patches with DLCs, I'm fine with that.
One of the problems with Civ games is that they are often left with a lot of bugs, and the old 'expansion pack' model is problematic in that there's 3 times the publisher can get money from you.
The 1st sale , 1st expansion and 2nd expansion, there's also milking sales from gold editions and final editions, but those tend to be well after support has ceased . So their budgeting becomes heavily reliant on those cashflows and you'll notice lots of activity around release and then a quick drop off soon after, only to build up again for the next expansion and so on.]
If DLC's can smooth over those periods of low activity and extend the tail on patching, I'm all for it.
I mean the DLC stuff are optional and will likely eventually come out with a gold edition anyways.
Weird that it is so difficult for the actual people who programmed the game to do what us amatuer modders do all the time.
Considering they sold over 1 million units in the first year that means if 1 in 5 buy DLC @ $5 each they indeed are becoming millionaires.
To those who argue they should patch the game first the reason is the same. It takes a long time to patch. Reworking any AI is a mission with no end and balance changes are time intensive to test.
My problem is that the DLC they are releasing is akin to buying a cool sword for an online RPG. I am sorry but that is a waste of money. The content is easy to generate and should be offered for free as an award for achievements like Team Fotress 2.
You can make the argument that you get xx hours of fun from it but I counter that argument with I will still play Diablo 2 or Warcraft III on Bnet for free after having played for 1000's of hours for FREE. Unless your content is so amazing and difficult to create you should be offering it for free because if not the games I will be playing are from companies who know how to release a product when it is finished not when an arbitrary date on a calendar rolls around and has content that is free and not costing me 50%+ of what I paid for the game.
I still play Civ and yes it is a good game but when you are standing on the shoulders of giants you shouldn't be shorter.
jtb1127
Deity
People actually do HAVE to buy the DLC, due to the fact that it is so much more profitable. This means there are no other options.
If you don't spend ever spare dime you get, as you find it, then you can save up for something worth more and of better value. Like an expansion pack.
If you analyze the price of previous expansions, and the actual base game, then you'll see that the "for the price of lunch" analogy does not work.
jabbawackybacky
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 116
In theory DLC might be cool but the price seems above and beyond the actual labor value. I can get civs, wonders and scenarios on this forum for free, no? So why pay $7 or whatever it costs? It's not like the quality on their civs is so much higher. I only got the Inca/Spanish because they seemed to have a good play style, but the DLC model is underwhelming over all.
The main thing is that expacs are similarly overpriced but give you more value nonetheless since it adds other features that the DLC doesn't. And if you buy all DLCs you're paying the same that you would for an expansion even though there is still less content in it.
The main thing is that expacs are similarly overpriced but give you more value nonetheless since it adds other features that the DLC doesn't. And if you buy all DLCs you're paying the same that you would for an expansion even though there is still less content in it.
Chong Warrior
Chieftain
The current DLC model shows a lack of respect for customers and it obviously trying to milk them for every penny possible. I refuse to buy any of them as they offer such poor VFM.
£2.99 to play as another Civ.... really???
I bought Civ V on launch and it was an unplayable mess giving me a couple of very frustrating weeks of gameplay in return for my £30. So frustrating I stopped playing and after reading forums so did a LOT of other people. I have only very recently started playing it again after seeing several patches released and it's now where it should have been when released, a whole year later
Yet they still released DLC for extra money before fixing the game to a level it was even playable... I'm sorry but that is unforgivable.
Won't be getting any more of my money for a looong time, if ever.
£2.99 to play as another Civ.... really???
I bought Civ V on launch and it was an unplayable mess giving me a couple of very frustrating weeks of gameplay in return for my £30. So frustrating I stopped playing and after reading forums so did a LOT of other people. I have only very recently started playing it again after seeing several patches released and it's now where it should have been when released, a whole year later
Yet they still released DLC for extra money before fixing the game to a level it was even playable... I'm sorry but that is unforgivable.Won't be getting any more of my money for a looong time, if ever.
Just look at Deus Ex:Human Revolution and Dead island. They were released a few days ago and already there are DLC planned for october. It's almost as bad as "day 1" DLC. Dead Island launch on PC was hilariously bad and they have the guts to create downloadable crap for it. They just removed that content from the final version so they can milk fans. And the worst thing - a lot of people will buy it. And publishers will continue to do that.
ohioastronomy
King
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 714
Game makers were providing patches, and free content updates, for a very long time before the idea of milking the customers for DLC.
Why did they do this? Because they wanted people to buy the next game in the series. Because they wanted to develop a loyal fan base.
Now they have a bunch of people who will throw a lot of extra money at them for very few hours of value. I don't blame them for taking advantage of these people, but I do blame people for defending their greed.
If they didn't have DLCs they'd still be patching the game, because it would hurt sales of their future games if they didn't. They'd be giving the civs away - or people would be modding them in. And the scenarios and gameplay changes would be showing up in an expansion - notice that there hasn't been a peep from them on that front?
It's not a coincidence that the companies heavily invested in DLC have seen a marked drop in quality (Bioware, Firaxis) and a steep drop in customer loyalty. Both companies had a fierce cadre of loyalists, and in both cases a lot of long-time fans are severely alienated.
The suits either didn't count that in their greed, or they didn't care. I'm guessing door #1, but door #2 is certainly possible. In either case, I just will not buy any DLC, for any game. And I'm now becoming reluctant to even buy a game that will include DLCs in the future, unless it has sterling reviews from veteran players.
Why did they do this? Because they wanted people to buy the next game in the series. Because they wanted to develop a loyal fan base.
Now they have a bunch of people who will throw a lot of extra money at them for very few hours of value. I don't blame them for taking advantage of these people, but I do blame people for defending their greed.
If they didn't have DLCs they'd still be patching the game, because it would hurt sales of their future games if they didn't. They'd be giving the civs away - or people would be modding them in. And the scenarios and gameplay changes would be showing up in an expansion - notice that there hasn't been a peep from them on that front?
It's not a coincidence that the companies heavily invested in DLC have seen a marked drop in quality (Bioware, Firaxis) and a steep drop in customer loyalty. Both companies had a fierce cadre of loyalists, and in both cases a lot of long-time fans are severely alienated.
The suits either didn't count that in their greed, or they didn't care. I'm guessing door #1, but door #2 is certainly possible. In either case, I just will not buy any DLC, for any game. And I'm now becoming reluctant to even buy a game that will include DLCs in the future, unless it has sterling reviews from veteran players.
