Do you honestly think there is going to be an expansion?

[Moss]

Moderator Action: Quit with the personal jabs and get back on topic, please.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

The distribution model has changed, get used to it before you lose too much ca$h on either valuable content or on the wait for something "packaged" that somehow feels like a better deal.
Expansions were once known as offering additional gameplay elements or features but as long as they are developing DLC they might as well integrate anything new progressively rather than into a multiple shots (Expansions) to a divided market... 1) early customers that bought full price on release *or* 2) anybody else after that Version 1.0.

So my answer is #3... it's just that the formal "name" Expansion has been somehow diluted into patches & DLC.
Marketers might surprise us though - with a wise trap. Didn't they - always?

 

[Horizons]

does anybody who's been suing the internet for more than 3 months actually use the term "noob" anymore?

Does anybody with more than three braincells actually upload such a cheesy-looking picture and use it for their avatar?

Moderator Action: Don't insult other members.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[awesome]

Does anybody with more than three braincells actually upload such a cheesy-looking picture and use it for their avatar?

.

Moderator Action: I'm fairly certain my warning upthread is visible to everyone. Get back on topic, and please quit the spamming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[kiwitt]

I doubt there will be an expansion pack.

The DLC concept could also work with consoles so when they release CivRev:2 (a.k.a. Civ 5) for X360 and PS3 as they can download the content to the hard drives of these consoles and play against existing PC uses when they release the MP patch.

 

[aatami]

but you get my point. I think DLCs are bad for the players, because some things are kept out of the game to be selled later. things that used to be part of the games. Maybe is because of this that now we classify most of the games as "shallow".

May I remind you, that they added some civs that didn't exist before in civ...
I think it's just stupid to complain about not having 100% the same civs in each game.
In one they have X, in the other they have Y, and you can buy X. Bad? No, just more content.

 

[Kerosene31]

DLC hate is silly. It is just a distribution method. Would people feel any different if you had to go to the store every time a Civ came out? If you hate the price of content, that's fine, but don't hate a distribution method.

As if we haven't had overpriced boxed expansions in gaming for years and years. Warlords was $30 and did not offer me much value for my dollar either.

 

[Fabiano1979]

May I remind you, that they added some civs that didn't exist before in civ...
I think it's just stupid to complain about not having 100% the same civs in each game.
In one they have X, in the other they have Y, and you can buy X. Bad? No, just more content.

Its not only about civs. Its the new market strategy that the DLCs allowed.

As I said, few years ago, the games are released with a lot more carefull attention to detail. because if something went wrong, it was a pain in the ass to fix it.

Now the thinking is "ah lets just put on the market the way it is and later we release a patch".

The producers are way more complacent now.

The same kind of thinking is being used for DLCs. "Lets take this feature out and release later". Most of DLCs, for a lot of diferent games, are not something new, but something that was removed from the vanilla on purpose to sell later.

Another thing I dont like is having lots of versions for the same game. My ciV is not the same of yours. This can create a lot of problems with multiplayer.

 

[Kerosene31]

Yeah because Civ IV never had many patches...

 

[Fabiano1979]

Yeah because Civ IV never had many patches...

Im not talking only about civ.. I dont have the numbers, but Im confident that civ IV did not had the same number of patches than ciV.

But its only my point of view, I dont like spending 59$ on a game that its not finished.

 

[baldfalk]

Older games are much less complex (not talking about game mechanics - everything from graphics subsystems, audio engine, middleware solutions, etc) and have much fewer things that can go wrong.

Even then there are many disastrous titles over the years with game breaking bugs that never, ever got fixed, or have patches which you'd have to wade through a handful of outdated/half-broken pages to get. People generally don't remember them for obvious reasons.

And while we're at it, let me just say I agree. I rarely ever, EVER buy games at $60. Call me a stinge but when you can get games for 1/3 the price in some cases two years down the road, or even less during some of the crazy digital distro blowouts, it's a little bit of excess (for me!) to drop the full $60.

As a result I now have a horsehockyload of games to catch up on, and I'm spending less. By the time I'm done with stuff like Assassin's Creed 1/2(/Brotherhood being a rare exception that I bought for full price) for example, much of the 'current' crop of games would have dropped and I'll have other stuff to play. :V

 

[awesome]

i still don't own civilization 5. i might get it when the game of the year edition comes out in the states, depending on how i feel on any particular day.

 

[Quintillus]

I think there will be an expansion, the sales don't seem to have been too disastrous for Civ5. Whether it will include all the DLC, no idea. I figure that eventually there will be a Complete Edition that will include all DLC, but whether the expansions will bundle the thus-far-released DLC is a different question.

 

[Kerosene31]

Im not talking only about civ.. I dont have the numbers, but Im confident that civ IV did not had the same number of patches than ciV.

 

[Aos Si]

No this game is dead and of course Firaxis will no longer do anything to support this game as this will work well with their plan to dominate the world of stupidity.

Yeah there will be support, there always is. As dumb as some decisions have been by the above, they are not mental.

That said I do have some concerns about the mercenary nature the game has turned to, but meh, people always were able to mod before, if they lose that ability then the game will truly be dead. It's the players that really make up the bulk of why this game has had such enduring support particularly in MP; ignore them and they will truly kill of this game, money or not, they would be idiots to ignore the user base. I guess and am guessing they are not ******ed.

BTW CIV was a collossal pain in the ass for multiplayers and others early on, it got turned around by modability. When you have millions of people working on issues not just one company things work better, it's common sense. Ignore that and you are doomed. People in this game have always had input, if they reduce that they will alienate too many people and it will screw them far worse than anything ever could.

I think eventually DLC will be superfluous, no one wants to play a game where they are always paying and playing to the man, and no one will. Ultimately if that is all that happens most people will leave. It would be moronic therefore to think a company that has thrived for so long is thinking about DLC only. I think they probably are just milking the impatient. I hope so anyway, I have patience but like most people it wont last forever.

 

[gingerbill]

Of course there will be an expansion, there are enough people who will buy it. It would take at least two consecutive awful games for sales to start decreasing markedly. The brand name Civ is still powerful, even after the abortion of a game that was Civ 5.

yet you still check the forums and post about the game ? very strange , why not move on and stop complaining? surely you havent got the time to spend months moaning about something you dont play and dont like? your hyperbolic statements are silly.

i'm sure there will be a data disk , i'm still enjoying the game as it is so i can wait longer. Last patch made the game very good for me.

 

[chasbolt]

Yes of course, but I'm hoping that all those things I don't like in 5 get fixed and they call it 6, make it steamless and PBEM-able. Some of us just keep hoping they'll get it right but for now it sits on my shelf. Maybe they'll fix enough things that I start playing again. I did play for about 2-3 months before NOT. I gave it a decent chance and enjoyed some of the changes, it just got on my nerves all those things I didn't like. No trouble with still best to me; I never went back to any of the other civ games before.

 

[Duuk]

yet you still check the forums and post about the game ? very strange , why not move on and stop complaining? surely you havent got the time to spend months moaning about something you dont play and dont like? your hyperbolic statements are silly.

i'm sure there will be a data disk , i'm still enjoying the game as it is so i can wait longer. Last patch made the game very good for me.

Of course. This isn't Civ5fanatics. It's Civfanatics.

There were YEARS I checked this forum only as a source of discussion for Call to Power 2.

I have yet to purchase Civ5, and probably won't until the GotY edition is $5 in some bin somewhere, but I still check and chat here.

 

[Firvulag]

I must be one of the oddities out there as I enjoy the changes in Civ V and am glad I didn't drop Aus$90 on Civ IV updated. I already own Civ IV, so if I want to play that, I will. Steam says that I've logged 500+ hours on Civ V, so must have something right...

Regarding DLC, I expect that there will be a DLC collection at some point that combines all previously released DLC into a nice bundle at a discount of some sort. I know of a few other things that have done this and it seems to be closer to the old official Expansion model.

I really like being able to get a new Civ every now and then, and wouldn't think that 1 a month would be too tough for them to push out. If they really wanted to milk the users, they'd have 1 out a week. Not like they don't have multiple people that can work on a civ each anyway...

I suspect there will be an expansion pack, though it will likely not include the DLC, or it will be packaged in such a way that the store version is all the DLC and the expansion, and there will be an additional version available on Steam that is just the expansion (as well as the store version).

I suspect that the expansion could easily include a second or third leader for each civ. It'd be nice to actually have a reason for the separate drop downs...

Regarding stuff left out to sell later: Isn't that what lots of us thought of some components of some of the expansions? I think it often comes down to getting it (mostly) right by release date. You either leave out a couple of less important things, delay the release, or release incomplete features. Holding things back for later sale is pretty much the entire point of expansion packs anyway.

 

[Kerosene31]

yet you still check the forums and post about the game ? very strange , why not move on and stop complaining? surely you havent got the time to spend months moaning about something you dont play and dont like? your hyperbolic statements are silly.

i'm sure there will be a data disk , i'm still enjoying the game as it is so i can wait longer. Last patch made the game very good for me.

People just can't resist complaining about DLC. They just feel the need to tell everyone else what they should or should not do.

You have to wonder, are they trying to convince us or themselves?