4,99$ For Babylon

How much more was the special version in the UK as the Bab dlc is only 2.99 from steam here.. Does the special version have other in game extras? I always thought the idea of pre odering was to get a decent discount not pay more..
 
Valkrionn said:
Or content that would not have been made otherwise. Did you even read my point? :p

Babylon is an example of a preorder bonus, more than DLC... A tradition going back FAR longer than DLC, yet still quite strong. And even less of a problem, IMO (though the GameStop extras tend to annoy me; Should be for all preorders, not from one damn store); Preorders allow the company to recoup some of the costs during development. There is a long period of time where you are pouring money into the game and not getting anything out of it; Preorders help with that.

So no, Babylon is not an example of DLC done poorly. It is an example of a preorder bonus used to gain some early profits. The first 'true' DLC for Civ5 would be the Mongols... Which are free.
Click to expand...

Moderator Action: *snip* no trolling here.
 
Judging from the responses here you'd think people were being forced to buy the DLC with a high-caliber handgun aimed squarely at their prefrontal cortex.

Anyway, I'd buy it if it was 5 civs for the current price tag.
 
I think that the price is good if we can play it in MP. Otherwise I am playing by myself against another AI that needs a bit more fine tuning. So does the $5 DLC allow you to play online with it? If it doesn't then I think $5 may be a bit much for a single player DLC.
 
The worth of a new civ for me is about 1$, max.

As many have stated, expansion packs used to provide a lot more bang for your buck. I'm not sure why people accept so readily to pay so much more for something which they used to get for a lot less. I just know that as long as people just blindly choose to do so, we're not going to get more respect as customers. I guess we don't deserve it either for being such (insult here)
 
I'm a bit disappointed in that paid bonuses. I understand there is much work on leaderheads but I prefer static portrait and working new civ build-in to vanilla Civ5. I regret I bought Civ5 because of that. I'm not going to pay extra for any nice looking leaderhead and I'm going to pirate next Civ6 game.
 
If you think that Civ 5 is a bad design, then it doesn't do any good to complain about DLC.
I'm pretty sure DLC is marketed towards people who actually enjoyed the game and are willing to spend money to expand it.
They obviously aren't releasing DLC to try to change the opinions of people who just hate hate hate Civ 5.
Some people are just impossible to please. If you are one of these people, it doesn't do any good to whine about it.
 
I enjoy game quite well but I would like to enjoy it fully, and because of my very few funds I won't be able to :[
 
MasterDinadan said:
If you think that Civ 5 is a bad design, then it doesn't do any good to complain about DLC.
I'm pretty sure DLC is marketed towards people who actually enjoyed the game and are willing to spend money to expand it.
They obviously aren't releasing DLC to try to change the opinions of people who just hate hate hate Civ 5.
Some people are just impossible to please. If you are one of these people, it doesn't do any good to whine about it.
Click to expand...

Oh boy I hope you are sooo terrible wrong about that.

Well. I'm actually quite sure you are wrong. :crazyeye:
 
Maybe if the leaderhead voice-overs weren't minimal and repetitive ... the animations and artwork are nice enough although the range of emotions and facial expressions is limited. Civ3 had the best leaderheads in the entire Civ series IMO - the leaders actually changed appearance as they progressed through the ages (Montezuma had a bowler hat and suit in the industrial age for example) and used age-appropriate dialogue. By comparison both Civ4 and Civ5 are greatly inferior. Firaxis please take note for future versions of Civ.
 
Horizons said:
Maybe if the leaderhead voice-overs weren't minimal and repetitive ... the animations and artwork are nice enough although the range of emotions and facial expressions is limited. Civ3 had the best leaderheads in the entire Civ series IMO - the leaders actually changed appearance as they progressed through the ages (Montezuma had a bowler hat and suit in the industrial age for example) and used age-appropriate dialogue. By comparison both Civ4 and Civ5 are greatly inferior. Firaxis please take note for future versions of Civ.
Click to expand...
Hah. You and I seem to be of a dying breed. I miss change-over-time as well as throne room feature greatly :old:
 
wow i totally forgot in older civs you BUILT your palace/throne over time, WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT!? i loved that :(
 
guspasho said:
Would you pay $500 for Civ5? More? At the rate of the DLC that you are so obsessively defending that's how much Civ5 would cost. But hey, it's less than a month's rent, and you'll be playing it for years! So it's comparable!
Click to expand...

No. Civ5 only costed you $50 or so dollars unless you got the Deluxe Edition like I did for the soundtrack and bonus civilization, in which case you was just doing it to be doing it. Besides, given the amount of time I've A.) Used the DLC and B.) Listened to the soundtrack, I've easily gotten my $10's worth for both. The thing about it is that you don't need to get the DLC. It doesn't fix anything in-game so it isn't a patch.

It's completely optional. But I really wish people don't resort to strawmen so quickly since Babylon.

It's not comparable to a month's rent in that case because A.) It's $5, not $500 and B.) You're not paying for DLC forever. You didn't even need to buy it. You have to pay rent for the building you live in unless you're living with someone who doesn't mind you not paying rent or helping out around the building.

Again, DLC for the cost of two cokes which, like the two cokes, is completely optional.
 
I don't mind upgrades, but civ V sux the wa it came out....how many of these things are we gonna have to buy every time they fix or make something better ?
 
I don't think Civ V is that bad, maybe because it seemed bit easier than predecsorrs, and we only going to probably have ONLY ONE paid civ, (Babylon) because Mongolia is free. Patches are also Free. Though I do notice that lately most of the games seem to be extremly buggy. (Sims, New Vegas, Civ V).
 
bought it - no choice- babylon

you have to have babylon or its not civ

in so far as money

"when i was young i used to think money was everything- now that i am older i know it is"

oscar wilde

the evidence is clear- My Mom will say "What's this 5 dollars to "Steam" on my Visa? " and i will say
"some chess program thing"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
[BNW] Byblos? Babylon?
Replies
0
Views
306
Draynul
D
mastrude
Civ V Calculator Nerds
Replies
0
Views
334
mastrude
mastrude
The_J
Can you make an anti-imperial empire game? The 4Xperts behind Civilization, Syphilisation and Victoria 3 discuss eXperimental 4X design
Replies
5
Views
2K
martindo
M
Moff Jerjerrod
Early access games, smash and grab or legit vehicle for independent developers?
Replies
11
Views
434
Moff Jerjerrod
Moff Jerjerrod
C
[BNW] Unlock existing UU & UB for an existing civ ( especially shoshone pathfinder )
Replies
4
Views
289
Caocao84
C
Top Bottom