4,99$ For Babylon

[Pangur Bán]

Yes, Firaxis did you a favour by not forcing you to buy something you didn't want.

I think he probably wants the extra civ. That wasn't his point. He believes the company are chopping up their product to screw him out of more money ... he is perfectly entitled to feel that way. The belief that this is an extra thing that wouldn't be available otherwise is without basis, extremely unlikely [for a variety of reasons that can be found in this thread] and can be dismissed as run-of-the-mill self-defeating fanboism.

 

[Valkrionn]

Yes, Czacki, Blizzard is such an exceptional company that they are splitting Starcraft 2 into three separate games! One per faction! Yep, that is an awesomely great way to provide free content!

No content in Civ5 was deliberately cut. I have said that many times.

 

[Pangur Bán]

No content in Civ5 was deliberately cut. I have said that many times.

And you have never said this on any basis. It was split in order to encourage the sales of certain distributor-specific "Deluxe Editions", but now sold separately to cream the left over bonus money from others who bought different forms of the game.

 

[Valkrionn]

Calgacus, I have all the basis in the world to say that.

I watched Civ5 be developed. I was a part of that, for nearly a year.

I know exactly what was cut. I know what was discarded. And I know that the DLC civs were not 'cut' from the game; They simply did not exist when the game shipped.

The plan for them did, yes. But implementing/balancing them before the game shipped would not have been possible; People seem to expect that dozens of people were working on this game. There were not.

I cannot, and will not, say more. Just let me reiterate: No civ was "cut" from the game after they were finished, simply to make money.


And if you wish to complain about DLC further, take it to 2k. Firaxis had no choice in the matter.

 

[Valkrionn]

And now I see your edit.

Calgacus, offering Babylon for free, after those who purchased the Deluxe Edition for $10 more, would be an incredibly bad thing to do. It would piss off the diehard fans who preordered, and it would set a precedent that preordering is pointless as you get the bonus for free just a short time after release.

Preorder bonuses are a part of nearly every game. Why? Because preorders allow the company to recoup some of the development costs earlier. That's a very good thing; Games take years to make, during which time they make absolutely no money, yet cost millions.

Their choices as to what to do with Babylon consisted of A) Allow those who did not preorder the game to purchase it separately, or B) Those who did not preorder are flat out of luck and will never be able to use Babylon.

Many games go with B. Many players are thankful Firaxis did not.

 

[Frasco]

For 1 civilization?Really?How greedy are they?Unfinished game+overpriced DLC...
I've got an idea!They should release patches for money.9,99% for 10 fixes in a patch

If you are aware that the complete game is US$49.99, then Babylon is worth a 10% of the game. Or is it not?

 

[Pangur Bán]

Calgacus, offering Babylon for free, after those who purchased the Deluxe Edition for $10 more, would be an incredibly bad thing to do. .

I agree. The badness however had already been done by splitting it up in the first place.

And if you wish to complain about DLC further, take it to 2k. Firaxis had no choice in the matter.

Take-Two Interactive are responsible. Firaxis are but a familiar trusted front, as are 2k. Similarly, I suspect Shafer was put in charge of Civ 5 because as a new man he is inherently easier to "advise".

 

[Valkrionn]

Calgacus, to be perfectly honest I hate preorder bonuses of that nature. Far more than I dislike DLC.

However, it's a fairly vital part of the game. And there is very little you can do with a preorder bonus for a digital download that does not involve special content.

 

[Arsenic Steel]

I know exactly what was cut. I know what was discarded. And I know that the DLC civs were not 'cut' from the game; They simply did not exist when the game shipped.

Yay no code for a civ was cut from a beta version but what about planning and development, as a test you must be privy to all the decision making that went on with civ V. All you know is what has been coded not why or if content was cut, divided, segmented, or did not exist prior to the build you access.

 

[shadowplay]

Tell you what, I'll pay $4.99 for one civ if they release a free civ simultaneously every time. I see some value in that.

 

[Valkrionn]

Yay no code for a civ was cut from a beta version but what about planning and development, as a test you must be privy to all the decision making that went on with civ V. All you know is what has been coded not why or if content was cut, divided, segmented, or did not exist prior to the build you access.

The testers were a major part of the planning for civ abilities. There is a very good reason it is such a small community of people, a large percentage of which are modders; We openly discussed the design and helped brainstorm. Of course, Firaxis chose what to use and what to ignore, but yes, we were privy to the full design process for the civs.

Meaning that actually, we did indeed know what was planned, why it was planned, why items were removed, etc.

 

[Guardian_PL]

The testers were a major part of the planning for civ abilities. There is a very good reason it is such a small community of people, a large percentage of which are modders; We openly discussed the design and helped brainstorm. Of course, Firaxis chose what to use and what to ignore, but yes, we were privy to the full design process for the civs.

Meaning that actually, we did indeed know what was planned, why it was planned, why items were removed, etc.

And by saying this, you also say that there was no chance that someone up on the decision ladder had dismissed half of your ideas and "designed" some of oh-the-awesomely-balanced stuff (like Mongol UU for instance) on his own?

Betatesters are important, but I don't think that they can make ANY decisions except whether to say to "excuse me, this feature in its current state will be bad because xxx" to the dev or not.

 

[Valkrionn]

Of course. We're testers.

My point was that I was aware of the design, and that we all provided feedback on it.

Also keep in mind: The Mongols are not so OP in and of themselves, it is more that mounted units in general are OP.

 

[Manifold]

i would buy the babylon civ, if they give me a hard-copy on cd/dvd.

btw dont know how to win against the Keshiks without forest. IMO the best unit till yet.

 

[Valkrionn]

Keshiks are pretty strong, yeah.

More a symptom of general mounted unit OPness, though. Nerf them all, not just the Mongols, IMO.

 

[ThERat]

The testers were a major part of the planning for civ abilities. There is a very good reason it is such a small community of people, a large percentage of which are modders; We openly discussed the design and helped brainstorm. Of course, Firaxis chose what to use and what to ignore, but yes, we were privy to the full design process for the civs.

Most likely you can't answer this, but did the testers also discuss about the many flaws and issues there are in the game?

Adding more Civ to a game with broken core mechanics doesn't make much sense to me. Maybe some people would be glad to part with their money but I certainly won't. Fix the issue with core elements before throwing more eye candy and extra's at us.

 

[Valkrionn]

We did, and I can't discuss that topic further.

Think about it this way, though; Developing a DLC civ will highlight a new playstyle, yes? Those playstyles may well be OP/broken at the time of DLC development (As with mounted units for the Mongols); If so, this guarantees a huge amount of testing in that specific area, many ideas on how to change it, AI improvements to cope, etc. It's not necessarily a "Fix or DLC" choice; They can often work hand in hand.

 

[ThERat]

True, DLC (or say UU) development could highlight more balance issues as in this case with mounted units. However, warfare and the inability for the AI to cope with 1upt is only 1 part of a much bigger problem.

The many problems discussed at length elsewhere do require ,as someone called it, a 'miracle patch'.
I can only hope that the developers are open to the criticism (never an easy task) and realize the deep rooted frustration of many hardcore civfantics with the state of the game. I dare say, many have moved on (or back) to other games already.

 

[Valkrionn]

They are aware of complaints. They have people check forums, and the testers have raised many of the issues as well.

 

[Manifold]

I can only hope that the developers are open to the criticism (never an easy task) and realize the deep rooted frustration of many hardcore civfantics with the state of the game. I dare say, many have moved on (or back) to other games already.

What? Are there other games? You dont mean some real time heart attack causing clicking challenges, or?