It helps them collect money, but makes it difficult to make quality product. I would gladly pay $100 bucks for a great Civ game. But I don't even want to look at it until it's finished! I feel duped by playing a Civ game without Ghengis and without Hammarubi! I'm going to be downright angry if a whole bunch more stuff starts coming off the line. It's not even about the money, its about wasting my time! Introducing game content cannot be done in a more crude, unimmersive way than making me buy it after the fact.
This sort of thing happens to creative, art based industries from time to time. They begin to feel that giving people what they want is too difficult, so they then try to control what people want. This is crass marketers intruding upon and defacing our art form. Sell games any way you want, but don't inject this crap into the gameplay!
It's like buying pieces of a song. For now I'll buy the verse, and listen to it over and over. Next month hopefully I can buy the chorus. Wrrrretch.
I won't be buying it.
You would gladly pay $100. I personally would gladly pay even more.
The vast majority, however, would not. That is simple, hard
fact.
Every single time companies try to charge more for their product (even they
need to!) people whine,
, and act like spoiled children.
And then, when companies decide to use DLC to generate that needed extra revenue instead of raising the cost of the base game, they whine just as much! But at least this way
they purchase it.
DLC is not being forced on consumers by publishers. It is being forced on consumers, by consumers. The dollar has dropped in value. Cost of living has gone up. Cost of developing code has gone up (as said code must be ever more complex). Cost of art development has gone up (as the majority of people expect graphics to get better with each new game). Price of games?
Remained the exact freaking same! Why? Because the consumers refuse to pay more. Any company that tries is flamed, their games pirated en masse rather than purchased. Systems managed to raise the price of games to $60 (still not enough, but then, they have DLC too!), as they are generally too much trouble to pirate for. PCs? They can't get away with it.
The only place costs have gone
down is in distribution, thanks to digital distribution methods such as Steam, D2D, Impulse, etc. These systems ARE the way of the future; Brick-and-Mortar gamestores will go extinct (or just be very uncommon, like record stores). It is inevitable (and even a good thing, much as I like boxed editions, as the devs get more money from it this way!). It is still not enough to offset the increased costs.
We cannot have it both ways. We cannot expect games to remain as cheap as they are, and then
and moan about DLC.
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, damnit.
Oh, and feeling 'duped' for buying a game without Hammurabi... I wonder, did you say the same thing when Civilization 4 came out? I seem to recall that it didn't have Hammurabi either.... In fact, neither did Warlords. Took a few years for Hammurabi to show up.
Now, to reiterate
once again:
DLC is not simply because those evil, money grubbing bastards got their hands all over our once-pristine games. It is our own damn fault. We would not pay more for games, would not allow prices to raise to match the higher costs, would not even allow prices to raise due to inflation. WE forced this on THEM just as much as THEY forced it on US.
But I'm willing to bet you will ignore everything I say, and continue on with your opinions, since you are so obviously correct and righteous and I am so obviously not. I do not care, really. I have made my points.
Sigh, no one who already hates DLC is going to listen to me, but here we go anyway:
DLC Civs are NOT a case of breaking a game into bits, selling an incomplete base product, and finally forcing people to buy the missing pieces. The people who complain that CiV is incomplete do so because they think the game mechanics are inherently broken and do not enjoy the game to begin with. (i.e. they are not mad because of the number of Civs in the game) Such people are not the target audience for DLC; only people who enjoy the game and want another Civ to mess around with will buy them.
This leads to another starling fact: no one is forced to buy this DLC. (gasp!) It's optional; if you don't want it, don't buy it. While having "two tiers" of players may cause some multiplayer mishaps at present, it is easily fixable. (considering the other MP issues that need fixing, there will probably be a major path in the future specifically for online-play)
Also, keep in mind that Babylon was basically a $10 deal to begin with, since it was part of the Deluxe Edition. Now, it's half price for those who want it but didn't feel like dropping $60 at launch.
As far as arguments against DLC in general go, I have never come across DLC that was a "missing piece" that was required to have a "complete" game. DLC is extra material that enhances a game, be it extra items, maps, etc. You don't need it to complete or even enjoy a game; it's just a nice bonus you can buy if you choose.
Of course they won't listen. People never do, when they despise something. And in most cases with DLC, they'd honestly be correct to. I have said time and again, bad DLC is
very bad DLC. It can, however, be a very good thing, and even when just 'okay' it can be vital for the developers.
OOS is almost fixed? I think Civ 5 just got a serious competitor (In my mind)... I'm seriously considering waiting for that new patch and just dropping Civ5.. JOKE
Yes. Soon as I get my ass around to finishing lair design and releasing 1.31, there should be very few remaining sources of OOS.
Did you skip the entire thread? I think Valkrionn made this clear: They had not begun. Would you rather have the game delayed just to introduce more content? This would be particularly bad, especially because they already announced the release date of the game. And please don't say "They shouldn't have announced it then!" How many games have you seen not announce a release date. Whether you counter this last clause or not, I have one more thing for you. Take into consideration the fact that they stated that Civ 5 would be released in the Fall of 2010 long before any of this had begun. If I recall correctly, the announcement was made late last year... Approximately 10-11 months ago.
Also note that Mongolia is free. No one seems to notice this... Sure, Babylon is $5.. Despite the amount of arguments about whether this is good or bad, I'll leave this alone. Let's assume that $5 is overpricing and unfair. Mongolia was free. One more time.... f-r-e-e. Do I need to clarify one more time? Hopefully, most of you got it.
"
