Addons or DLCs?

[j-d-s]

Would you prefer boxed Addons or DLCs for Civ5?

I'd prefer boxed Addons strongly, because i never buy any DLCs.

 

[largedarryl]

DLC's are something that goes against everything Civ has become. To properly introduce DLC a degree of unmoddability would need to be implemented, and IMO this would cause half the Civ community to abandon the game entirely.

I'm not a big fan of expansion either, but with Civ the expansions are usually substantial enough to justify.

 

[Dida]

DLCs are way overpriced for the minor improvement they introduce to the game, and may cause compatibility issues with multiplayer, I would prefer expansion packs. Good XPs like BTS are well worth the money, I can't say the same about the vast majority of DLCs.

 

[attackdrone]

I would prefer boxed / expansion level add-ons if I had to choose. However, we must remember that expansions and DLCs are not mutually exclusive. If Firaxis released a DLC "More Civilizations Pack" that included Poland, Ireland, Canada, and Byzantium as playable civilizations I think a substantial number of people would want to purchase them.

 

[Lord Tirian]

DLC's are something that goes against everything Civ has become. To properly introduce DLC a degree of unmoddability would need to be implemented, and IMO this would cause half the Civ community to abandon the game entirely.

Bwuh!? ...did DLC kick your dog or something!?

DLCs would actually work very, very well with a highly moddable game - just see all the mods out there and imagine Firaxis would do mods like that as DLCs! For example, a little more polished Final Frontier or Afterworld would have made great DLCs and the big selling point over fan-made mods would've been the graphics (since that's something that even the best mods struggle with a bit).

And for the fact that some DLCs are shoddily made: Yeah, that's true, but that's a failure on part of the developers, not of the delivery format. And Sins of a Solar Empire has shown that mini-expansions as DLCs (which are now collected into a big pack) can be pretty good and have the advantage of being a "public beta" for the final patch (and hence the collected pack).

Though I admit: I voted for boxed expansions, but that's just personal preference, because I'm a sucker for boxes to put on the shelf.

Cheers, LT.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

The main problem with the concept of DLC is that the developers go and make something that the Moding comunity can make just as well, but they charge you for it.

Imagine if you had to download FFH, BUG and every other mod for a nominal fee...
It would especialy screw over those of us who don't own credit accounts. (yes, I buy all my games with cash in a local gaming store)

I would prefer to have expansion packs that add more functionality and fill in any gaps that are seen in vanila. Like CIV4 and BTS.


Leave the small things like extra civs and more units to the moders.

 

[Drawmeus]

This is not actually different. Virtually nothing was introduced in Warlords or Beyond The Sword that couldn't have been introduced via mod.

The question is essentially "More mini expansions, buy what appeals to you" versus "Fewer large expansions, get it all at once but better multiplayer compatibility, etc."

From where I stand, it doesn't matter. I have a hard time imagining they'll put out something I won't buy.

 

[deanej]

It would also be a compatibility nightmare for modders.

 

[Zomgmeister]

DLCs are an abberation. Two new units for 5$ each, several new technologies for 10$, new civilization for 10$ and you got what, 30$ total — price of normal average game or full add-on?

Small (*cough* FFH *cough*) changes for this game are called mods. They are user-made, free and awesome in general. Addons work much better, being large behemots of totally new huge concepts.

In better world, DLCs would be banned.

 

[squadbroken]

DLCs might work for the games marketed to the ADHD-ridden console gamer crowd who gotta have something new right now!... but for a strategy game, I'd want expansions with substance and direction, not something half-assed like "Sid's Wonder Pack 5: Not-So-Great Wonders of the World (featuring Dinosaur Adventure Land and the Vegreville Egg)".

But I may be a bit biased.

 

[Commander Bello]

DLC would be a complete no-go for me.

First of all, in total it typically would become more expansive for the consumer, and second, since it opens a can of worms like compatibility issues, binding the "content" to user accounts, making the "content" dependant on server availability and so on.
Soon, you might be deep in the area of DRM, too.

By accepting DLC as a customer, we make ourselves even more dependant on what the companies are going to do with us in the future.

 

[Falk]

I voted DLCs. Yes, often DLCs are way too expensive for what they deliver, but as someone already mentioned that's not the fault of the DLCs. In fact I would argue that the Warlords expansion also didn't deliver enough to justify its price (as opposed to BtS).

And I disagree on the notion DLCs would be bad for modders. As Tirian already stated their selling point would be graphics. In this regard DLCs will also help modders. Think of the mods in Civ4 - most graphics are relatively simple conversions of existing graphics (leaderheads, buildings, units, etc.). If we get, for instance, vastly more LHs from Firaxis, graphics modders can do much more distinct new LHs based on those graphics.

I like DLCs. I'm not opposed to traditional expansions though.

 

[grandad1982]

Both. Boxed if only one.

 

[krasny]

BTS is the best add on of any game ever.

Leave DLC to chiselling idiots like EA and Paradox.

 

[Commander Bello]

I voted DLCs. Yes, often DLCs are way too expensive for what they deliver, but as someone already mentioned that's not the fault of the DLCs. In fact I would argue that the Warlords expansion also didn't deliver enough to justify its price (as opposed to BtS).

And I disagree on the notion DLCs would be bad for modders. As Tirian already stated their selling point would be graphics. In this regard DLCs will also help modders. Think of the mods in Civ4 - most graphics are relatively simple conversions of existing graphics (leaderheads, buildings, units, etc.). If we get, for instance, vastly more LHs from Firaxis, graphics modders can do much more distinct new LHs based on those graphics.

I like DLCs. I'm not opposed to traditional expansions though.

In my opinion, you are missing one factor:
DLC's will sold.
This means they will constitute a field of economic interest for the issuing company, which in turn will require some functionality to disallow distribution of them by the users - otherwise the company could not sell them anymore.

For graphics coming out of an expansion pack, the story (in general) is different since most modifications will be based on said expansion pack.

Now, since the company is interested in protecting its DLC against "misuse", we may expect some technical measure for "protection" - at least some copyright issues.
In consequence, DLC will limit the freedom of action which modders have experienced in the Civ4-environment.

Any user going to accept the (hypothetical) idea of DLC's for Civ5 should be aware of this.

 

[Pikkis]

Boxed addons, definitely. I rather see a carefully balanced expansion pack than lots of quickly-made DLCs.

 

[Drago Askani]

DLC content can be good, I happily bought my DLC for borderlands and Dragon age. On the other hand things like the Sims 3 store is a slap in the face with the costs. I happily ARRR'd! all the store content because I refuse to be gouged by EA. If they had thrown that stuff in stuff packs and sold it at the same price point as High End Loft Stuff, then I woulda bought it.

 

[deanej]

I voted DLCs. Yes, often DLCs are way too expensive for what they deliver, but as someone already mentioned that's not the fault of the DLCs. In fact I would argue that the Warlords expansion also didn't deliver enough to justify its price (as opposed to BtS).

And I disagree on the notion DLCs would be bad for modders. As Tirian already stated their selling point would be graphics. In this regard DLCs will also help modders. Think of the mods in Civ4 - most graphics are relatively simple conversions of existing graphics (leaderheads, buildings, units, etc.). If we get, for instance, vastly more LHs from Firaxis, graphics modders can do much more distinct new LHs based on those graphics.

I like DLCs. I'm not opposed to traditional expansions though.

I still don't see how it wouldn't be hard for modders. Let's say Firaxis released 5 DLCs that added a new civ. That means that there are now 6 versions of Civ5CivilizationInfos.xml (I'm assumming the modding structure will be an evolution of civ4's for this argument). So a mod that uses the base civilizations and adds to/modifies them will need to have 6 different versions, and would somehow need to prevent people downloading it to get a DLC for free. The only way I can see it working is if modders collectively agreed to never include assets from a DLC in their mod, even if it would be hugely beneficial to do so. Under this, for example, if Rhye wanted to make RFC for civ 5, you would not be able to play as a civ that was added in a DLC in RFC. IMO, that would suck.

 

[The_J]

Under this, for example, if Rhye wanted to make RFC for civ 5, you would not be able to play as a civ that was added in a DLC in RFC. IMO, that would suck.

And it would be very unrealistic.
No way this could happen, it's just impossible.

 

[darkedone02]

boxed add-on or should I say expansion sets. expansions was the only thing ever to be release to extend the game, and add in many new things and bring in more resources for the modders to use.