Can't keep up with DLC, annoyed by it.

[aatami]

Where did people pull this "DLC civs are OP" trash?

The Danish Vikings only strength is the ability to wage war better on the coast. + Better small wars only meant for pillaging and capturing civilians. Comparing to Songhai or Japan, for example, the Danish can be weaker. They attack faster from the sea, because they can attack the same turn they disembark, but after the first initial raid, the Japanese exel them in combat strength, whilst the Songhai get triple the reward. The Danes are strong, yes, but not overpowered. With them you can put a coastal city on it's nees in a few turns with no warning, but I don't see that as OP. Just a good strategical option amongst others for waging war.

 

[Drawmeus]

Where did people pull this "DLC civs are OP" trash?

The Danish Vikings only strength is the ability to wage war better on the coast. + Better small wars only meant for pillaging and capturing civilians. Comparing to Songhai or Japan, for example, the Danish can be weaker. They attack faster from the sea, because they can attack the same turn they disembark, but after the first initial raid, the Japanese exel them in combat strength, whilst the Songhai get triple the reward. The Danes are strong, yes, but not overpowered. With them you can put a coastal city on it's nees in a few turns with no warning, but I don't see that as OP. Just a good strategical option amongst others for waging war.

Babylon probably IS op. But Spain is probably underpowered, the Mongols are above average for a single strategy and underpowered for any others, the Inca are average-ish, Polynesia is underpowered-to-decent depending on the map...

Basically, the DLC runs the same gamut of power level as the normal civs do.

Well, I've handed you some facts. Here are some more:

In saying that the people who work on DLC are different from the people working on patches, you have to realize something. Firaxis CHOSE which staff to keep post-release (and/or was forced into it). Axing the UI team? Failing to hire a multiplayer network guy for over half a year (in an economy where people need jobs!)? When the game wasn't finished >6 months ago, who was kept on it, and who was fired? I'm sure you can guess, given the "different people do different things" argument. Firaxis can't hide behind that excuse, unless of course they want to just blame 2k.

Selective presentation much?

Yes, Firaxis chose who to keep. But another fact is that they are actively supporting the game with patches. And another fact is that DLC is a percentage of their post-launch revenue. And another fact is that many, many games have minimal or no staff remaining on a title 6 months after launch.

A reasonable inference to draw is that they have as many people as they do working on free support because their DLC team is providing them with enough of a revenue stream to make keeping those guys employed worthwhile.

 

[Buccaneer]

We can use them in multiplayer.
At least, I can (It's a shame multiplayer is so broken, though, but that's offtopic).
It's just like an expansion pack, but spread out over several micro-releases.
Instead of waiting two years and paying a lump sum, now you only have to wait two months to get a micro-expansion for a small price.

It's a different business-model, one with (I think) less risk for the company.

And that trend will continue to even a greater degree in the future, as the Japanese model have been proving with many of their games. The key, though, is to make the micro-DLC much cheaper than 9.99 or even 5.99. A steady income after release is worth more than waiting many months/years for an expansion pack. Even though I have not bought any DLC yet, I am glad that they have the income to keep improving and expanding the game on a regular basis.

 

[Guardian_PL]

Also, the core game being broken is a proven fact. I could highlight once again why this is the case, but I'm really tired of fighting people who defend civ V (or even IV) in zealous ignorance while ignoring flaws.

Controls, user interface, calculation efficiency, time between turns, etc are all core gameplay. Multiplayer is core gameplay. Functional net code is core gameplay. Running all aspects of the advertised game on *recommended* (or higher) specs is...you guessed it...core gameplay.

The quote is an example of a spam post with knowingly false information.

On topic: DLC policy is ruining whatever chance there might be for competitive MP to catch on. MP suffers enough from expansion breaks; not even being able to play against large chunks of potential competition is pretty questionable.

The fact that we get DLC spam while core gameplay is not 100% functional tells us a lot about firaxis/2k. You want a good civ VI, it's not being made by THEM.

Moderator Action: While your post does make valid points which we encourage, you could have left out the spam post comment.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

TMIT, let the children play - if they don't understand that they're being abused, it's their call, nothing you can do about it.

Same way I don't understand paid MMO's as I don't get spending lots of money (like 6 DLC's bought on the release = 100% price of vanilla game, this IS a lot of money for few silly civs to play, compare it with what you get from Civ4 expansion) on DLC's.

But if people want to buy that crap there's no stopping them, don't even bother. We now have different audience for civ games, end of story.

Moderator Action: "Let the children play" is an inappropriate comment.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Kerosene31]

TMIT, let the children play - if they don't understand that they're being abused, it's their call, nothing you can do about it.

Same way I don't understand paid MMO's as I don't get spending lots of money (like 6 DLC's bought on the release = 100% price of vanilla game, this IS a lot of money for few silly civs to play, compare it with what you get from Civ4 expansion) on DLC's.

But if people want to buy that crap there's no stopping them, don't even bother. We now have different audience for civ games, end of story.

Really? I must be missing out on a lot of DLC civs. If you buy every Civ the price is $25 (and most of us got Babylon as pre-order or deluxe bonus), so that's $20. You can mostly ignore the maps and other things unless interested in them.

Also, all of the civs (except the one just released) have been on sale already at least once for 40% off. How long did it take Warlords or BTS to go on sale?

So that's $15 for the Civs after the sale. However Steam and DLC are PURE EVIL!

However, I'm glad there are grown-ups like you to tell me how to spend my money (and what I value).

 

[Guardian_PL]

Really? I must be missing out on a lot of DLC civs. If you buy every Civ the price is $25 (and most of us got Babylon as pre-order or deluxe bonus), so that's $20. You can mostly ignore the maps and other things unless interested in them.

Also, all of the civs (except the one just released) have been on sale already at least once for 40% off. How long did it take Warlords or BTS to go on sale?

So that's $15 for the Civs after the sale. However Steam and DLC are PURE EVIL!

However, I'm glad there are grown-ups like you to tell me how to spend my money (and what I value).

I'm sorry, so you're seeing actual advantage with having lousy 6 civs and some oh-so-amazing maps that "you can mostly ignore" over Civ4 expansions with plethora of civilizations, leaders, wonders, units, game mechanics etc?

Just so we're on the same page here...

 

[Kerosene31]

I'm sorry, so you're seeing actual advantage with having lousy 6 civs and some oh-so-amazing maps that "you can mostly ignore" over Civ4 expansions with plethora of civilizations, leaders, wonders, units, game mechanics etc?

Just so we're on the same page here...

The Warlords expansion was garbage and a complete waste of money for me. BTS was quite good (and how many years did that take?).

You're still making the massive assumption that there won't be an expansion with features/game mechanics/etc.

I would actually be disappointed if there were not expansions.

DLC is just the cause of all evil in this world though, right?

 

[Louis XXIV]

I'm sorry, so you're seeing actual advantage with having lousy 6 civs and some oh-so-amazing maps that "you can mostly ignore" over Civ4 expansions with plethora of civilizations, leaders, wonders, units, game mechanics etc?

Just so we're on the same page here...

I also think there's far more value per Civ in Civ5 than there was in Civ4. Each Civ plays very differently and the production value for leaders, etc. are better.

 

[Guardian_PL]

The Warlords expansion was garbage and a complete waste of money for me. BTS was quite good (and how many years did that take?).

You're still making the massive assumption that there won't be an expansion with features/game mechanics/etc.

I would actually be disappointed if there were not expansions.

DLC is just the cause of all evil in this world though, right?

You just keep repeating with that DLC thing, saying that yourself won't make it my opinion y'know. And where did I mention Steam?


Warlords garbage? Wow.

# A new category of Great People known as "Great Generals";
# The ability to institute vassal states;
# Eight new scenarios
# Six new civilizations playable in single-player and multiplayer;
# Ten new leaders (including new leaders for existing civilizations);
# Three new leader traits (Charismatic, Protective and Imperialistic);
# Unique buildings for each civilization;
# Three new wonders;
# New units, resources, and improvements;
# Core gameplay tweaks and additions;

 

[Kerosene31]

You just keep repeating with that DLC thing, saying that yourself won't make it my opinion y'know. And where did I mention Steam?


Warlords garbage? Wow.

I never liked Warlords. After all that time I expected better.

Plus, DLC gives the option of what to buy. I never once played a Civ 4 scenario, but was forced to buy them. Now, I can skip them if I choose to and save money. I can also pick and choose my civs (or even better wait for a sale and get them cheaper).

Warlords was $30 and is probably still sitting on a shelf at that same price somewhere. DLC has already had a 40% discount.

More options early better than fewer later for me.

 

[Drawmeus]

I'm sorry, so you're seeing actual advantage with having lousy 6 civs and some oh-so-amazing maps that "you can mostly ignore" over Civ4 expansions with plethora of civilizations, leaders, wonders, units, game mechanics etc?

Just so we're on the same page here...

I've gotten my value out of them. I don't think they're lousy - I think several of them are actually very well-designed. I also think they've gotten progressively better as Firaxis has made more of them - Polynesia/Denmark are the best two they've made.

 

[Psyringe]

Plus, DLC gives the option of what to buy. I never once played a Civ 4 scenario, but was forced to buy them. Now, I can skip them if I choose to and save money.

Well, that's the point, I guess. If you actually could save money by picking and choosing, then DLC would be a nice, customer-friendly system, and there wouldn't be as much criticism. However, most people find that they'd have to spend more money even if they buy less content than a regular expansion would have had. And that, I guess, is the problem. Theoretically, DLC is a great, customer-friendly system, but it's currently (ab)used in very ... publisher-friendly way. (Not only by Civ5, btw, it seems to be a general trend. Publishers seem to be eager to find out how far they can push it.)

Warlords was $30 and is probably still sitting on a shelf at that same price somewhere.

Huh? You can get Warlords plus BtS for 10 Euros for at least 2 years, probably longer. Currently you can get Civ4 + Warlords + BtS + Colonization for 10 Euros as well. Check your sources?

 

[Kerosene31]

Well, that's the point, I guess. If you actually could save money by oicking and choosing, then DLC would be a nice, customer-friendly system, and there wouldn't be as much criticism. However, most people find that they'd have to spend more money even if they buy less content than a regular expansion would have had. And that, I guess, is the problem. Theoretically, DLC is a great, customer-friendly system, but it's currently (ab)used in very ... publisher-friendly way. (Not only by Civ5, btw, it seems to be a general trend. Publishers seem to be eager to find out how far they can push it.)

You're assuming that if they stopped DLC and did an expansion pack that it would be the same price as way back when with Civ 4.

I highly doubt that.

The price increased because the price increased, not because of the method of distribution.

And yet again if you missed the Steam sale, 40% off all Civ V DLC.

Sales so close to release = win for customers.

 

[awesome]

Warlords garbage? Wow.

# A new category of Great People known as "Great Generals";
# The ability to institute vassal states;
# Eight new scenarios
# Six new civilizations playable in single-player and multiplayer;
# Ten new leaders (including new leaders for existing civilizations);
# Three new leader traits (Charismatic, Protective and Imperialistic);
# Unique buildings for each civilization;
# Three new wonders;
# New units, resources, and improvements;
# Core gameplay tweaks and additions;

keep in mind that when you buy an expansion, you're buying the new civilizations and features bundled together. this is coupled with the fact that you waited almost an entire year for something new, which is also going to drive prices down.
just for the sake of argument, there have been 6 new civilizations released since the release of the base game, just like there were in warlords, unless you don't count babylon. there are less new leaders, but leaders are more unique this time around. there's also been at least one new wonder. and free patches.
and before you say anything about me being biased, i haven't even played civilization 5 yet, so i'm not a supporter.

 

[P-Zombie]

Everything is worth what the purchaser will pay for it.

Personally, I don't think they're worth it right now, but that's because I'm not happy with the current state of the game. That could change if Firaxis continues pumping out patches.

On the other hand, consider the value of a civ as determined by the price tag of the original game. We got 18 civs for $50. So $2.77 per civ...or less really, since at least part of that $50 was paying for the actual game.

So when a single civ as DLC costs $4.99, we're clearly being asked to pay substantially more for these extras than we did for the originals. But is that really overpriced, or is it closer to the true value? I think the answer is...at the beginning of my post.

 

[anandus]

Everything is worth what the purchaser will pay for it.

That's the bottom line, indeed
(And at the current patching speed/DLC-release speed/prices I'll pay for it )

So when a single civ as DLC costs $4.99, we're clearly being asked to pay substantially more for these extras than we did for the originals. But is that really overpriced, or is it closer to the true value?

Isn't it two civs for $4,99? (eg. Spain/Inca).
(I'm not sure about the dollar prices, but $4,99 per civ seems a bit steep).

 

[Psyringe]

You're assuming that if they stopped DLC and did an expansion pack that it would be the same price as way back when with Civ 4.

I highly doubt that.

The price increased because the price increased, not because of the method of distribution.

Well, you can adjust the price for inflation. Warlords cost 30$ in 2006, so the adjusted price would be 32.39$ in 2010. Let's be extremely generous and double the increase, assuming that video game prices skyrocketed in relation to everything else (even if they did, the actual value would be much smaller). You still end up under 35$. It doesn't make a huge difference for the argument.

You have not explained why the prices should have increased by such a huge margin. You have not explained why a change to a form of distribution that requires less packaging, less transport costs, and less storage space, should cause such a rise in prices. You have not explained why these "general" prices should, according to your theory, have risen for different publishers at different times, but magically did so whenever they switch from expansions to DLC (Oblivion is another example for this phenomenon). Actually you have explained very little, but are quick to disqualify any counter-arguments as mere "assumptions".

Personally, I think it's much more probable that the publishers are testing the waters, seeing how far they can push the prices. It's a repeatable pattern that can be seen for several publishers at different points in time. The quick adjustments of prices (Oblivion lowering the atrocious price for "Horse Armor", Civ5 giving away DLC at special sales) is quite consistent with that. I don't see this consistency with external facts in your explanations.

 

[Louis XXIV]

What I liked about Warlords:
New traits
New Civs (although not new leaders so much).
The change to make Chariots have an advantage against Axemen (which should have been changed to the vanilla game as well).

Vassal states are still broken, imo. I realize that broken is being used too loosely, but I took the intent as something to reward the conqueror without forcing him to entirely conquer. In other words, you beat up a civ and they capitulate. Capitulation almost doesn't exist in the game. The other Civ would rather be a vassal of anyone besides you.

Like I've said, I think you get more content with Warlords, but you get more value out of the content with Civ5. Not only does everything look better, each Civ has more flavor and truly feels like that Civ. When I contact Isabella, she looks and sounds like Isabella. When I play as the Polynesians, I truly feel like this is an experience I could not get with another Civ. When I played as Charlemagne of the Holy Roman Empire, I felt like I was playing a couple different guys thrown together with some slightly different artwork.

 

[awesome]

Personally, I think it's much more probable that the publishers are testing the waters, seeing how far they can push the prices. It's a repeatable pattern that can be seen for several publishers at different points in time. The quick adjustments of prices (Oblivion lowering the atrocious price for "Horse Armor", Civ5 giving away DLC at special sales) is quite consistent with that. I don't see this consistency with external facts in your explanations.

agreed. obviously, supply isn't much of an issue because it's downloads, but demand is what sets the price. i'm not going to get into price elasticity of demand, but they seem to be making enough of a profit on the prices they're charging to not have to worry about lowering the price for new content, at least for now.

 

[anandus]

agreed. obviously, supply isn't much of an issue because it's downloads, but demand is what sets the price. i'm not going to get into price elasticity of demand, but they seem to be making enough of a profit on the prices they're charging to not have to worry about lowering the price for new content, at least for now.

Probably they already did proper research beforehand.
And Valve can give good statistics what DLC at what prices give how much percent returning customers, etc.
I bet Valve has some nice statistics and models going on.
Edit:
2K Games itself has plenty of info as well, ofcourse.