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

[anandus]

Isn't the new civ $3 this time? Or is it $5 again?

It's €3,49, so something like that in dollars. The same price as Babylon and Polynesia.

Either way, the assertion that it's ridiculously overpriced is just... weird, to me. Maybe it's because I have a decent (but by no means high-paying) job, but I really can't imagine $5 making the difference in somebody who can afford a relatively modern computer, a monthly internet charge and $50 for the base game's life.

Yes, I agree. For the price of a DLC you can't even get 2 litres of petrol here, lol (that's half-a-gallon for you yanks )
And in a sale it's even less.

And if you look at themoney-time-ratio, it works well for me, I get plenty of hours of fun playing (against) the DLC civ and playing the scenario.

 

[Thander]

They are honestly not that expensive every 2-3 months. However, when you have other gaming options available, it lessens their value. For instance, 10 DLC civs roughly equals a full priced new game. If I have a choice between 10 DLCs for a game I own or a brand new amazing game, I'm probably going to go with the new game. The only other high profile strategy game since Civ 5 is Shogun 2, so a strategy fan may find it better to save their money and buy this new strategy game. Shogun 2 has vastly different gameplay, though, so others may find DLC civs to be worth it. For a gamer like myself who dabbles in almost every game genre, DLC is rarely worth it unless it comes in some sort of bundle package (like Game of the Year editions).

 

[Drawmeus]

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.

It tells us something about firaxis and/or 2k. So does the fact that they are aggressively patching both balance issues and bugs with free patch notes. So yeah, I don't know whether everything balances out or not, but certainly their post-launch support hasn't been lacking (as bad as their launch was, and certainly I'm not defending that).

I don't know anyone who thinks Civ V doesn't have issues, but when you assert that it's broken to people who are having, on balance, a very good experience (and I don't think it's a stretch to say that lots of the people on this forum are currently having a very good experience with the game), you're going to get pushback on that.

 

[WeneedmoreCivs]

They keep releasing so many DLCs for ridiculous prices for Civ 5 that we can't even use in multiplayer.

Why don't they just release an expansion?

I like the DLC. In fact, I'm skipping Boxing today simply because when I came home for lunch I saw two new DLCs available and now all I want to do is play them!

I like it much better than Expansion packs because those cost more money, and paying $7.50 for a new civ and a bunch of new maps is a pretty good deal to me. $7.50 doesn't even get me 2 gallons of gas, so I think it's a good deal.

Plus, the $7.50 has made Civ V new to me again, and will buy me two weeks of entertainment until LA Noire comes out.

Or this game could be more like Tycoon City: New York, a really awesome game with a few major flaws and NO post-release development.

 

[_hero_]

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.

Broken means it doesn't work. You can play a game of Civ V from start to finish and win or lose under any victory condition on any map and difficulty. Therefore it is not broken. Multiplayer may be the exception it still is broken.

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.

Is the game flawed in many ways? Yes. Broken? No.

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.

As has been said many times, the group of people doing DLC are for the most part not the same people doing patches. Hate on Civ V that's fine. You don't like the way they do things that is your right. But there is no need to go around stating opinions as proven facts.

 

[deanej]

Good for you I admire your frugality. But in relative terms, DLC is not expensive.

Depends on what it's relative to. Relative to an expansion, DLC is very expensive.

 

[awesome]

Good for you I admire your frugality. But in relative terms, DLC is not expensive.

i think he meant, "i don't like wow enough to pay for it"

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Broken means it doesn't work. You can play a game of Civ V from start to finish and win or lose under any victory condition on any map and difficulty. Therefore it is not broken. Multiplayer may be the exception it still is broken.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/broken

You're taking a very narrow definition of the word broken. Some of these definitions fit the current state of civ V very well. Considering the context in which it is being used, "broken" is no reach; it's appropriate by definition!

Is the game flawed in many ways? Yes. Broken? No.

I was refuting the position that civ V has fully functional core gameplay in what you're quoting here. Also, see above for why it is in fact broken.

As has been said many times, the group of people doing DLC are for the most part not the same people doing patches. Hate on Civ V that's fine. You don't like the way they do things that is your right. But there is no need to go around stating opinions as proven facts.

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.

But there is no need to go around stating opinions as proven facts.

I do find it interesting, however, that you show up and lecture me on opinions vs facts and proceed to use entirely opinion, when at least some of my earlier post was factual...

 

[Teperi Blaze]

Broken means it doesn't work. You can play a game of Civ V from start to finish and win or lose under any victory condition on any map and difficulty. Therefore it is not broken. Multiplayer may be the exception it still is broken.

Wrong or maybe I should say by your definitions, sort of wrong?

I can't finish any large maps because of the grey plots that pops up around ad1600, where tiles turn just grey. I can zoom in and get rid of the greyness by moving the cursor over the affected areas and zoom back out again, and then play my turn.

Do that 100 times, hero!

Then I come to the next obstacle, tiles turning into polkadot graffiti, which DOESN'T go away by the zoom in/out brushing. Do that for another 100 turns.

Yes, you are right, hero, I can still play the game to finish, but who with a sane mind would torture himself like this?

I have a great computer and a good ATI-card, but playing in WinXP and dx9, haven't found a solution for this yet.

So before this issue is sorted, I won't buy any dlc (on topic, Moss )

 

[aguds]

Maybe just use mods I reckon. There are a whole lot more interesting stuff to pick from there instead of giving in to this buisness-model. And they are made from love rather than for profit.

 

[Kamamura]

The whole DLC model is an atrocity - to make the new Civs compelling, the devs will surely make them more powerful than the stock civs, thus disbalancing the whole game. I mean, look at the Viking UA!

 

[anandus]

Maybe just use mods I reckon. There are a whole lot more interesting stuff to pick from there instead of giving in to this buisness-model. And they are made from love rather than for profit.

Good point.
People that like DLC can buy them, people that don't like it don't have to buy them and use mods instead.
And everybody's happy, nobody has to complain

I mean, it's that simple, right?
If somebody doesn't like the DLC's or the DLC-businessmodel, then that person just simply doesn't buy them. And one can use mods instead.

All the complaining get's a bit tiresome. If you don't like it then just don't buy it. But instead of just ignoring the DLC people keep on complaining about it.

 

[The_Quasar]

The whole DLC model is an atrocity - to make the new Civs compelling, the devs will surely make them more powerful than the stock civs, thus disbalancing the whole game. I mean, look at the Viking UA!

I presume that having said that, you have never tried playing the civs featured in DLCs... if you had, you'd know that they have all been well balanced with the other civs available, and that none is "more powerful than the stock civs".

Your argument is severely flawed, as the devs would not make the DLC civs overpowered, as if they did, it would spoil/unbalance the game, and no one would buy them.

I'm looking at the Viking UA, too... have you played it against other civs? That is the only way to know for sure... try it, you might even like it!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The whole DLC model is an atrocity - to make the new Civs compelling, the devs will surely make them more powerful than the stock civs, thus disbalancing the whole game. I mean, look at the Viking UA!

I dislike a lot of things about call of duty series but like it overall. One of the things they handled pretty tastefully is DLC - you can get stuff like golden guns or the ability to play on additional maps, but you will not get a competitive advantage of any sort while playing against people who don't have the DLC...and...you can actually play such people!

 

[Rince]

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.

I'm also tired of fighting people who claim that the game is broken. Of course you can quibble over the definition of broken but let me ask you this: How is it that tens of thousand of people (including me) are enjoying a game which is supposedly broken? Is it our ignorance? Is the fun we have just an illusion or not the right kind of fun?

You are correct of course that there are areas where Civ5 needs improvements, what game doesn't. But calling it broken is exaggerated in my opinion.

Back to the topic of DLC, I haven't bought any yet but find the DLC model OK in general if it is implemented properly. For Civ5 it looks like there is good value in the DLC. I'm still hoping for some kind of package in the future which will contain all DLC.

 

[Shurdus]

<snip>

Lump sum trades and declaring are exploits in my book, and I would applaud if that was patched out. Other than that I did not run into anything specific that I found unacceptable. Then again I do not play to make the most out of my resources and the rules, I just play to have fun. The days when I cared how well I did compared to others is a bit behind me.

Moderator Action: Public Discussion of Moderator Action is not allowed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[AlpsStranger]

I dislike a lot of things about call of duty series but like it overall. One of the things they handled pretty tastefully is DLC - you can get stuff like golden guns or the ability to play on additional maps, but you will not get a competitive advantage of any sort while playing against people who don't have the DLC...and...you can actually play such people!

Exactly. The degree to which DLC is tolerable depends largely on the finer details. Civ5 has a fairly whoreish approach to DLC, unfortunately. Even Creative Assembly, despite the Hattori idiocy, appears to understand this better than Firaxis.

I feel bad that they had to follow on the heels of Civ4. I wouldn't have wanted that job for any amount of money. This does not, however, excuse Sims-like DLC pimpery.

Lump sum trades and declaring are exploits in my book, and I would applaud if that was patched out.

People can call me what ever names they want, but Civ4 diplomacy was the end-all be-all for me. Was it simple? Yes, like so many wonderful things. When diplomacy had predictability it attained meaning.

 

[Bandobras Took]

Wrong or maybe I should say by your definitions, sort of wrong?

I can't finish any large maps because of the grey plots that pops up around ad1600, where tiles turn just grey. I can zoom in and get rid of the greyness by moving the cursor over the affected areas and zoom back out again, and then play my turn.

Do that 100 times, hero!

Then I come to the next obstacle, tiles turning into polkadot graffiti, which DOESN'T go away by the zoom in/out brushing. Do that for another 100 turns.

I think the basic problem here is that there are two different versions of Civ 5: one where those problems happen, which is what you got, and where they don't, which is what I got.

 

[Psyringe]

I find it funny that people call DLC way too expensive.

People pay $15 a month to play WoW. DLC really isn't that expensive. Skip a couple latte's and you've covered it. Shoot, if you don't pay for the DLC and play Civ more, you might find yourself driving places. The gas money you spend probably more than offsets it.

I don't play WoW specifically because I find it way too expensive. The only MMO I play is Guild Wars, which doesn't have a continuous subscription fee. I don't drink lattes. I don't drive a car because it's horribly expensive here. I do buy computer games, and I think that DLC is great in theory (pick & choose exactly the extensions you want), but I'm appalled by the current trend of offering way too little content for way too much money. What was your point again?

 

[Brichals]

I think the basic problem here is that there are two different versions of Civ 5: one where those problems happen, which is what you got, and where they don't, which is what I got.

My Civ 5 never crashed once, turn times are faster than Civ 4 and miles faster than Civ 3. I always understand the AI diplomacy.. What's the problem. I see so much unjustified rage on here. A little bit justified too as patches are needed, but way too much negativity in general. Complaining because you didn't update your drivers or because your system is too old is just pointless.