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

[Rince]

Nope, my point was that core gameplay issues were ignored in favor of DLC. These issues were known on/just after release day and persist now (IE ignored), clearly refuting your point.

Look, as long as we don't agree what the core is, this argumentation is of no value. In my view, a game whose core is broken, as you claimed earlier, is non-functional and certainly cannot be fun to play. Yet there are thousands of people playing the game constantly. Do you think that all these people are ignorant because they don't see the core issues being ignored?

Of course you define core gameplay by cherry-picking issues that are either very subjective (the GUI comes to mind) or are minor bugs and have in fact been fixed already. The only valid point you have is multiplayer. Since I see Civ5 as mainly a single player game, this does not fall into core game play for me. But I can see that for multiplayer fans, the current state of Civ5 in that respect can be seen as broken from what I've heard.

 

[troytheface]

"I have doubts to the assertion that this in some way contributes to the discussion, although I haven't seen that one made yet. "

(lol)

"Do you care to refute my reasoning on *why* the market forces driving DLC > finished product contribute to ruining the gameplay for people who prefer the latter?

i guess. i'll bring a couple up but i think can of about four hundred and twenty seven reasoning "points" many of which i can put in latin and stuff

Fact- "market forces" what is the definition of this? it is the premise. it assumes that
included in this collection of whatever it is this mysterious group of strange players that buy dlc's and this other group that doesn't and a strategy to sell to them.

show one marketing strategy handbook in firaxis that states or follows this mantra
and has a magic machine that can tell people who prefer what

Fact-Greater than? like "less then but equal to" math talk? (and the real crux- some math guys (my suspicion) and calculators are put off by things like non balance etc.
as illustrated by the very (false delima) question

the evidence is clear- Myopic focus in retro sometimes plagues us

 

[Andoo]

I don't really see why DLCs are being treated so differently from expansion packs.
It's the same money-milking mechanism that both company and part of the users find attractive.
Even companies that tend to publish complete games had come up with many ways to reuse their successful series.
Many different versions of Pokemons, C&C mission packs, Warcraft 2 expansion that only added new missions, Warcraft 3 expansion reusing already exsiting Alpha version units come to my mind.
Money milking has always been present DLC or no DLC imo. The method has been evolved but the nature seems unchanged. I don't think DLCs harm their core game's credibility either as all the other money-milking methods didn't.

 

[Buccaneer]

Moral of the story: Don't pay attention to advertising and pre-release hype. You'll feel better about yourself.

 

[TImithius]

I don't find the costs ridiculous, I mean I would rather spend 3-5 bucks for a professionally made DLC, with the leaderhead and music than download a civ some amateur made. I like to see the leader's animation and hear them talk, that is one feature that makes the game good for me. You also got to think, it's professionally made! You expect them to spend months working on a civ and give it away for free, not a chance. Besides every game system you find DLCs usually cost money. At least with having this you get to choose the civs you want to have

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Look, as long as we don't agree what the core is, this argumentation is of no value. In my view, a game whose core is broken, as you claimed earlier, is non-functional and certainly cannot be fun to play. Yet there are thousands of people playing the game constantly. Do you think that all these people are ignorant because they don't see the core issues being ignored?

Certainly I'm not calling people ignorant, but it's not looking very good for your argument when you're a) given a list of features that don't exist or don't work properly and b) these things fit within a clear definition of broken that has been cited for you. Simply saying you "don't agree on what constitutes the core of a game" is not enough; you essentially have no argument and are instead taking an approach of telling me mine is wrong...without evidence!

Of course you define core gameplay by cherry-picking issues that are either very subjective (the GUI comes to mind)

GUI lying to the player is not subjective.

GUI presenting information that is different from what actually will occur is not subjective

GUI allowing units to move without orders is not subjective.

or are minor bugs and have in fact been fixed already.

Minor, you say? That carries as much credibility as saying your argument is minor. Surely, you can do better.

Since I see Civ5 as mainly a single player game

Both civ IV and civ V have core gameplay elements (unless you feel controls are not a core gameplay element, for example) that fit the definition of broken. Not your definition of broken, but rather the definition of broken that is accepted by the English language. I don't see why you insist on nitpicking the term when you clearly don't understand all of its uses (else you would not define it as you do).

the evidence is clear- Myopic focus in retro sometimes plagues us

. Now that's more the quality we've come to love and respect .

 

[jagdtigerciv]

All this complaining about DLCs makes me wonder what planet so many people live on. Have you not noticed that it is the trend in ever single genre of gaming? That the cost to produce a game in 2011 is exponentially greater than it was just 5 years ago, and even more 5 years before that? Not to mention the rise of pirating in the industry. Hate it or love it, it's handicapped sales.

Many of you seem to think there is an alternative in today's gaming market. Take a look at the industry -- read a few articles. Things have changed. It is virtually financially impossible (or at the very least, so risky that many investors wouldn't dare touch) to release a top quality game in today's market without the prospect of continuing sales beyond a single expansion.

Ultimately, it encourages continued patching and effort post release. It's a win/win, even if you don't buy a single DLC.

Moderator Action: The first line here is not conducive to civil discussion. Implying other posters are delusional is considered trolling. Address the points made without bringing posters into it.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[TheMeInTeam]

All this complaining about DLCs makes me wonder what planet so many people live on. Have you not noticed that it is the trend in ever single genre of gaming? That the cost to produce a game in 2011 is exponentially greater than it was just 5 years ago, and even more 5 years before that? Not to mention the rise of pirating in the industry. Hate it or love it, it's handicapped sales.

Many of you seem to think there is an alternative in today's gaming market. Take a look at the industry -- read a few articles. Things have changed. It is virtually financially impossible (or at the very least, so risky that many investors wouldn't dare touch) to release a top quality game in today's market without the prospect of continuing sales beyond a single expansion.

Ultimately, it encourages continued patching and effort post release. It's a win/win, even if you don't buy a single DLC.

This does not prioritize DLC over actually finishing the game, however...at least not for competent developers .

 

[MrSmith]

i dont have a problem with DLC itself, just DLC that offers little that shouldnt have already been included in game, and is overpriced.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: Despite warning, the conversation did not remain civil. As it appears that civil discussion has been exhausted in this thread, it's closed.