Civ V and paid downloadable content - how would you feel about it?

[The Almighty dF]

I'm annoyed by people complaining about things they have no evidence are going to happen. Like right there in the first post. People going "But if they release over powered units as pay for DLC then it'll unbalance multiplayer then multiplayer games will suck then the game will suck because the multiplayer will be ruined ahhhh".

Yes, if they screw the game up then the game will be screwed up. Pretty pointless fantasising about all the different ways they could ruin the game though, isn't it?

Except that you're missing the point.
The point is that they're attempting something that usually ends up disastrous, and people are worried it will turn up as it has turned out before: disastrous.

I'd like to clarify that I'm still buying Civ5, the -announcement- of DLC hasn't changed my mind.
The most it'll do is keep me from preordering until Firaxis gives us more information. They have a good track record, so I can at least give them the benefit of a doubt and hope they have succeeded where other companies have failed.
I just don't think we should completely ignore the possibility, given that that -is- what happens each time.

Notice trends, brace for damage, don't get your hopes -too- high, while at the same time don't assume they will flop. Just remember that there is a chance that this will be the outcome, and that that -has- been the outcome with each attempt.
Firaxis -is- tackling something that is a bad idea, but -does- have a chance of actually removing most of the negatives that idea brings.

 

[Phil Ken Sebben]

People are acting like this is an all-new problem.

I have always found it annoying that I have to wait for new expansion packs to get new ''official'' Civs. Sure enough, with each new installment some of my favourite Civs, like Portugese and Dutch, are missing. So does this surprise and/or enrage me? No.

What I do like about this DLC model is that I will be able to buy the DLC I want, and skip over the features that don't interest me. The only problem I see is with mods, so I will probably end up getting all of them anyway. But other than that, there really isn't much of a difference than with the old system, except the consumer now has more choices.

 

[arstal]

You know the minute someone puts out a mod with Babylon, 2K will be all over this site demanding to have it pulled.

What happens when Firaxis adds DLC of a Civ that was made in a fanmod first? I bet that would get forced to be pulled also. This site may not have a choice in the matter legally.

 

[Nicol.Bolas]

To all Civ fans,

So guys, what's your opinion on this?

This:

luckilcy i have enough civ content already fo a lifetime, so might ignore the eyecandy civ5 anyway

 

[Grouchey]

The only problem I see is with mods, so I will probably end up getting all of them anyway. But other than that, there really isn't much of a difference than with the old system, except the consumer now has more choices.

So in order to enjoy mods, it's safest to buy all the DLC? Hmm, so much for "choices"...

 

[Thyrwyn]

There is no reason that the presence or absence of an additional civ would affect the operation of any mod.

 

[Commander Bello]

There is no reason that the presence or absence of an additional civ would affect the operation of any mod.

Yet, as far as Babylon as being part of the DDE is concerned, mods will not be allowed to make use of it until a) they do own the DDE (which is obvious) and b) the user of said mod owns the DDE. Simply due to copyright issues.

To which degree for instance graphics from Babylon might be used after having been changed (chaning colors of uniforms, whatever) we are waiting for the answers from 2K Greg.

So, any modification concentrating on the early high cultures and being adressed to the standard version would have to live without Babylon, although the civilization by itself has already been created.

 

[Thyrwyn]

...or create their own Babylon. Just as they would have to do with any other "early high cultures" which are not included with vanilla Civ V which they felt compelled to make mandatory in their mods.

Your contention is: Modders who feel compelled to include the exact civ (Babylon) as created by Firaxis might not be able to do so.

If the modders choose to require the official Babylon, then their mod will not work for everyone - but that is entirely at the discretion of the modder.

 

[phungus420]

First off, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about Thyrwyn. I'd like to see your modding experience that makes you such an expert about how file conflicts become such a serious PITA. Oh that's right, you have none, and are just spewing ignorance.

As a secondary point the issue is that DLC devides the community in a way that a normal expansion pack system does not. With XPs you have a couple expansions usually released a couple of years from each other, that gives a definable codebases for modders or competitive MP players and Succesion game players to work with. The devided codebase caused by DLC destroys this unity, and creates a system where competitive MP, mods and other community based features (succesion games, GOTMs, etc) simply will not work.

For a new game DLC may work; for a game like civ that has a well established and active community many of the community based features of the game will be negatively effected.

 

[Thyrwyn]

I readily admit that I have no modding experience. But I do have some programming experience and (as I said in the other thread) I know enough to stand by my initial statement. We have no idea how Civ V will be structured.

Firaxis has not made a habit of lying to its fanbase: they say that Civ V will be easily moddable; they also say they are releasing an additional civ as bonus content. Isn't it more reasonable to say "I can't wait to see how this works" than it is to say "This sucks"?

 

[Commander Bello]

Firaxis has not made a habit of lying to its fanbase: they say that Civ V will be easily moddable; they also say they are releasing an additional civ as bonus content. Isn't it more reasonable to say "I can't wait to see how this works" than it is to say "This sucks"?

In general, you may be right, but as I have stated somewhere in these threads already, there is a difference between the technical options and the legally allowed ones.

Releasing just one Civilization in a special version is something which is new for the Civ franchise. Therefore, we do not have any examples from the past.
The decision to release this additional civilization via the DDE may have been made quite some time after the announcement of "unprecedented modding capabilities" (a statement, which technically still may be correct).

 

[Chalks]

In general, you may be right, but as I have stated somewhere in these threads already, there is a difference between the technical options and the legally allowed ones.

Releasing just one Civilization in a special version is something which is new for the Civ franchise. Therefore, we do not have any examples from the past.
The decision to release this additional civilization via the DDE may have been made quite some time after the announcement of "unprecedented modding capabilities" (a statement, which technically still may be correct).

Therefore you are assuming the worst. There is no reason to do this.

 

[Booky73]

Therefore you are assuming the worst. There is no reason to do this.

Chalks, welcome on planet earth. I like to explain some things so you may understand better, how things work here.

1. Not anything that may get better will get better. That may be shocking news for someone, not beeing from planet earth but... humans are like this.

2. Companys here try to get the most out of their products. This means NOT that they try to help humanity, make our lives easier to live or to cure cancer but to earn as much money as they are able to.

3. If a company has done very well in doing money, other companies try to imitate the behavior of the successful enterprise. So there will be nearly no company that won't try to earn as much money as they can because the others do so as well.

4. Selling customer-informations, DLCs, and little puppies that look like Sid belongs to the natural behavior of companies. You asked: why should they do this? Well the answer is very easy: to make money! They wont give a dam on some paranoid idiots who care about these things. As long as they make money with it (and the experience shows us, that they do, no matter how nervous some nerds discuss this matter in a forum) they will do it. The fact that roughly 99% of the people just dont care about it make it much more easier for them. The very few that try to examine those things were no danger for the companys. One of the 99% will call them paranoid and so they will vanish in the floods.

// ironie off

chalks you should listen to yourself. If 2k or firaxis really don't want to do the things you call "paranoid fantasies" then why the hell cooperate they with Valve?

 

[Chalks]

Chalks, welcome on planet earth. I like to explain some things so you may understand better, how things work here.

1. Not anything that may get better will get better. That may be shocking news for someone, not beeing from planet earth but... humans are like this.

2. Companys here try to get the most out of their products. This means NOT that they try to help humanity, make our lives easier to live or to cure cancer but to earn as much money as they are able to.

3. If a company has done very well in doing money, other companies try to imitate the behavior of the successful enterprise. So there will be nearly no company that won't try to earn as much money as they can because the others do so as well.

4. Selling customer-informations, DLCs, and little puppies that look like Sid belongs to the natural behavior of companies. You asked: why should they do this? Well the answer is very easy: to make money! They wont give a dam on some paranoid idiots who care about these things. As long as they make money with it (and the experience shows us, that they do, no matter how nervous some nerds discuss this matter in a forum) they will do it. The fact that roughly 99% of the people just dont care about it make it much more easier for them. The very few that try to examine those things were no danger for the companys. One of the 99% will call them paranoid and so they will vanish in the floods.

// ironie off

chalks you should listen to yourself. If 2k or firaxis really don't want to do the things you call "paranoid fantasies" then why the hell cooperate they with Valve?

So Firaxis are evil and you should always assume the worst about them? Cool, guess you won't be buying anything they make. Bye then.

I'm not sure which is worse, your English or your argument. It's like talking to yoda. Here's a fun concept for you: companies make money by making good products. This appears to have been lost in your confused rant - they want to make money, so they make the best product possible. They don't just hit the "screw over customers" button as often as they can because it's fun.

Assuming that a company will do the worst possible thing and break their promises just because they potentially could is dumb. Any company could do this at any time. It doesn't become more likely just because it happened to cross your mind.

 

[Booky73]

So Firaxis are evil and you should always assume the worst about them? Cool, guess you won't be buying anything they make. Bye then.

I'm not sure which is worse, your English or your argument.

Oh, where did I write that I think Firaxis are evil?
Oh no I just wrote that I think Firaxis tries to make money. If that is "evil" in your opinion - . I am very sorry that I have to destroy your romantic phantasies about Firaxis. They are just another company. They didnt sign a "customers-are-our-best-friend" treaty where they commit to not making money in customers favor.

And I will stay here, as so many other "paranoids" to tell 2k / Firaxis, that they lose a lot of money, if they selling CiV with forced Steam.

Edit: Yeah, great job pointing to my admittedly bad english.

 

[Chalks]

Oh, where did I write that I think Firaxis are evil?
Oh no I just wrote that I think Firaxis tries to make money. If that is "evil" in your opinion - . I am very sorry that I have to destroy your romantic phantasies about Firaxis. They are just another company. They didnt sign a "customers-are-our-best-friend" treaty where they commit to not making money in customers favor.

And I will stay here, as so many other "paranoids" to tell 2k / Firaxis, that they lose a lot of money, if they selling CiV with forced Steam.

Edit: Yeah, great job pointing to my admittedly bad english.

I said that you shouldn't assume the worst. You're either disagreeing with me or you're wasting everyone's time. Which is it?

It is difficult to work out exactly what you are trying to say since most of the post doesn't actually parse in English.

 

[Booky73]

And I said you shoudn't assume the best. So I am disagreeing with you. So you understood my fragmentary English this far.

 

[Chalks]

And I said you shoudn't assume the best. So I am disagreeing with you. So you understood my fragmentary English this far.

I didn't assume the best. I didn't say anything other than the thing you quoted.

 

[Hail]

[...] Here's a fun concept for you: companies make money by making good products. This appears to have been lost in your confused rant - they want to make money, so they make the best product possible. They don't just hit the "screw over customers" button as often as they can because it's fun.

emphasis is mine.

"good product" does not equal "the best product possible"


secondly if more than a half of attempts failed at something then the odds are that an attempt by anyone else will fail too. this conclusion is based not on personal affections, but on pure probability.

lastly DLC and steam leads to the dark side of the Force

Spoiler :

so does fanboyism. beware Chalks!

 

[deanej]

Chalks, have you ever heard of Murphy's Law? I'm guessing you haven't.