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

[Thyrwyn]

I'm with Chalks: I just don't see the big deal. Will I be getting Babylon? Nope. Will I miss it? Nope. I do not understand why everyone feels entitled to it. The modding community will eventually come up with other civs and maps (hopefully, without having to plagiarize the official ones) - I can skip the official day zero bonus stuff. I will buy from my FLGS the day its released and be perfectly happy. I'll have 18 other civs to play through, anyway.

 

[j-d-s]

I have never paid for downloads, do not, and will never ever do.

 

[Iceciro]

I worry, slightly, admittedly, that this game will turn into another Empire: Total War and be an unfinished buggy P.O.S. that only seems to exist as an engine to get me to buy DLC.

But I don't think Firaxis will do it. More than likely, this is all Take-Two's idea, as publisher. Companies want to entice you to 1) buy off steam (they see a MUCH bigger profit off digital distribution than brick and mortar sales) and 2) spend more money than usual.

To do 1) they need to offer something as a bonus to get you to buy off Steam specifically (the Mesopotamia map.) This doesn't bug me. 2) is normally taken care of by deluxe editions: civ 4 had one, if you'll remember, came in a fancy box mostly.

The problem is, when you want to encourage hardcore fans to spend more than the common 50 dollars and still purchase online. So you have to add something of value, on some level, to an edition that can have no physical contents: and thus we have "special units" packs, "special armor" unlocks, and now "special civs". I don't agree with it, but I was going to buy the deluxe edition anyway. So it's really a small step for me. If this becomes an issue though? They won't get any money for it from me, not as a capable modder. If I want the Native Americans, I'll just find a still shot of Sitting Bull and do it myself.

Basically, you're still getting the 18 other civs they told you that you'd get. It's like being upset you no longer get toys in happy meals. Now, if they start rationing things french fry by french fry, you have something to worry about.

 

[Grouchey]

Cheapens the experience of owning the game; DLC is a turn-off.

 

[501st Legion]

I worry, slightly, admittedly, that this game will turn into another Empire: Total War and be an unfinished buggy P.O.S. that only seems to exist as an engine to get me to buy DLC...

Basically, you're still getting the 18 other civs they told you that you'd get. It's like being upset you no longer get toys in happy meals. Now, if they start rationing things french fry by french fry, you have something to worry about.

The possibility of 2k of pulling off an ETW is unlikely, although the likelihood that it may happen frightens me.

Speaking of fast food, I recall someone writing that abusive forms of DLC is equivalent to you buying a cheeseburger, but without the cheese or the bread. In order for you to get those two remaining parts, you need to pay an additional $2.00.

 

[Rusty Edge]

I'm with Chalks: I just don't see the big deal. Will I be getting Babylon? Nope. Will I miss it? Nope. I do not understand why everyone feels entitled to it. The modding community will eventually come up with other civs and maps (hopefully, without having to plagiarize the official ones) - I can skip the official day zero bonus stuff. I will buy from my FLGS the day its released and be perfectly happy. I'll have 18 other civs to play through, anyway.

It's not a feeling of entitlement, it's a desire for one official core game at one official price, so that we have the same game to play with each other, to mod for each other( Civ V was supposed to facillitate rather than hinder modding ), or as a standard for Hall of Fame or forum discussion purposes. Any civ & leader with it's traits, UB and UU( and in Civ V possible CivRev-like tendencies and aptitudes ) may lend itself to a particular strategy and offer an advantage or disadvantage in gameplay.

The big deal is a small but fundamental change to Civ as we know it. Hopefully this turn in the wrong direction can be corrected before it gets so far off course as to be lost.

If they want to offer Babylon as a premium scenario, I can live with that.

 

[Bluetooth]

I can live with Steam but I'm not happy about this DLC thing. When playing Empire Total War on Steam I always felt a bit ripped off when I couldn't use all units. I usually buy Civilization and it's expansions on release day, with Civ 5 I feel I just have to wait and see.

 

[troytheface]

babylon is like a civ standard

blue bowmen in 3

golden helmeted bowmen in 4

and now - one of the first civilizations - are an extra that you pay to have?

bad idea

i always fig'd that mmo's were a dying art form
but instead single player games with mmo type stores?

not a good sign-

 

[Alzir]

The only problem with DLC is how it affects multiplayer games. If they introduce a series of units or improvements that give a significant advantage or forces you to buy a counter, it'll become irritating fast and will turn some people away. An option to turn DLC off when launching a multiplayer game would solve this, so long as the community supports the vanilla game (plus official patches obviously) as the standard for multiplayer. If they give this option I'll be impressed, and that would ultimately leave it up to us how DLC affects our experience.

 

[501st Legion]

The only problem with DLC is how it affects multiplayer games. If they introduce a series of units or improvements that give a significant advantage or forces you to buy a counter, it'll become irritating fast and will turn some people away. An option to turn DLC off when launching a multiplayer game would solve this, so long as the community supports the vanilla game (plus official patches obviously) as the standard for multiplayer. If they give this option I'll be impressed, and that would ultimately leave it up to us how DLC affects our experience.

Interesting idea Alzir... you better put this on a "list of things we want to see in Civ V" thread if Civ V will have overpowered DLC units.

 

[Rusty Edge]

I think there is more than one problem.

1) Multiplayer.
2) Modding legalities. The game was promoted as having unprecedented modding abillity. Pay for DLC is in opposition to that approach.
3) Hall of Fame. .... ( Imagine Vanilla IV came without the Inca, but a Special edition had them.) Asterisk city.
4) Forum discussions and strategy guides... offering different versions fragments the civ community.

 

[Chalks]

The only problem with DLC is how it affects multiplayer games. If they introduce a series of units or improvements that give a significant advantage or forces you to buy a counter, it'll become irritating fast and will turn some people away. An option to turn DLC off when launching a multiplayer game would solve this, so long as the community supports the vanilla game (plus official patches obviously) as the standard for multiplayer. If they give this option I'll be impressed, and that would ultimately leave it up to us how DLC affects our experience.

This suggestion is ridiculous.

You might as well complain about them adding an "I win" button as DLC, or a DLC tech that comes out of the screen and punches your opponent in the face.

What is with people making things up that aren't going to happen then complaining about them?

 

[The Almighty dF]

This suggestion is ridiculous.

You might as well complain about them adding an "I win" button as DLC, or a DLC tech that comes out of the screen and punches your opponent in the face.

What is with people making things up that aren't going to happen then complaining about them?

Actually, unbalanced DLC is nothing new. EA's become notorious for their DLC for multiplayer games being grossly unbalanced.

 

[Chalks]

Actually, unbalanced DLC is nothing new. EA's become notorious for their DLC for multiplayer games being grossly unbalanced.

Yes. Terrible games exist. Terrible publishers exist. If EA took over this game, I would be worried.

However, the argument of "someone did something stupid therefore everyone will do stupid things all of the time" is crap. Being annoyed about it before there is even any evidence of it being true is stupid.

 

[The Almighty dF]

Yes. Terrible games exist. Terrible publishers exist. If EA took over this game, I would be worried.

However, the argument of "someone did something stupid therefore everyone will do stupid things all of the time" is crap. Being annoyed about it before there is even any evidence of it being true is stupid.

Given that there has yet to be a decent attempt at paid-for dlc for multiplayer games, it's a decent reason to be worried. The odds are against Firaxis.

 

[Chalks]

Given that there has yet to be a decent attempt at paid-for dlc for multiplayer games, it's a decent reason to be worried. The odds are against Firaxis.

You can say "I hope they don't do this". But raging about how you're reconsidering buying the game because of it??

 

[The Almighty dF]

You can say "I hope they don't do this". But raging about how you're reconsidering buying the game because of it??

...uhh. What?
Did you even read my post, or were you replying to someone else? That's a complete non-sequitor.

All I said was that so far nobody has been successful in releasing paid-for DLC for a multiplayer game, and thus it makes sense to be worried about further attempts, even if they are from companies that normally make good decisions (Civilization 4: Warlords (which they basically apologized for and put all of its content into Beyond the Sword), Civilization 4: Colonization, and Civilization: Revolution being the only real decision flaws I can think of on Firaxis's part).
Your reply might as well have been "Bananas."

 

[Chalks]

...uhh. What?

what is with people making things up that aren't going to happen then complaining about them?

ea's become notorious for their dlc for multiplayer games being grossly unbalanced.

if ea took over this game, i would be worried.

the odds are against firaxis.

you can say "i hope they don't do this". But raging about how you're reconsidering buying the game because of it??

goto 1;

 

[The Almighty dF]

goto 1;

Thank you for proving my point. Your reply doesn't really fit in with -any- of those quotes.

 

[Chalks]

Thank you for proving my point. Your reply doesn't really fit in with -any- of those quotes.

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?