Civ V GOTY announced

[blitzkrieg1980]

Well that shut me up! As usually, PieceofMind you present logic that I simply cannot argue. I found myself nodding at just about everything presented here.

However, this one

It's a bit insulting to assume that most people are simply like sheep

Isn't insulting, it's almost a given considering the amount of funds spent by advertising agencies to research methods to manipulate people into acting like sheep.

However, that being said, I'm pretty confident that a large population of Civ players are a bit too strong on the mental end to be so easily manipulated... but then again... I could be wrong

 

[PieceOfMind]

Well that shut me up! As usually, PieceofMind you present logic that I simply cannot argue. I found myself nodding at just about everything presented here.

However, this one

Isn't insulting, it's almost a given considering the amount of funds spent by advertising agencies to research methods to manipulate people into acting like sheep.

However, that being said, I'm pretty confident that a large population of Civ players are a bit too strong on the mental end to be so easily manipulated... but then again... I could be wrong

Yes, advertisers do a lot of research to find the best ways to make consumers part with their money. Some of the methods used are more manipulative than others. It doesn't make anyone a sheep. A big negative is that it tends to make people more consumeristic, but that's a pretty big topic to argue another day.

Regarding DLC, I think the main reasoned argument against it (and this argument I think was more used several years ago when the concept was newer to people) is that it's a bit manipulative on the consumer by asking them for smaller sums of money at more intervals making it seem like less or the same overall when in fact it's the same just spread over a greater time. That's a fair criticism IMO and one that is ok to feel cynical about.

The biggest criticism I've always had for DLC is how it has a habit of fragmenting the playerbase, creating haves and have nots within the community who play a single game. Also if done poorly it can cheapen the experience, especially if parts of the game end up looking like a shopfront (TF2 anyone?).

I think arguing about the price of the DLC and whether it does or doesn't add up to the price of an expansion or another game etc. etc. is just focusing on the wrong things. After all, prices inevitably fall and I would argue these days (compared to several years ago when civ4 was still new) the video games market is more competitive, and combined with lower distribution costs we see game prices fall more rapidly than before. I would expect any game sold now to fall in price over the course of a year faster than it would have 6 years ago. Then again I may have a skewed perception - it's certainly been affected by the prices I've seen during sales on digital stores like Steam. Of course, publishers also could choose to lower prices faster in order to increase short-term profits at the expense of longer-term ones.

Anyway, I guess my whole point is:
Don't like paying a premium for DLC or feel like you're getting overcharged for content? Then wait til it's cheaper - it doesn't take long.
If on the other hand your criticisms of DLC are for more fundamental reasons, carry on.

 

[Cyrinno]

I am someone who approves of the DLC model they are using but that doesn't mean I don't want an expansion.


Expansion
New features that change game mechanics or expand them.

DLC
Good for scenario based content where you can buy the ones you are interested.
(Civ4 warlords probably would of been better as DLC with Civ4 only having 1 expansion)


The question everyones afraid of is are they going to actually make an expansion for civ5 at all and if they decide their not, hopefully modding gets unlocked along with mod playabled multiplayer in a final patch.

 

[Andoo]

No. This is completely incorrect. The expansions for Civ4 (Warlords and BTS) both added entirely new dimensions to the game. New (base) units (ie not just new unique units from new civs), new systems (like vassals and espionage), new diplomacy options, new technologies, new wonders, new civs AND leaders, new leaders for existing civs, new combat mechanics... THAT is an expansion. BTS was an entirely different game from Vanilla Civ. Warlords wasn't as drastic, but if you played warlords and then went back to vanilla, you felt a major difference (especially because the entire idea of vassals was introduced in warlords). Releasing some leaders and a few wonders piecemeal and making people pay for it is NOT an expansion. It is completing the full VANILLA version of Civ5. The idea of only partially including the Leaders / Wonders with the initial release was well planned ahead of time. It wasn't accidental, nor did they "forget" to include the leaders/wonders. It isn't an expansion, and, therefore, is completely different from the previous versions of Civ.

Note how I only compared DLCs to Warlords and PTW, not BTS because BTS did change the game quite drastically. Warlords on the other hand merely added new civs/leaders, swapping of traits, and scenarios. It's no different than a bunch of civ DLCs bundled togather. If DLCs aren't expansions, Warlords isnt either. About the second point that DLC contents are intentionally excluded from release..

1. You have no evidence to back your point up.

2. Expansions do the same thing. Warcraft III Frozen throne, for example, added a couple of heroes that were already in the Warcraft III Alpha version and a few new units that were already in the original campaign. You see how there ARE evidences in this case?

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Note how I only compared DLCs to Warlords and PTW, not BTS because BTS did change the game quite drastically. Warlords on the other hand merely added new civs/leaders, swapping of traits, and scenarios. It's no different than a bunch of civ DLCs bundled togather. If DLCs aren't expansions, Warlords isnt either. About the second point that DLC contents are intentionally excluded from release..

1. You have no evidence to back your point up.

2. Expansions do the same thing. Warcraft III Frozen throne, for example, added a couple of heroes that were already in the Warcraft III Alpha version and a few new units that were already in the original campaign. You see how there ARE evidences in this case?

Warlords added the entirely new vassal system, altered the combat mechanics of several units, added several civilizations, the concept of a Unique Building, and further tweaked the AI. Warlords did change the game quite drastically. No one argued to the contrary when it came out. There may have been plenty of discussion on whether or not the vassal system was any good, but no one considered Warlords to be light content or lacking in the new content department for an expansion pack.

1. I provided you with my reasoning for the idea that Civ4 had 2 expansions, not just some DLC released as Warlords and then BTS (as shown above ie vassal system etc).

2. This is not evidence. It is sad to think that you believe the horrible practices that Warcraft III utilized (ie marketing an "expansion" as adding so little content) in their expansion system is somehow evidence of Civ5's DLC being akin to a real "expansion" (which it doesn't). However, adding an entirely new mechanic known as "vassals" in Warlords, and then Espionage and several new technologies on top of new leaders and tweaked game mechanics (BTS) ARE good examples (evidences) of large amounts of added content/features justifying the term "expansion pack" and the price that goes with "expansion packs".

As to PieceOfMind

Regarding DLC, I think the main reasoned argument against it (and this argument I think was more used several years ago when the concept was newer to people) is that it's a bit manipulative on the consumer by asking them for smaller sums of money at more intervals making it seem like less or the same overall when in fact it's the same just spread over a greater time. That's a fair criticism IMO and one that is ok to feel cynical about.

Yes, this is more of the point I was trying to make regarding DLC (and may not have been wording it properly).

 

[Andoo]

Warlords added the entirely new vassal system, altered the combat mechanics of several units, added several civilizations, the concept of a Unique Building, and further tweaked the AI. Warlords did change the game quite drastically. No one argued to the contrary when it came out. There may have been plenty of discussion on whether or not the vassal system was any good, but no one considered Warlords to be light content or lacking in the new content department for an expansion pack.

1. I provided you with my reasoning for the idea that Civ4 had 2 expansions, not just some DLC released as Warlords and then BTS (as shown above ie vassal system etc).

2. This is not evidence. It is sad to think that you believe the horrible practices that Warcraft III utilized (ie marketing an "expansion" as adding so little content) in their expansion system is somehow evidence of Civ5's DLC being akin to a real "expansion" (which it doesn't). However, adding an entirely new mechanic known as "vassals" in Warlords, and then Espionage and several new technologies on top of new leaders and tweaked game mechanics (BTS) ARE good examples (evidences) of large amounts of added content/features justifying the term "expansion pack" and the price that goes with "expansion packs".

Yeah and those are a couple of patch's worth of additional contents wrapped up in an expansion. If you look at Civ 5 patches you can find rather large tweaks of tech trees, social policies, buildings, units, civ-traits, city-state benefits, AI, diplomacy, additional bonus resources, new buildings, and so on. It's just that they gave these game changes for free instead of bundling them in an expansion. Also, again, I'm not comparing Civ 5 DLCs to BTS as their additional contents pale in comparison to what BTS offered. However that does not make DLC a NEW paradigm for civilization marketing because it's just what Warlords and PTW were to Civ 4 and Civ 3 respectively.

For your next point, Civ 4 having 2 expansions has absolutely nothing to do with Civ 5 holding some of the contents back for DLC. You still haven't provided any evidence that the actual DLC contents were developped during Civ 5 development stage rather than post-launch, but only your speculations. Actually if I remember correctly Spain and Inca were top two wanted civilizations to be added on a poll on 2K forums which might indicate the DLCs were developped AFTER launch.

Lastly.. I think you misread my post. Those were evidences that Warcraft III hold off some of their contents for their expansion, and they have nothing to do with Civ 5 DLC's quality. If you actually had evidences like these that back your point that Firaxis actually saved some of Civ 5's vanilla contents for DLC, please be my guest and show us. I won't be mad if they DID hold some though because like I pointed out, such marketing had happened before during expansion pack era..

If you think DLCs are too expensive for what they offer, I'm fine with that. But saying DLCs are new paradigm for squeezing out vanilla game but expansions are not is just not close to reality.

 

[Becomedeath]

The fact is that DLCs are not part of the vanilla package, they're optional extras.

Consider Warcraft, when the expansions come out, Burning Crusade, Lich King, Cataclysm etc the existing game client is patched to enable you to play regardless of whether you've got the expansions or not, so you can continue to interact on the same level albiet more limited than your expansioned counterparts.

The DLC is no different, the game patches affect the game in general whether or not you have the DLCs, you don't need them to enable anything other than their own content, thus, they are not part of the vanilla game itself. They are, if you like, micro expansions.

As has been stated over and over, you are not obliged to obtain this material, nor are you suffering if you do not. You make a choice. As a result, you can either buy it when it's hot, or wait for them to bundle it and get the whole lot as a cheaper deal. (It was blindingly obvious that this would happen sooner or later).

Now, they're selling a new product which is the client and the DLCs all in one package and at a lower price.

If you didn't get the DLC you're not suffering as a result as you wouldn't need to buy the game client again anyway and the DLC are optional.

You still get access to MP gaming and patches like anyone else, you don't lose out. To be perfectly honest, I don't think the DLC has delivered anything that I'd miss if it wasn't there. And if I did think I'd miss it, then I would be happy with what I'd opted to buy and still not have a complaint.

The idea that you're somehow obliged to purchase the DLC or you don't have the full game is rather odd. The DLC extend the game, nothing more. And that's all the GOTY is offering.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

For your next point, Civ 4 having 2 expansions has absolutely nothing to do with Civ 5 holding some of the contents back for DLC. You still haven't provided any evidence that the actual DLC contents were developped during Civ 5 development stage rather than post-launch, but only your speculations. Actually if I remember correctly Spain and Inca were top two wanted civilizations to be added on a poll on 2K forums which might indicate the DLCs were developped AFTER launch.

No one would have "evidences" to prove anything about the developers holding back content for release on DLC. Only the developer themselves (or those working marketing for them) can attest to this. So stop asking for "evidences" that no one outside the company could provide. To be fair, you cannot prove that they DID release all content that had been created up until the release date. You, too, only have suppositions.

You are continuously ignoring the fact that Warlords WAS NOT just some minor addition of some civs. It added an entirely new system to the game, namely VASSALS. This wasn't the ONLY new content, but it certainly changed the game drastically.

Finally, the patches aren't DLC. The patches are free and they fixed many gameplay issues that, on initial release, desperately needed fixing as well as several bugs and gameplay imbalances. That isn't DLC, that's fixing a busted original product. I have no gripe with patches or the idea of releasing a Vanilla game that will need tweaking as real world testing and feedback is necessary for such tweaks. However, the patches ARE NOT part of the DLC.

@Becomedeath
Then we simply differ in our opinion of whether or not DLC is part of the Vanilla civ. This is a matter of opinion as it cannot be delineated from evidence to form fact. I say that the DLC only adds a few civs and a couple wonders and, therefore, are not additional content, but are in fact simply "the rest" of the vanilla Civ5. You contend that they are additional pieces of the game that are not "vanilla" but are mini-expansions. Fine. We differ in our opinions and that is the basis for our difference in the opinion of the acceptability of the pricing structure of DLC.

As has been stated over and over, you are not obliged to obtain this material, nor are you suffering if you do not. You make a choice. As a result, you can either buy it when it's hot, or wait for them to bundle it and get the whole lot as a cheaper deal. (It was blindingly obvious that this would happen sooner or later).

The fact that this statement was made "over and over" has little to do with the argument at hand. I'm simply stating my discontent with the new paradigm of including the rest of the vanilla content in DLC, so if I want the full vanilla game I DO have to buy the content. Again, our opinions of whether or not the DLC is mini-expansion or simply content purposefully not put into the original release defines this argument. If you believe them to be mini-expansions, then fine. You are right. I, however, do not hold this view, and so my view prevails for me.

 

[Becomedeath]

Then we simply differ in our opinion of whether or not DLC is part of the Vanilla civ.

You might want to call Friaxis then and tell them. They appear to have put restrictions on the use of DLC which doesn't sound like it's particularly vanilla with them. Infact, one could say that you've customised your game and so it's no longer vanilla.

Additionally, the GOTM uses the original client and not the DLC as they are not part of the (wait for it...) vanilla package.

If you give a saved game to someone who's just bought the game and you've got all the DLC, guess what, their vanilla version won't run it...

It's not a matter of opinion. It's a fact. The DLC are optional content, the inclusion of which makes the game so significantly different that clients cannot interact with each other using this content.

You have DLC, therefore your game is not vanilla, you've added a wafer and some chocolate sauce.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

It's not a matter of opinion. It's a fact. The DLC are optional content, the inclusion of which makes the game so significantly different that clients cannot interact with each other using this content.

You have DLC, therefore your game is not vanilla, you've added a wafer and some chocolate sauce.

Lol. Like your last comment, made me

I must say, though, that although the game may not be able to run, it doesn't mean it is "significantly different" as the only things added are some Civs and wonders. This is the additional content that is usually delineated to the Mod community. The coding that the DLC provide is inconsistent with the original release, not because it is so drastically changed, but simply because some of the coding schemas are inconsistent. Just as an aside, if you allow the developer and marketers to dictate what an expansion is (by their putting restrictions on DLC to non-DLC savegames / multiplayer) then they could put out DLC with 1 civ, 1 wonder, and a new coding schema and that would mean it is an expansion. I wouldn't use that as an indicator, personally. But again, that is more of an opinion than a fact.

If I am wrong and there is some drastic change to the game via DLC (besides some additional Civs/wonders), then please let me know and I will gladly STHU and buy the damn thing

 

[Becomedeath]

If I am wrong and there is some drastic change to the game via DLC (besides some additional Civs/wonders), then please let me know and I will gladly STHU and buy the damn thing

I actually said "significant" not "drastic", but in retrospect, "sufficently" would have been more appropriate.

To be honest, I'm not sure what changes beyond the inclusion of new units, buildings, wonders and civilisations the DLC introduces, it may make changes to balance other civs default personas or vary their level bonuses.

My point was merely that the introduction of these DLCs to your client is sufficent to stop it from being considered vanilla. As for whatelse has changed, you'd have to look to someone more knowledgable on the subject than I am.

It is possible, and perhaps worth considering however, that they simply aren't going to do a formal expansion and continue letting the customer customise their game through DLC...there's plenty to be gained from that approach.

 

[Andoo]

No one would have "evidences" to prove anything about the developers holding back content for release on DLC. Only the developer themselves (or those working marketing for them) can attest to this. So stop asking for "evidences" that no one outside the company could provide. To be fair, you cannot prove that they DID release all content that had been created up until the release date. You, too, only have suppositions.

You are continuously ignoring the fact that Warlords WAS NOT just some minor addition of some civs. It added an entirely new system to the game, namely VASSALS. This wasn't the ONLY new content, but it certainly changed the game drastically.

Finally, the patches aren't DLC. The patches are free and they fixed many gameplay issues that, on initial release, desperately needed fixing as well as several bugs and gameplay imbalances. That isn't DLC, that's fixing a busted original product. I have no gripe with patches or the idea of releasing a Vanilla game that will need tweaking as real world testing and feedback is necessary for such tweaks. However, the patches ARE NOT part of the DLC.

Wow it reminds me of "You can't prove there's God but you can't prove there isn't God either!" kind of arguement. Well at least priests have holy books to back them up You can't just go about and accuse people of something they didn't do without any evidence y'know. If you don't have any evidences or at least clues that lead to your speculation, fine. It just means that your whole accusation based on empty speculation means not so much to others.

Also if you think Warlords has changed Civ 4 more than DLCs changed Civ 5, that's fine with me too. My/Your opinion won't change on this. My original point is irrelevant with whether expansion adds more than DLC or not. I quoted your line that's saying that DLC is a new paradigm that forces you to pay more for the full game. I replied that this isn't true as expansions did exactly the same thing:force you to pay more for the full game.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

I understand both your points, Andoo and Becomedeath. We may disagree with respect to the terminology of "expansion pack", but what I have to admit you guys have correct is the fact that DLC is here to stay, it provides more content for the game (expanding its original abilities) and the idea that formal "expansions" may NOT be on the horizon for Civ5 (beyond DLC with drastic & significant changes). So, there ends our debate.

Now, this impoverished college student is going to scrounge up some loot to get the DLC that I am so scornful of

 

[mr_happyguy]

Wow, this has turned into a... VERY sophisticated discussion, lol
Anyway, my girlfriend bought me an ENGLISH GOTY edition of CIV5 1½ month ago.. It contained the same DLCs as the GOTY posted here as "brand new"..

 

[anandus]

Wow, this has turned into a... VERY sophisticated discussion, lol
Anyway, my girlfriend bought me an ENGLISH GOTY edition of CIV5 1½ month ago.. It contained the same DLCs as the GOTY posted here as "brand new"..

It doesn't include Denmark, does it?

 

[mr_happyguy]

It doesn't include Denmark, does it?

No, and that was truly a disappointment, since I'm Danish and bought in a Danish store

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Wow, this has turned into a... VERY sophisticated discussion, lol

Welcome to Civfanatics!

 

[The Mad Russian]

I know I can't be the only one who has a problem with this G.O.T.Y. release and I'm sure what I am about to say has been said, or at least thought about, in recent months.

I've been playing Civ for a long time and even though I play in a very non-traditional way by starting 90% of my games in the Future Era, the thoughts are meant to be across the board for traditional players as well.

I don't see the need for a GOTY because there are still many bugs and issues with the version out now even after all of the patches, hot-fixes, and DLCs. Diplomacy is still terrible. The AIs lack "D-Day Invasion" theory and is still suicidal when trying to attempt those sorts of attacks. Many admit that Civ 4 was the best game in the series so far and I have spent a lot of time lately playing that rather than CiV. I remember in Civ III that the AI used to land countless troops inside my borders and attacking on several fronts. CiV is pretty predictable.

Archipelago games lack action because of this and I see that map as completely useless. If you're not playing Pangaea or at least one landmass maps, you're pretty much guaranteed a win if you know what you're doing.

I miss tech-brokering, culture-flipping, and the many aspects that Civ 4 had like religions, vassal states, corporations, etc.

After a year I of patches and hot-fixes I still see bugs that should've been fixed eons ago. I keep seeing this bug when an icon, usually Mech Infantry, is in a hex, but the actual unit is 2 or 3 hexes away from it. An opposing unit attacks it, destroys it, and moves into the square of the actual unit, not where the icon is and then gets magically transported to the accurate square. Bombers and fighters fly in circles 5 or 6 times dropping payloads each time, but the unit, either naval or land, takes one dose of damage then the aerial unit suddenly vanishes.

Fix the damn bugs first, get the game where it should've been a year ago, stop working on BS projects like CivWorld and crap for the IPhone or IPad and get your act together. The modders of the community with their own patches and mods at least keep this game playable.

Now that I have said my piece I know I'm going to get attacked so bring it on. I know though I can't be the only one disappointed after a year of this game's existence.

After Civ 4, I don't see, whether it be hot-shot graphics, wonders, leaders or anything else that can beat that game. To me, they got it down perfect with Civ 4.

-Mark