Civ V: How much have you bought?

[BobDole]

I finally broke down and got the Civ DLC off of Direct2Drive since it was 20% off (not a killer amount, but better than full price). I've been playing the game a ton recently and so far I haven't regretted the purchases. Still will never buy the maps unless they dropped to like 25 cents or something, they're not worth anywhere near what they're selling them for.

 

[Chibiabos]

The big fear with DLC seems to be that they'll release a subpar product and then use DLC to fix the issues, basically forcing the end user to pay extra for a product in an underhanded way. This is in fact the business model of freemium games - except that since they lack an up front investment, it's hard to accuse them of being slimy cheats. And certainly some companies have delivered really obvious cash-grab DLC - Oblivion's Horse Armor pack comes to mind.

I don't think this applies to Civ V, in two different ways.

First, the main purpose of DLC isn't simply to get money out of your wallet. They do love that extra revenue stream (and it helps defray the costs of producing videogames, which are rising even as their sales price stays relatively static), but that's not the main point. They're really after finding a way to add value in a way that lets them get some money out of the secondary market. And when I say add value, I mean it - publishers now often contract studios to deliver a full, high quality shipped title and several pieces of DLC. Those publishers are giving studios additional budget just for use on DLC, and they would NOT accept DLC that fixes glaring problems with a game as a good use of that budget. And I'm even talking about some publishers which would surprise you - publishers which have a very poor rep when it comes to being consumer-friendly. I know nothing about 2K firsthand, but the point of DLC isn't just to let greedy execs pry money from the poor customer's hands.

The second reason I don't think this applies to Civ V is simply because of what the offerings have been. They shipped with a full stable of civs - fewer than in past releases, but more unique than in the past. It's clear that these weren't civs they had ready at launch, mostly - they even gave one of them away for free. Releasing additional civs and map packs frankly just doesn't fix any of the problems with Civ; it's literally nothing but added value to the game for a price tag.

Which is not to say that DLC will be worth it to everyone. If you don't want to buy it, don't buy it. There's no judgment in that.

I would concur that the DLC isn't intended to fix flaws in the game -- if it is, I don't think it has succeeded. However, I disagree with your assertion it isn't intended to extract more money from paying customers.

If the publisher were truly interested in adding value, one would think they would keep working until they resolve the flaws in the game. In my estimation, only a tiny minority of users are satisfied with the game's AI ... in games that focus on multiplayer, such a lackluster AI could be excused, but Civ V -- despite multiplayer capacity -- remains, as with its predecessors, a single-player game. The AI is still weak though it has gotten a little less bad, but compared with, say, Stardock, Firaxis has been very slow with patches and they seem to still be a long way from having a competent AI. None of the DLC addresses the flaw issue, and it feels a lot like Firaxis doesn't believe there is anything wrong with the AI nor other issues with the game and only a minority of players are concerned with it. So long as customers keep forking over for DLC, I don't think they really have any reason to care.

I don't buy DLC for the game because I don't feel I've yet gotten my money's worth for buying the game to begin with, and paying more money for "content" that doesn't fix what I perceive as enjoyment-diminishing flaws would only make me as disappointed in myself for supporting what I consider bad customer service as I am in the game.

As for supporting a "secondhand market" ... what secondhand market? So far as I know, the Terms of Service for Civ V make it illegal to resell your game; at least, I believe that is the case with the digital downloads. If you are dissatisfied with the game and want to pawn it to get at least a little of your money back, you're stuck ... I cannot think of a single motivation for a software publisher to do this except "haha, gotcha, don't like it? tough! we got your money and you won't get it back!" They get away with selling a product under such terms that they have no motivation whatsoever to make a game right, by taking away their customer's rights to resell their purchase if they are dissatisfied.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Vanilla only. Haven't played through it once yet and won't buy any dlc's for it. I might get back to it but I doubt it. If I do, I might consider a reasonably priced expansion pack.

 

[Kerosene31]

I bought everything (except for Babylon which I had already). The maps were an impulse buy (the danger of DLC). I almost always prefer random maps as I like the exploration and not knowing where things are. Even then, with all the hours I have and will spend in the game I don't have a problem with it.

 

[Beef Hammer]

I got the deluxe version, will not be buying any more civs.

 

[the343danny]

I did swallow my doubt and buy Civ V, but did not buy any DLC nor pre-order for bonus content nor get the deluxe version.

I have been seriously disappointed with the game, and continue to be, and am even more disappointed at the arrogance of Firaxis at seemingly laughing at the large number of customers who did buy the game and have not been satisfied. Contrast firmly with Stardock, and their CEO Brad Wardell who acknowledged Elemental was not what was promised to customers and not only did Stardock work diligently to fix the game with patches that not only addressed the launch issues but almost remade the game entirely, but in a gracious and courteous apology to Stardock's customers is giving away two full, entire expansions (the first of which will be stand-alone and not even require the original game) to every customer who had bought the game before it had been made ship-shape.

Just compare and contrast the two -- a trickling of half-assed patches from Firaxis, no real acknowledgment that the game was a step down from previous versions, buggy and bloated running slowly in late turns even on high end machines, terrible AI, etc., and certainly no courtesy to its paying customers ... instead just continuing to steamroll ahead with premium DLCs.

No way would I buy any DLC. I have never felt so let-down by the Civ V franchise before ... I've been an adoring fan since the very first Civ V game and even at launch day, have not had any serious qualms with any of the Civ games with the exception of Colonization (no, I don't have a console so I never tried Civ Rev).

I am curious how many, like me, have not been sufficiently impressed with Civ V to pay extra money for DLC. versus the die-hard fans who think the DLC is appealing enough to buy.

Have you played with the latest patch? Im hearing lots of previous haters saying that they are feeling the "just one more turn..." again. Personally Ive always enjoyed it though, as long as some mods were there. To me, it seems mods arent essential now, and that means a lot, because it is a testament to the potential a certain game has. The mods I used pre-patch werent that big of mods and yet they made the game improve a whole lot. So if you havent played with the latest patch, by all means I would suggest you do.

As for me, I pre-ordered it with D2D with the -10$ off code so I got it at a regular price while still getting Babylon and with the free first DLC offer from D2D I got Spain and Inca for free. I didnt vote because I still had those DLCs but didnt actually buy them. I am considering buying the latest DLC though.

 

[Drawmeus]

I would concur that the DLC isn't intended to fix flaws in the game -- if it is, I don't think it has succeeded. However, I disagree with your assertion it isn't intended to extract more money from paying customers.

If the publisher were truly interested in adding value, one would think they would keep working until they resolve the flaws in the game. In my estimation, only a tiny minority of users are satisfied with the game's AI ... in games that focus on multiplayer, such a lackluster AI could be excused, but Civ V -- despite multiplayer capacity -- remains, as with its predecessors, a single-player game. The AI is still weak though it has gotten a little less bad, but compared with, say, Stardock, Firaxis has been very slow with patches and they seem to still be a long way from having a competent AI. None of the DLC addresses the flaw issue, and it feels a lot like Firaxis doesn't believe there is anything wrong with the AI nor other issues with the game and only a minority of players are concerned with it. So long as customers keep forking over for DLC, I don't think they really have any reason to care.

I don't buy DLC for the game because I don't feel I've yet gotten my money's worth for buying the game to begin with, and paying more money for "content" that doesn't fix what I perceive as enjoyment-diminishing flaws would only make me as disappointed in myself for supporting what I consider bad customer service as I am in the game.

As for supporting a "secondhand market" ... what secondhand market? So far as I know, the Terms of Service for Civ V make it illegal to resell your game; at least, I believe that is the case with the digital downloads. If you are dissatisfied with the game and want to pawn it to get at least a little of your money back, you're stuck ... I cannot think of a single motivation for a software publisher to do this except "haha, gotcha, don't like it? tough! we got your money and you won't get it back!" They get away with selling a product under such terms that they have no motivation whatsoever to make a game right, by taking away their customer's rights to resell their purchase if they are dissatisfied.

Sorry. It IS intended to extract money from customers. If I gave the impression that I thought otherwise, my mistake - I'm fully aware that it's intended to extract more money.

My point is that it is intended to extract money from customers by adding value, rather than by subtracting value up front and giving it back through DLC. I realize I can't back this up - I know it firsthand of some companies (not 2K/Firaxis).



The secondary market thing is simply - right now, you sell a game to gamestop and they resell it, the publisher/developer doesn't see a penny of that resale. By adding extra value that can't easily be transferred with the box sale, the publisher can make a little extra money each time a game is resold, if the DLC is enticing enough. This obviously doesn't really apply to Civ V thanks to Steam, just a general point of how we got where we are.

 

[CustodianV131]

Every DLC except the maps packs, which offer to little bang for the buck imo.

 

[Seikninkuru]

All Civs, no maps, I like the random aspect to the map type anyway, so I never saw a need to buy any of the maps.

-Have fun

 

[Tapewormlondon]

all civs no maps

 

[shozum]

Same, all DLC Civs purchased but no maps. Current favorite is the Incans, go go go terrace farming!

I did get the Americas map pack for free since I bought my game from Wal-mart

 

[Supr49er]

Vanilla and the Polynesians.

 

[Edgecrusher]

I pre-ordered through D2D the Deluxe verion, and thus have Babylon, Spain, Inca and Mongolia. Havent (and wont) buy Polynesia or the maps.
In fact, I have already written off Civ5 as a bad decision, and put the game away, focusing on other elements of my life. I havent played a game since mid-December, only rarely visiting these boards to get some new news regarding the game.
I will not buy any more DLC or expansions for Civ5, until Civ6 comes out, at which point I will look at the Civ5 "Complete" package going for $10 and finally give it a try. Until then I am happy satisfying my urge to play strategy games with Civ4. I will not buy Civ6 until having played a demo, and waited 6 months for the bugs to be fixed. Financially, it sounds like a smarter decision. If Civ6 is a consol game. I wont buy it. Grand strategy games are not done their justice on Consols. (IMO)
Ive heard alot about Elemental recentaly, and may give that a try, especially if that is true about what was said about Stardock.

I have to say, I have been playing the civilization series since Civ2, and enjoyed 2, 3 and 4. I do think that the series hit its "peak" at 4, specifically BTS. So going from BTS for the current status of V is quite a drop in enjoyment for me. I have been incredibly disappointed with the game. It seems the strategy has been taken out of it, as the game has been reduced to a simple build order. (IMO). When I play a strategy game. I want to have to put some thought into it, plan, strategize, and execute. That and the simple lack of modability of the game (not to the point where Civ4 was). I dont see any enjoyment in the game, for me at this present moment.

I hope the producers and developers of the game are happy with the direction they have taken this fabulous series.

 

[mike p]

I bought the deluxe edition, but not through a preorder, so I only have Babylon and Mongolia for DLC. I don't think I'm ever going to buy another computer game until it's been out long enough for a 'complete' edition at a lower price. There's enough old stuff I haven't gotten to yet.

 

[Fabiano1979]

Only vanilla, I dont like the concept of DLCs.

I think the companies are releasing very "dry" games because they want to sell DLCs later on, and this just doesnt seem right.

Its like buying a pizza and then you discover that theres no cheese on it.
"Ah, do you want cheese on your pizza? Only $4,99! How about some pepperoni? Just 5,99$".

 

[Drawmeus]

Update me to "Inca, Spain and Polynesia".

I won't be buying map packs - I play random maps anyway (I do like the earth map very occasionally), but new civs I feel are a decent value as long as they really change the way you play. The Polynesians are the poster-children for this. I haven't played Spain yet, but the Inca seem decent - you end up looking at the map differently, picking out hilly/mountainous regions to settle, which is cool, but not a total game-changer.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

I've bought all the civs. I think they're a pretty decent value, and the fact that they come with pretty good scenarios doesn't hurt. Map packs aren't worth anything though. I could perhaps be trouble to acquire them if they were free...

 

[Sync]

I could care less about DLC.

Sooo, that means you care a lot?

Paid for Spain/Inca, can't see myself paying for any more.

 

[aatami]

Its like buying a pizza and then you discover that theres no cheese on it.
"Ah, do you want cheese on your pizza? Only $4,99! How about some pepperoni? Just 5,99$".

Thank you, best joke of the week!

 

[Mesopotamian]

With the announcement of a "Game Of The Year" version which includes all the DLC to date, I wonder how much DLC have the typical civfanatics member bought?

got them all