Civ V: How much have you bought?
- Thread starter Chibiabos
- Start date
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.
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.
jtb1127
Deity
I shamefully admit to having bough several DLC. By doing so I have only fueled the fire of greed.
mike1117112
Chieftain
I bought Spain for Isabella of course ( which was OK), and I got Polynesia which so far is a lot of fun. He's all ready shown up in a random islands map game, and he's tough.
I haven't bought Babylon, and I think I got Mongols for free.
So, I'm undecided. Spain wasn't worth it, but Polynesia is new sparkly stuff.
EDIT; I've been playing since Civ III, love 4, and I like V. How hardcore? It's one of only two games I regularly play.
I haven't bought Babylon, and I think I got Mongols for free.
So, I'm undecided. Spain wasn't worth it, but Polynesia is new sparkly stuff.
EDIT; I've been playing since Civ III, love 4, and I like V. How hardcore? It's one of only two games I regularly play.
I bought all the new civs that I really wanted (read: Polynesia, which is well worth the cost if you like Civ V enough to play it at all - very different experience from the other civs) and left all the ones I didn't have to have on the table. I feel good about this.
Ermak-
Prince
I only buy whatever is avalabe to be in multiplayer sinc ei NEVER play singe player
Rooftrellen
King
I have no DLC, though I have considered it.
I have two problems with it. First, the Steam EULA has certain clauses for games bought though them. I bought my game the old fashioned way, and don't want to buy any extra content with which they could argue more power over my game.
Second, it's just too expensive. I can get a decent meal for $5. $5 is quite a bit of money for me, so I can't just go dump it on a civ that may or may not be in most of my games.
As they are releasing DLC civs on new games, as with the game of the year edition, better to wait for an expansion for new civs and other new features, rather than paying so much for so little.
I have two problems with it. First, the Steam EULA has certain clauses for games bought though them. I bought my game the old fashioned way, and don't want to buy any extra content with which they could argue more power over my game.
Second, it's just too expensive. I can get a decent meal for $5. $5 is quite a bit of money for me, so I can't just go dump it on a civ that may or may not be in most of my games.
As they are releasing DLC civs on new games, as with the game of the year edition, better to wait for an expansion for new civs and other new features, rather than paying so much for so little.
glaivemaster
Prince
I'd rather see an option in the poll for every DLC civilisation, but not the maps, since I imagine quite a few people fall in to that category (myself included)
I am having some frustrations with how simplistic the poll software is. My curiosity with this poll is with how much of the available DLC folk have bought, a curiosity triggered by the "Game Of The Year" stuff. My interests with this poll are not in determining which specific ones are more popular than others, only in how much DLC folk have gotten.
Guardian_PL
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,231
I've preordered Digital Deluxe from D2D so I got Babylon, Spain and Inca with it, silly Mongolia is free. I think I have cradle of sth map that I've never used. I've spent £39.99 for it and that's the last money 2K/Firaxis will see from me.
It's just a shame that I've been let down on many gaming companies, but Sid Meier was the only name I had trust in - every title from Firaxis was solid and after amazing Civ4 that kept me playing several times a week for over two years I've preordered Civ5 and even did the trick to play the game upon release with US zone - that's how excited I was.
What I've received was a smelly turd in a pretty box that crumbled apart few days later. I could not believe that this crap I'm playing is the next Civilization game. Remember how initially unemployed citizens were giving the same amount of hammers as Engineers? I was floored, while apologists were going "what's your problem, Engineers are good cause you get GP points with them, so everything is fine". It's just... There was nothing but disappointment inside.
I've clocked over 150 hours into the game frantically looking for "civ feeling", thinking that maybe I'm doing something wrong...
Anyway, several anticlimatic Deity victories later I've had enough and started playing again only after .217. So far it's ok, that's the state of the game I could accept upon release - glaring AI and trade table problems, but at least you can build some stuff and don't ICS like crazy, doing same boring sh** over and over again.
It's just a shame that I've been let down on many gaming companies, but Sid Meier was the only name I had trust in - every title from Firaxis was solid and after amazing Civ4 that kept me playing several times a week for over two years I've preordered Civ5 and even did the trick to play the game upon release with US zone - that's how excited I was.
What I've received was a smelly turd in a pretty box that crumbled apart few days later. I could not believe that this crap I'm playing is the next Civilization game. Remember how initially unemployed citizens were giving the same amount of hammers as Engineers? I was floored, while apologists were going "what's your problem, Engineers are good cause you get GP points with them, so everything is fine". It's just... There was nothing but disappointment inside.
I've clocked over 150 hours into the game frantically looking for "civ feeling", thinking that maybe I'm doing something wrong...
Anyway, several anticlimatic Deity victories later I've had enough and started playing again only after .217. So far it's ok, that's the state of the game I could accept upon release - glaring AI and trade table problems, but at least you can build some stuff and don't ICS like crazy, doing same boring sh** over and over again.
CTH
Prince
I havent bought any but got the pre-order bonus stuff, and I have to say that I prob would have bought inca/spain, both civs is different and fun, mongolia has been to nerfed in patches and polynesian doesnt really seem like that much fun. I will prob buy one or two more DLC:s and before an expansion (that I will buy because I am a optimist and actually think that it is in it current state a pretty good game) that I assume will contain all DLC civs
Incidentally, as the new patch gets me increasingly addicted, I want more civs... is there any easy reference on the exact details of the new civs? I don't want to pay for something that's going to play exactly the same as existing ones, and I don't know the details on Spain, the Inca, or Babylon.
I checked "a few" but I've only bought the Babylon DLC. People act like DLC is the end of the world, but given how much complaining goes on, it's probably better than an expansion. There's almost no expansion pack that Firaxis could release that wouldn't be met with a flood of complaints. An expansion tends to create a new tier of content, and since most of this forum seems to hate the game, it would only further divide the community between those who have it and those who don't.
At least dlc lets you have an element of choice. If you think the price is too much, or you aren't that interested, just don't buy it. I only bought Babylon because I was sure I'd find their style of play interesting. The other DLC civs didn't interest me enough to justify $5 on them, so I didn't purchase them-and that's OK. It doesn't "offend" me when they (or basically every other game company) offers DLC. I buy it if I'm interested, but I often pass.
At least dlc lets you have an element of choice. If you think the price is too much, or you aren't that interested, just don't buy it. I only bought Babylon because I was sure I'd find their style of play interesting. The other DLC civs didn't interest me enough to justify $5 on them, so I didn't purchase them-and that's OK. It doesn't "offend" me when they (or basically every other game company) offers DLC. I buy it if I'm interested, but I often pass.
Becephalus
King
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2005
- Messages
- 725
I could care less about DLC. There are already plenty of civs and maps. Besides if I wanted more civs or maps there is the modding community.
I just want improved balance and AI. I would pay $50 for a DLC that made the AI top notch, but that would take years to make I am sure.
I just want improved balance and AI. I would pay $50 for a DLC that made the AI top notch, but that would take years to make I am sure.
seasnake
Conquistador
I've bought the new civs DLC, and I think it's really added to the gameplay.
marioflag
History Addict
I have bought Deluxe Edition and all DLC civs, i still see no point to buy bonus maps
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 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.
