Civilization 5 Expansion

[deanej]

I think it's safe to say at this point that we won't have expansions for civ5. By this point in civ4's release cycle, Warlords was already out.

To those who say that the current DLC model produces the same effect in a different way: the patches for civ5 are comparable to the ones for civ4. The DLCs are the only difference, and an expansion gives you more for the same price. And using expansions instead of DLC gives a unified game experience (and a cleaner file system, though I doubt most care about this). To those who say you don't have to buy all the DLC: well, what about those of us that do? If I had civ5, I'd feel forced to buy all of them, because I'm a completest. I like to have the "full" experience.

 

[Civsassin]

I think it's safe to say at this point that we won't have expansions for civ5. By this point in civ4's release cycle, Warlords was already out.

First of all, you cannot compare CiV to CiIV. Everyone wants to make the comparison, but there isn't one. They are separated in time, technology, and philosophy. Moreover, "I think its safe to say [...]" doesn't jibe with what I've heard from insiders.

 

[deanej]

Civ3 followed the same release cycle as civ4. I would say it's a constant for the series barring fundamental changes (such as the elimination of expansions in favor of DLC). The last civ game to follow a different cycle, civ2, didn't really have expansions in the sense that civ3 and civ4 did; Fantastic Worlds was a scenario pack, and Test of Time was a new edition of the game and was installed alongside, not on top of, the earlier versions of civ2.

 

[Civsassin]

Civ3 followed the same release cycle as civ4. I would say it's a constant for the series barring fundamental changes (such as the elimination of expansions in favor of DLC). The last civ game to follow a different cycle, civ2, didn't really have expansions in the sense that civ3 and civ4 did; Fantastic Worlds was a scenario pack, and Test of Time was a new edition of the game and was installed alongside, not on top of, the earlier versions of civ2.

That doesn't prove that they are going to do the same thing with CiV, and you have no basis for your OPINION that there will not be expansions. One of the moderators mentioned in a post that they were working on an expansion for a holiday 2011 release.

 

[deanej]

How come said post didn't make the front page? For that matter, I haven't seen it ANYWHERE; must be in an unrelated (or very long) thread.

Besides, why change for the sake of change?

 

[Civsassin]

How come said post didn't make the front page? For that matter, I haven't seen it ANYWHERE; must be in an unrelated (or very long) thread.

Besides, why change for the sake of change?

I don't recall the thread or moderator, but it was a thread relating to a previous DLC. Since this is CiV vanilla, there are plenty of reasons to expand as they've done with previous versions of the game. I would say it's safe to say there will be expansions. Anyway, I would tend to put more credibility in the words of a moderator than that of a game poster. I think you were too presumptive in saying it's safe to say there won't be expansions without providing evidence.

 

[deanej]

Well, I haven't been wrong on a prediction yet, despite those who have claimed I'm wrong (I also predicted forced steam, DLC, and the modding issues). Would be nice if civ5 hasn't abandoned all sanity though.

 

[thadian]

And the good thing of DLC is that you can mix'n'match the stuff you want and don't want. So you don't have to buy the maps for instance, ergo you dont have to pay for stuff you don't want or need.

But you don't have the same choice up front when you buy the game. you can't choose to click a button to grab polynesia and inca and spain instead of songhai, rome and india. Also, an expansion featuring only DLC Civ's would do a tremendous dis-service to customers who already paid for half the expansion and still have to pay full price for maybe a corporation or espionage system.

The company normally hold their cards close to their chest.

Percisely the point - its a good thing when it comes to the core of it all. they need to have time to release an expansion that will be well worth it, and i hope it gets the same internal attention as their facebook game, they released a lot of "projects" lately but most are usually finished in advance for many reasons.

If it takes as long as warlords and bts the expansions should be well worth it as long as they provide sufficient content for the price.

 

[_hero_]

All that has to be asked is one question:

Will it be profitable.

This is business we're talking about. So long as they expect enough people to buy it, there will be an expansion.

 

[Menzies]

Expansions also build up a lot of interest from the game's community and generally gives the place a buzz. DLC can do that only to a small extent and I'm sure they recognise the effect that having another expansion would have. Hence I don't doubt that they are probably going to release one at some point in the future.

 

[anandus]

In a thread a few months ago, one of the moderators made a mention of a possible expansion in the holiday time frame of this year. That's not too far away and the right time for a marketing blitz.

Do you have a link to that thread?

 

[Civsassin]

Do you have a link to that thread?

I don't recall which thread it was; I only remember the statement. It was a discussion thread on another DLC. I'll try to dig it up and post the link if I can find it.

 

[thadian]

i hope all of us argueing about this makes them WANT to live up to the demand and release an expansion that increases the product grade of civ by about 4 levels.

a lot of players are unhappy - many are pleased.

but we all know they can do better, have done better and if they do at LEAST as good as BTS then i would be happy. so far i haven't been terribly dissapointed with the expansions in the past, especially the potential it gives modders.

but i will also claim that all of its content was in the origonal design and "plucked out" to sell later as DLC's and expansions.

 

[André Alfenaar]

Considering the fact that they invest so much in patching the game, I think they want to keep a large fan base in order to release a profitable add-on.

And I do hope, that they will release the DLC's on disk, too. A lot of people (like me) don't have a credit card which in fact makes it quite impossible to purchase the DLC's at the moment. Paypall is not really a trustworthy option to my opinion.

 

[Deggial]

I strongly believe that there will be an expansion!

They are heavily working on patches and obviously did *not* abandon the game -even if some people here at the forums where quite negative about this and suspected that this will be the case.
But maybe the heavy patching is the reason, why an expansion was shifted backwards: You need to have a solid fundament to build on. (I'm not saying that CiV is bad now and needs salvation. But there *are* still so many changes from patch to patch that the expansion's programmers would need to change their algorithms every week - which would not be a wise approach).

*Maybe* there is already a core programm for the expansion. But I doubt we'll see the finished product on the shelves earlier than 4th quarter 2011. There are winter hollidays, too...

 

[wcbarney]

i hope all of us argueing about this makes them WANT to live up to the demand and release an expansion that increases the product grade of civ by about 4 levels.

a lot of players are unhappy - many are pleased.

but we all know they can do better, have done better and if they do at LEAST as good as BTS then i would be happy. so far i haven't been terribly dissapointed with the expansions in the past, especially the potential it gives modders.

but i will also claim that all of its content was in the origonal design and "plucked out" to sell later as DLC's and expansions.

I am one of the players who are pleased. I was never one of the players who were unhappy. But, then again, maybe I'm a blathering idiot?

No, really. I like Civ V! I have liked it from the beginning; I have liked each DLC (except I haven't bought any of the DLC maps and I haven't yet bought the Viking DLC); I have liked each patch change (more-or-less) once I've reconfigured my play style to accomodate the changes. I look forward to the coming June/July patch, and also to the ones after that.

I think that your assertion that "all ... was 'plucked out' to sell later ..." is pretty cynical; hope you are not right!

 

[anandus]

[...] and if they do at LEAST as good as BTS
[...]
but i will also claim that all of its content was in the origonal design and "plucked out" to sell later as DLC's and expansions.

Aren't you contradicting yourself here?
You claim that expansions are content that is 'plucked out', but you want them to make something as good as earlier 'plucked out'-content?

But maybe the heavy patching is the reason, why an expansion was shifted backwards: You need to have a solid fundament to build on.

True, as long as they are still working at the main program (and let's be honest: even after this patch there's some work to do), we shouldn't expect an expansion soon.

 

[Furycrab]

I question the very need for expansion and if we would really want them...

I know one type of player that loves expansions and that the low disposable income jerks that represent pirates, because an expansion becomes an excellent reason to go look for a fresh version of the game. However to almost everyone else, expansions usually have represented very mediocre value for Civ games and the only redeeming value being that for some players it's a proverbial Reset button to go back to the game. (Some more than others *cough* pirates *cough*) I know because I was one of them when Civ 2 and 3's expansions were rolling out.

It's hard to criticize them for making expansions, if I had a game that sold millions of copies I would be finding ways to make more money too. I also don't doubt that they might be working on an expansion as we speak, however the re-balance patches and DLC are about 2/3rds of what an expansion for civ have represented in the past.

So any expansions they do make would have to have some crazy changes (that people will likely call out as broken till 2-3 patches later) or just plain terrible for the value. Not to mention very unlikely to be distributed in most retail stores so you could just call it glorified/expensive DLC.

 

[_hero_]

Civ3 followed the same release cycle as civ4. I would say it's a constant for the series barring fundamental changes (such as the elimination of expansions in favor of DLC). The last civ game to follow a different cycle, civ2, didn't really have expansions in the sense that civ3 and civ4 did; Fantastic Worlds was a scenario pack, and Test of Time was a new edition of the game and was installed alongside, not on top of, the earlier versions of civ2.

Civ 5 is a different beast. Their lead designer quit on them a few months after release. The game needed a lot more polish then Civ 3 and Civ 4. That automatically puts them behind the cycle for the previous two games. There may not be an expansion, but from a business standpoint it would have made no sense to rush an expansion after rushing the vanilla version. Not to mention, DLC probably pushes back the release time of expansions too.

 

[awesome]

i'd expect the dlc to be bundled together in a complete edition before i'd expect it in an expansion, but that's just me