Congratulations to CFC for getting us FREE DLC! (the mongols)

[Drawmeus]

Mongol terror is an appropriate name I agree. Having their troops have a 30% bonus over city states is a good way to simulate that. Just think of it as the city state's troops fighting weaker due to terror. Nothing wrong with the name at all.

I don't agree about the $5 price tag for future DLCs though. That's a huge rip off. $2 to $2.50 is about the limit anyone should be asked to pay and that is with a worthy game like cIV. Definitely not Shafer 5. They've got a heck of a lot of work to do bringing it up to par.

10 extra Civs at $5 a pop = the cost of the original game. That's a big rip off.

Look, I want stuff as cheaply as possible same as anyone. But saying $2.50 is the limit to what "anyone" should be asked to pay is a pretty strong position. You don't know what my gaming budget looks like - if I've got a good income, $5 could be pretty much irrelevant to me. The purpose of DLC is to provide an additional revenue stream for the company, so the pricing of DLC should be whatever nets the most additional profit ($5 might be on the high side, but I have no data whatsoever on this and neither do you - we're both just extrapolating from our own budgets). Setting it at $5 instead of $2.50 will certainly price out some people, but it won't price out others and we have no data available on how many people will be priced out. It could be 5%, it could be 95%.

I'll say what I said about DLC before launch - if it's not worth it to you (Babylon at $5 isn't worth it to me), don't buy it, but at least appreciate what DLC does for gaming. The cost to create a game has drastically increased over the last 10 years, while the price to sell a game has increased by much less. You have to sell a lot more copies to break even than you used to have to sell, and many games have always fallen short - it's a boom-or-bust industry. DLC puts more games at or above the break-even mark. That makes games a safer investment for the people with money, and that means more games made. This is true even on the obvious megahits, since the big hits pay for the flops and pay for companies taking risks; more revenue for game companies means more money going into new games.

The alternative to DLC is jacking the base price up to $70, $80 or whatever for no additional content. DLC is, overall, better for gamers than the reverse situation, since you can at least say no to it without passing on the game itself.

 

[SuperJay]

I miss my happy naivety...

Don't say we didn't warn you!

 

[Thormodr]

Look, I want stuff as cheaply as possible same as anyone. But saying $2.50 is the limit to what "anyone" should be asked to pay is a pretty strong position. You don't know what my gaming budget looks like - if I've got a good income, $5 could be pretty much irrelevant to me. The purpose of DLC is to provide an additional revenue stream for the company, so the pricing of DLC should be whatever nets the most additional profit ($5 might be on the high side, but I have no data whatsoever on this and neither do you - we're both just extrapolating from our own budgets). Setting it at $5 instead of $2.50 will certainly price out some people, but it won't price out others and we have no data available on how many people will be priced out. It could be 5%, it could be 95%.

I'll say what I said about DLC before launch - if it's not worth it to you (Babylon at $5 isn't worth it to me), don't buy it, but at least appreciate what DLC does for gaming. The cost to create a game has drastically increased over the last 10 years, while the price to sell a game has increased by much less. You have to sell a lot more copies to break even than you used to have to sell, and many games have always fallen short - it's a boom-or-bust industry. DLC puts more games at or above the break-even mark. That makes games a safer investment for the people with money, and that means more games made. This is true even on the obvious megahits, since the big hits pay for the flops and pay for companies taking risks; more revenue for game companies means more money going into new games.

The alternative to DLC is jacking the base price up to $70, $80 or whatever for no additional content. DLC is, overall, better for gamers than the reverse situation, since you can at least say no to it without passing on the game itself.

Trust me, I've got more than enough money to pay $5 for DLC. The point is, just because you have enough money to pay for it doesn't make it any less of a rip off.


$2 X 10 Civs = $20 $2.50 X 10 = $25.00

Shafer 5 = 18 Civs + a whole lot more for $50.

Paying $5 a Civ X 10 Civs = $50

Rip off.

Now if they added unique graphics for the Civ's cities and improvements then I could maybe see them charging $5. Perhaps a small gameplay mechanic thrown in as well like a new wonder unique to that Civ that only they can build.

As it stands now, it's not good bang for your buck.

 

[Danild111]

Personally I don't want to buy a new civ, I don't even wanna give 1$, cause I don't see what good it would make to the game. I play the 1-2 civs I like to play all the time, so for me it does'nt matter if im playing against Bismarck or the leader of babylon whatever his name is.
I'm gonna use my money on expansions that are actually improving the game itself, rather than giving 5$ for a single civ.

But free civs are another case!

 

[shozum]

$50 for the game
$5 for one extra civ
They release 1 civ per. month
12 x $5 = $60.

You have paid $110


After 12 months they release Civ5 Warlords.
Warlords contain those 12 released civs and huge bug fixes. New AI, extra building, resources, wonders and units. 5 extra campaigns too. It costs $30. You WONT get any money out from your separately bought civs.

Civ5 will cost you $140.

Then they release "Civ5 Gold" It has everything already released PLUS Extra campaigns and a crucial bug fixes. "Civilization T-shirt" for first 1000 preorderers.
$55.

Total $195

Few more extra Civ will be released later on. Now the prize is only $3!

Total $210

Civ5 BtS arrive. New religion-system. Espionage. Sliders. Previous extra civs included.
$30

Total $240 paid.


"Civ5 Complete" is released. It has everything.
After two months you'll get it from steam: $19.95.

This is honestly what I am afraid of myself. Since Civ II they have a history of doing this and I am hoping this won't be the case since this is the first time they have utilized DLC. I do understand the higher price for now versus the lower bundled price later however so I'll probably be one of those folks who end up paying $240 over the years just so I can enjoy everything from it's release date. I wouldn't do it for most games but for Civ...yeah, I'll do it

 

[Carl5872]

$50 for the game
$5 for one extra civ
They release 1 civ per. month
12 x $5 = $60.

You have paid $110


After 12 months they release Civ5 Warlords.
Warlords contain those 12 released civs and huge bug fixes. New AI, extra building, resources, wonders and units. 5 extra campaigns too. It costs $30. You WONT get any money out from your separately bought civs.

Civ5 will cost you $140.

Then they release "Civ5 Gold" It has everything already released PLUS Extra campaigns and a crucial bug fixes. "Civilization T-shirt" for first 1000 preorderers.
$55.

Total $195

Few more extra Civ will be released later on. Now the prize is only $3!

Total $210

Civ5 BtS arrive. New religion-system. Espionage. Sliders. Previous extra civs included.
$30

Total $240 paid.


"Civ5 Complete" is released. It has everything.
After two months you'll get it from steam: $19.95.

Damn you... youre probably right. Sigh and I know I will pay for it.

 

[gaiko]

Yeah because the horsemen opening gambit wasn't strong enough

Right, and I had posted elsewhere that the Mongols only highlight this already overpowered game element, but on the plus side this might be, at last, the first AI that actually focuses on this gambit, as I almost never see the AI build horsemen early.

It will be awfully disappointing if Genghis turns out to be just another spear and archer fielding AI.

 

[TheBlackAdderBG]

And why this Civ was not in the game 3 weeks ago?

 

[Sock Bramson]

It's more than a bit paranoid to assume that any bugs will only see fixes via expansions. What about the first few updates that came out in the week following CiV's release and the first major update on the way? Fireaxis hasn't suddenly changed into some corrupt money-grubbing douche-nozzle of a company and will continue to provide support with patches. Have a little faith, people.

In regards to D2D downloader concerns: you'll probably still get a free DLC somewhere down the line. (unless they've explicitly stated somewhere that the Mongols use up the freebie; I haven't tried to figure it out because I went through Steam) It sounds like the Mongols are a way for Fireaxis to say "sorry for any issues, stick with us because we're working on it, here's something to tie you over in the meantime." Pretty good strategy on their part, IMO.

 

[andrewlt]

The Mongols' UA seems only good because horsemen are currently overpowered. The combat bonus against city-states is pretty useless since there's no point to fighting city-states at all. And conquering them is pretty terrible as well.

 

[Thormodr]

The Mongols' UA seems only good because horsemen are currently overpowered. The combat bonus against city-states is pretty useless since there's no point to fighting city-states at all. And conquering them is pretty terrible as well.

I disagree. City States usually have good resources and I think this is done intentionally by design to get people to interact with them more.

Poaching workers from them is already a good play. Conquering them could be even better. Early free cities sound good.

Plus little running wars where you essentially just keep gaining xp for your units is not a bad thing.

Finally, city state missions where you are asked to destroy another city state are a piece of cake for the Mongols.

I don't think the UA is terrible. I don't think it's incredible either. I'd rate it as decent to good.

 

[Snakpakk]

Here is the deal on the Civ 5 DLC:
The Mongols Civilization and Scenario Pack- is a free gift from 2K for all the Civ fans out there. Due out October 25
The Babylonian Civ pak- gives none Deluxe version owners the ability to play as Babylonians (deluxe owners already have this) Due October 25th for $4.95

If you pre-ordered from D2D then your free DLC is due out in December. Sadly I don't have details on that yet but keep a eye on D2D's main page for the announcement. Hope this helps clear the air.

-Walter
D2D Community Manager

 

[spicytimothy]

Yay for free stuff

 

[Louis XXIV]

"Civ5 Complete" is released. It has everything.
After two months you'll get it from steam: $19.95.

If you want to wait several years to play a game, that's your prerogative.

 

[milk steak]

Here is the deal on the Civ 5 DLC:
The Mongols Civilization and Scenario Pack- is a free gift from 2K for all the Civ fans out there. Due out October 25
The Babylonian Civ pak- gives none Deluxe version owners the ability to play as Babylonians (deluxe owners already have this) Due October 25th for $4.95

If you pre-ordered from D2D then your free DLC is due out in December. Sadly I don't have details on that yet but keep a eye on D2D's main page for the announcement. Hope this helps clear the air.

-Walter
D2D Community Manager

Thanks for the info, Walter.

 

[Drawmeus]

Trust me, I've got more than enough money to pay $5 for DLC. The point is, just because you have enough money to pay for it doesn't make it any less of a rip off.


$2 X 10 Civs = $20 $2.50 X 10 = $25.00

Shafer 5 = 18 Civs + a whole lot more for $50.

Paying $5 a Civ X 10 Civs = $50

Rip off.

Now if they added unique graphics for the Civ's cities and improvements then I could maybe see them charging $5. Perhaps a small gameplay mechanic thrown in as well like a new wonder unique to that Civ that only they can build.

As it stands now, it's not good bang for your buck.

First things first. I believe you when you say you CAN afford it. And I agree that the $5 per civ price tag is pretty hefty.

But comparing $5 a civ to the $50ish price tag for the game + 18 civs... they're not comparable. If you're doing your economic decision-making on the margin, you don't sit there and decide between $50 for the whole game or $50 for 10 civs... you spend your $50 on the whole game. The question then isn't $50 for another whole game vs $50 for 10 civs. The question is, given that you own the game and like it enough to continue spending money on it (if you don't, you don't buy), am I willing to pay $5 for one more civ?

If the answer is no, then you don't buy it. You might decide that this makes it a ripoff. But if it's a ripoff, it's a ripoff because you can't imagine wanting to pay $5 for one civ (because you would rather spend $5 on something else), not because it's a relatively worse deal than this other deal of 18 civs and all the game rules for $50. On the flip side, your perspective is inextricably tied to this judgment; someone who says "Oh hell yes a civ is worth $5" won't think it was a ripoff at all. Which gets to the heart of it - I question your methodology in deciding that $5 is too much to pay for one civ and one scenario. I think it's quite likely that enough people will think $5 is a fine price point for a civ that it ends up being their best option (I think it likely because I suspect their marketing team has studied it fairly intensely). I don't see any reason to believe that if it had been Babylon for $2, you wouldn't be here saying "$2 is a ripoff, $1 is the max anyone should pay, because you get roughly a civ + a ton of game rules per $2.78 and the game rules per civ are worth at least $1.75." I think your math is just obfuscating that you've basically decided arbitrarily here.

(On the flip side, if anyone from 2K is reading this, please pretend that I'm making no sense at all and listen to Thormodr instead... )

 

[Tylerryan79]

Over in the 2k Greg quotes thread a user has posted a quote from Greg stating this Babylon and mongols dlc is not the d2d free dlc bonus, and that the d2d bonus dlc is coming later.

 

[Thormodr]

First things first. I believe you when you say you CAN afford it. And I agree that the $5 per civ price tag is pretty hefty.

But comparing $5 a civ to the $50ish price tag for the game + 18 civs... they're not comparable. If you're doing your economic decision-making on the margin, you don't sit there and decide between $50 for the whole game or $50 for 10 civs... you spend your $50 on the whole game. The question then isn't $50 for another whole game vs $50 for 10 civs. The question is, given that you own the game and like it enough to continue spending money on it (if you don't, you don't buy), am I willing to pay $5 for one more civ?

If the answer is no, then you don't buy it. You might decide that this makes it a ripoff. But if it's a ripoff, it's a ripoff because you can't imagine wanting to pay $5 for one civ (because you would rather spend $5 on something else), not because it's a relatively worse deal than this other deal of 18 civs and all the game rules for $50. On the flip side, your perspective is inextricably tied to this judgment; someone who says "Oh hell yes a civ is worth $5" won't think it was a ripoff at all. Which gets to the heart of it - I question your methodology in deciding that $5 is too much to pay for one civ and one scenario. I think it's quite likely that enough people will think $5 is a fine price point for a civ that it ends up being their best option (I think it likely because I suspect their marketing team has studied it fairly intensely). I don't see any reason to believe that if it had been Babylon for $2, you wouldn't be here saying "$2 is a ripoff, $1 is the max anyone should pay, because you get roughly a civ + a ton of game rules per $2.78 and the game rules per civ are worth at least $1.75." I think your math is just obfuscating that you've basically decided arbitrarily here.

(On the flip side, if anyone from 2K is reading this, please pretend that I'm making no sense at all and listen to Thormodr instead... )

The major problem is that we are used to much better and this frankly is garbage.

For example, with cIV, you would get expansions that would add at least 6 Civs/Leaders plus a lot of new content. That would sell for around $30. So, yes, you are playing $5 a Civ but you also get a lot more new content.

If Babylon was $2 or $2.50 I'd say that was a fair price actually. If they are not giving any extra stuff to go along with it.

 

[eviltypeguy]

The major problem is that we are used to much better and this frankly is garbage.

In your opinion; which you're entitled to.

For example, with cIV, you would get expansions that would add at least 6 Civs/Leaders plus a lot of new content. That would sell for around $30. So, yes, you are playing $5 a Civ but you also get a lot more new content.

If Babylon was $2 or $2.50 I'd say that was a fair price actually. If they are not giving any extra stuff to go along with it.

It's fine if you feel that way; I'm not certain how I feel either about $5 a Civ yet. I'd prefer to buy a bundle of them.

But at the same time, if this business model is accepted by the market, and it leads to the game being better supported, I can live with it.

 

[Louis XXIV]

The major problem is that we are used to much better and this frankly is garbage.

For example, with cIV, you would get expansions that would add at least 6 Civs/Leaders plus a lot of new content. That would sell for around $30. So, yes, you are playing $5 a Civ but you also get a lot more new content.

If Babylon was $2 or $2.50 I'd say that was a fair price actually. If they are not giving any extra stuff to go along with it.

Keep in mind possibly having Civs you don't want are factored into the price for expansions (or features you don't want, I'd gladly take $5 off the BtS price to drop Corporations). With DLC you can pick and choose.