DLC Model Discussion

[jtb1127]

Very intelligent last four posts.

 

[Selous]

The suits either didn't count that in their greed, or they didn't care. I'm guessing door #1, but door #2 is certainly possible. In either case, I just will not buy any DLC, for any game. And I'm now becoming reluctant to even buy a game that will include DLCs in the future, unless it has sterling reviews from veteran players.

looking at the stats of this forums poll, 37.77% of people have bought and like the DLC model, with another 4.68% that havnt purchaced but also like the model
24.82% dislike the model, but have purchaced DLC anyways leaving 23.74% that dislike the DLC model and have held out purchasing any of it

that gives us over 62% of people (that voted in the poll anyways) that have purchaced and will most likely continue to purchase DLC as it is released

as i am typing this there is 14,561 people playing civ right now (plus a few people in offline mode?)and a peak of 18,901 today

that is a lot of DLC being sold (even if you assume the fanatics here would have a higher uptake of the DLC), and while i am with you (i have not purchaced DLC and i very dislike the entire model) it would appear that the "suits" have made a wise financial decision, for the time being

will the present DLC model cheepen the civilization franchise? will civ become synonymous with expencive rubbish content? only time will tell

i can only hope that this model has not killed the previous Xpac model that has been very successful for many years, i like to see some rule changes, a bunch of new civs and a few new dynamics thrown into the mix

 

[Glassmage]

I do want expansions back!!!! PLEASE FIRAXIS!!!!

 

[ohioastronomy]

looking at the stats of this forums poll, 37.77% of people have bought and like the DLC model, with another 4.68% that havnt purchaced but also like the model
24.82% dislike the model, but have purchaced DLC anyways leaving 23.74% that dislike the DLC model and have held out purchasing any of it

that gives us over 62% of people (that voted in the poll anyways) that have purchaced and will most likely continue to purchase DLC as it is released

as i am typing this there is 14,561 people playing civ right now (plus a few people in offline mode?)and a peak of 18,901 today

that is a lot of DLC being sold (even if you assume the fanatics here would have a higher uptake of the DLC), and while i am with you (i have not purchaced DLC and i very dislike the entire model) it would appear that the "suits" have made a wise financial decision, for the time being

will the present DLC model cheepen the civilization franchise? will civ become synonymous with expencive rubbish content? only time will tell

i can only hope that this model has not killed the previous Xpac model that has been very successful for many years, i like to see some rule changes, a bunch of new civs and a few new dynamics thrown into the mix

The test is in the long-term. The next game in the series will have poor sales if the model damages the core game, or the companies get a poor reputation. Micro-transactions are a better fit to MMOs than to strategy games, and it may well be that the latter abandon them for that reason.

There is a cost to alienating your long-term customers.

 

[Saarud]

I really don't care about the money. I would gladly pay 100-150$ for a game that I want. It's the DLC model I really dislike. I have stopped downloaded mods since I don't want to investigate in what DLC that mod require. I am also less visiting the forum because I have noticed that opinions are increasingly based on which "version" you own. Well yeah it's really not a big problem now but it is increasing.

What I fear most is that if the DLC model is succesful (for the company) it might extend to not only new civilization, scenarios and wonders but also core game rules. For example you have to buy the Nuke DLC to get the nuke units and the hardcoded nuke game rules or perhaps you have to buy the Paratrooper DLC to get the Paratrooper unit and the hardcoded Paratrooper game rules.

 

[headcase]

The model is designed to take as much cash from the hardcore crowd*, then take as much cash as possible from the less hardcore crowd, then as much cash as possible from the next less hardcore crowd, etc, until they peddle all of their stuff to the casual crowd dirt cheap to get that extra bit of dough (and get them excited for the next game), while the hardcore players have moved on to Civ 6 or Civ 5 modding.

* (By hardcore crowd I mean the people who are hardcore for this game specifically)

It has always been this way. Before they'd charge, e.g. $50 for a game, then $40, then $30, then $40 for an add-on, then $40 for the original game + add-on, then $30, then $30 for a second add-on, etc, etc, etc

The only difference is that the latest technology has allowed them to add a new layer to this. Now they can nickel-and-dime pieces of an add-on, making more money total then if they were all together, then eventually they put them together at a discounted price, then they lower the price of that pack, and start selling new DLC at full price again, and eventually pack that DLC together, etc, etc, etc, until 2 years from now we have Civ 5 + all DLC + whatever else for $20.

This has a benefit to the most hardcore players because they can play parts of an add-on sooner than if they had to wait for the whole thing to be made. But they pay more for the privilege (some go as far as to not notice that the small DLC prices add up to be a lot, but most people who buy it are aware of this and to them it is worth it. This is win-win for both parties, though Firaxis probably benefits more).

I'm not quite hardcore enough to buy into the DLC model; it's a combination of not loving the game that much (I have put almost 200 hours in, but they weren't as high-quality as hours put into many other games, Civ just demands more time) but I will buy the pack once it's available separate from the GOTY edition (or becomes much lower in price).

The exception is games like Rock Band. It has over 3000 songs and is tied to the recording industry so there's no reason to assume that all of those songs will eventually be packed together. Even then, there are track packs you can buy in a store, and rare sales do appear on the DLC on XBLA and PSN.

 

[Naokaukodem]

They are right to do so. As long as petty things like "new civ woawhoa" interest people.

 

[Scrooge]

... There is a cost to alienating your long-term customers.

... but the people who instigated this travesty will have made their lolly and moved on to pastures greener... wait -

WIKIPEDIA:
"Jon Shafer was the lead designer and principal programmer of the video game Civilization V at Firaxis Games.[1] He currently works at Stardock Corporation.[2][3]" ... WT<beep>

OFF-TOPIC:
Why is it still Sid Meyer's Civilization V ?!? (like on the box)

A most excellent post Ohioastronomy

 

[headcase]

OFF-TOPIC:
Why is it still Sid Meyer's Civilization V ?!? (like on the box)

You can't trademark "Civilization"

(Maybe that word alone, possibly, but, say, "Galactic Civilizations" is up for grabs and the missing "Sid Meyer" makes it clear it's from another company).

 

[Scrooge]

You can't trademark "Civilization"

(Maybe that word alone, possibly, but, say, "Galactic Civilizations" is up for grabs and the missing "Sid Meyer" makes it clear it's from another company).

STILL OFF-TOPIC SORRY:
Yes, but shouldn't it be called "Jon Shafer's Civilisation I"? That would avoid a lot of confusion and comparisons ... perhaps negativity too ...

 

[Kerosene31]

This has a benefit to the most hardcore players because they can play parts of an add-on sooner than if they had to wait for the whole thing to be made. But they pay more for the privilege (some go as far as to not notice that the small DLC prices add up to be a lot, but most people who buy it are aware of this and to them it is worth it. This is win-win for both parties, though Firaxis probably benefits more).

This is it exactly. It would be like paying double to see a movie before the actual premier. We all know now that we can wait for a better deal on this stuff (initially maybe this wasn't clear to everyone). We're not stupid. For those of us who are really into the game it can be worth it to get content even if it is at a premium price. For others who want to wait, that's great too.

Somehow, this "evil" model gives us more choice.

 

[Iranon]

The model has a good chance of making me avoid a game. I make my purchasing decision under the assumption that I want the full game - including all add-ons within a year or so that don't significantly change the game ('withheld for additional revenue' rather than 'legitimate expansion / commercial mod').

So the price I'm looking at is the retail price + whatever I expect the total cost for the DLC to be + an uncertainly modifier. I'm also going to value the game less because this business model encourages unbalanced content and other bad practices. Doubly so if DLC exists from day 1.

The game has to be pretty amazing to make me pay anything approaching a usual 'full price' for the whole bundle. Few games are, and those tend not to nickel and dime their customers.

 

[headcase]

The model has a good chance of making me avoid a game. I make my purchasing decision under the assumption that I want the full game - including all add-ons within a year or so that don't significantly change the game ('withheld for additional revenue' rather than 'legitimate expansion / commercial mod').

This is a healthy way to react. Some companies may shell out DLC without being greedy about it, but it's still fair to presume guilt before innocence since it does indeed cause the core game to suffer much of the time. Games with DLC shouldn't be automatically dismissed, but they should certainly be examined with suspicion.

Again, to compare a game that does it right, Rock Band 2 and 3 each came with over 80 songs out of the box. Granted 2 did that because of competition and 3 did that because the genre is in a slump, but the point stands that there probably wouldn't have been more songs on-disc if DLC hadn't existed. Because of that, hardly anyone complains about RB DLC, and I've spent more than I care to admit on it.

 

[Kerosene31]

I make my purchasing decision under the assumption that I want the full game

So, if DLC never existed you would feel Civ V was incomplete?

Did you feel you didn't get enough content initially, or does the existence of content after the fact change your opinion? I remember when Civ V came out, lots of people had lots of opinions on the game, but I don't remember many "there's not enough Civs" complaints.

This is where the consumer has to know what they are buying. If you don't feel like you are getting enough "stuff" for your original game price, don't buy it. It is also not like DLC was some dirty little secret they pulled on you, it was well known ahead of time (even mentioned in the manual which was released early)

 

[tonberry]

Like a user of the steam forum said:

imagine a store selling a chess board without the bishops, and you would need an extra $5 for them. this is basically what they are doing with civ 5.


I agree with him 100% You basicly have to play for something that should be in the game allready...


This DLC destroys online gameplay and the community If a player doesn't have a DLC he can't join some game's or discussions and other things

Your analogy is flawed because you can't play chess without bishops. Civ5 was release with 18 civilizations (I'm not even counting free Mongolia). Correct me if I'm wrong but that's more than what Civ3 and Civ4 had at lauch. The chess analogy would be more like: you get a full set of chess pieces to play but the store owner also have pieces of different color and shapes to sell you.

 

[HappyBuilder]

Your analogy is flawed because you can't play chess without bishops. Civ5 was release with 18 civilizations (I'm not even counting free Mongolia). Correct me if I'm wrong but that's more than what Civ3 and Civ4 had at lauch. The chess analogy would be more like: you get a full set of chess pieces to play but the store owner also have pieces of different color and shapes to sell you.

Not quite, as chess pieces of different shapes and colors would still play the game in the same manner. A bishop is a bishop; a rook is a rook. But civilizations play the game differently; Polynesia is not America. To make the analogy complete to chess, there would have to be a new piece that behaved in a new manner from the existing pieces.

(Chess is actually a bad analogy in general because no one's forcing you to make a rook only go in straight lines, etc. You can do whatever you want with the pieces once you buy the game.)

HB

 

[Kerosene31]

Not quite, as chess pieces of different shapes and colors would still play the game in the same manner. A bishop is a bishop; a rook is a rook. But civilizations play the game differently; Polynesia is not America. To make the analogy complete to chess, there would have to be a new piece that behaved in a new manner from the existing pieces.

(Chess is actually a bad analogy in general because no one's forcing you to make a rook only go in straight lines, etc. You can do whatever you want with the pieces once you buy the game.)

HB

It is a perfect analogy.

If you feel you bought an incomplete game, blame yourself, not DLC.

Civ V came out with around as many Civs as past game included as I remember, so how is the game incomplete?

If they suddenly came out with new DLC Civs for Civ 4, would that game now be incomplete?

 

[tonberry]

Not quite, as chess pieces of different shapes and colors would still play the game in the same manner. A bishop is a bishop; a rook is a rook. But civilizations play the game differently; Polynesia is not America. To make the analogy complete to chess, there would have to be a new piece that behaved in a new manner from the existing pieces.

(Chess is actually a bad analogy in general because no one's forcing you to make a rook only go in straight lines, etc. You can do whatever you want with the pieces once you buy the game.)

HB

If you push any analogy far enough, it will inevitably crack. To play chess you need a board and 2 sets of piece containing pawns, bishops, knight, rook, queen and king. To play civ you need a working game engine and a debatable amount of civilizations (let's say 16 since that's the number included in Civ4). Everything else is just for flavor and fun. The game don't change if, instead of using a bland knight to take your pawn, I use a miniature black horseman of doom. I just look more cool while doing it. Meanwhile, I still play the same game whether I play America or Polynesia. I still need to found cities, create units, build buildings, etc. Ok, sure, you may argue that the game feel different because of unique abilities and units but my point is that you don't need Polynesia as long as you have a working civ to play.

Also, chess simply don't allow the game to expand, you can't add new kind of pieces while civilization is more expandable.

Selling a chess board without bishops would be like selling Civilization withouts buildings. This is not what DLC are.

 

[Iranon]

So, if DLC never existed you would feel Civ V was incomplete?

Did you feel you didn't get enough content initially, or does the existence of content after the fact change your opinion? I remember when Civ V came out, lots of people had lots of opinions on the game, but I don't remember many "there's not enough Civs" complaints.

At release, Civ5 was so hilariously broken that I thought something must be seriously wrong with the manual... number of civs and business practices were the least of its problems.

This is where the consumer has to know what they are buying. If you don't feel like you are getting enough "stuff" for your original game price, don't buy it. It is also not like DLC was some dirty little secret they pulled on you, it was well known ahead of time (even mentioned in the manual which was released early)

Slippery slope.
Civ would arguably be able to stand on its own without a map generator. Or multiplayer. Or an editor. Or advance starts. How much can they chop it up to sell individual bits before it's unacceptable?
Budget isn't the major lesser reason for me - I bought quite a few special editions when excited about a game, but disagreeable (to me) business practices kill my enthusiasm and mood for frivolous spendings.

They fit right in with an industry most successful with churning out over-focus-grouped overhyped overexploited junk that routinely sacrifices design integrity for marketability. Fortunately, there are still enough worthwhile things out there to enjoy. It would just be nice to have more of them come from major industry players putting a decent budget to decent use.

 

[Selous]

Civ would arguably be able to stand on its own without a map generator. Or multiplayer. Or an editor. Or advance starts. How much can they chop it up to sell individual bits before it's unacceptable?

i have noticed that there are a few nice looking map scripts in some of the DLC, why are these being distributed in the DLC? and not in the patching? does that mean that we will not get more advanced map scripts if we continue to play vanilla?