Are they map scripts? I thought they were fixed maps that are always the same. If they're map scripts, this DLC thing has really outdone itself this time... How low can you go.
DLC Model Discussion
- Thread starter Camikaze
- Start date
Are they map scripts? I thought they were fixed maps that are always the same. If they're map scripts, this DLC thing has really outdone itself this time... How low can you go.
jtb1127
Deity
That's just...terrible.
After this weeks CivWorld update, where you can buy the weather type with civbucks to gain an advantage in battle,
I'm not looking up at anything anymore.
It's clear 2k is trying to milk every little thing out of civ and the developers only have to implement the parts to generate more money.
And there's no end unless they are overdoing it.
At the 2k forum someone has predicted : "Buy fame points with civbucks"
Take2 isn't interested in quality games, but in profitable ones.
A serious economical hit to this company would be the best thing to get rights of civilization into the hands of a company
who cares about quality instead of pure greed.
I'm not looking up at anything anymore.
It's clear 2k is trying to milk every little thing out of civ and the developers only have to implement the parts to generate more money.
And there's no end unless they are overdoing it.
At the 2k forum someone has predicted : "Buy fame points with civbucks"
Take2 isn't interested in quality games, but in profitable ones.
A serious economical hit to this company would be the best thing to get rights of civilization into the hands of a company
who cares about quality instead of pure greed.
What are the mapscripts specifically? I'll see if I have them.
i dont know myself, as i am on the hate DLC bandwagon
but i have heard people talk of pangea plus and continents plus, just to name a couple. I believe that they are in the explorers map pack
quote from steam store site, explorers map pack
this is something that i would really appreciate in my games, but i dont think that i should have to pay $6 for that after paying $90 for the game on release
Kerosene31
Prince
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2001
- Messages
- 409
Not relevant to the DLC discussion. If you didn't like the game out of the box, I'm guessing you'll pass on DLC.
That was in response to something you brought up. I'll repeat again:
Overshadowed by bigger issues, and besides the point anyway.
If a book publisher sells a novel for $10 and omits the last chapters that tie it all up ($5 apiece for those that want them) my complaint isn't that I didn't get enough pages for my first 10 bucks.
.
Overshadowed by bigger issues, and besides the point anyway.
If a book publisher sells a novel for $10 and omits the last chapters that tie it all up ($5 apiece for those that want them) my complaint isn't that I didn't get enough pages for my first 10 bucks.
JimboThrasher
Chieftain
I've purchased all the dlc civs and some of the map packs. I've played since release and i really enjoy the game.
I do enjoy the fact that every couple of months i'm able to change up the way i play because a civ comes out. This keeps things interesting and I don't mind the current DLC model.
That being said, i would love to see expansions in the future. In my opinion, an expansion should not just add wonders, civs, and maps. An expansion should change core gameplay mechanics and add content to the game. I think something like coorporations and religions would be a great concept to use within an expansion.
Another thing i enjoyed about the previous civ, is that later on you had multiple leaders for the same civilization. It would be very cool for an expansion to add another leader to every existing civ. This lets you really shake up things and would really get a new experience with each and every civ. I don't think it would be terribly hard to integrate, the largest expense would more than likely be recording new civ speech and creating the civ trading animation.
I appreciate tech going all the way up to future era from the git go, so there might not be many changes to the tech tree in an expansion. But it would be cool to see new units being put into some eras. Something like a battering ram would be really cool if made so that it can only attack cities directly adjacent to the unit and no iron required.
An expansion could incoorporate something that affects gameply similar to a mobil command post . Ancient era could view these as archer towers used to siege cities. You could place archers in them for increased defense and you can lay siege to a city. Later on, you can upgrade these into something like a general quarters that extends or compounds a general's radius. After satelites you could maybe select a radius of bonus to a group of units anywhere in the world. This is realistic because intelligence can travel across the entire world and greatly increase the effectivness of a unit's military ability. This would be interesting because you would then have supporting military supperiors to control the military at the front of the war. It would have a significan impact to the way you handle wars and would def be interesting to me.
I've never mentioned any of these ideas before, but literally i just thought of them by asking myself what would i want in an expansion. Many other ideas are out there to truly make an expansion pack that would not "just be a big DLC"
I do enjoy the fact that every couple of months i'm able to change up the way i play because a civ comes out. This keeps things interesting and I don't mind the current DLC model.
That being said, i would love to see expansions in the future. In my opinion, an expansion should not just add wonders, civs, and maps. An expansion should change core gameplay mechanics and add content to the game. I think something like coorporations and religions would be a great concept to use within an expansion.
Another thing i enjoyed about the previous civ, is that later on you had multiple leaders for the same civilization. It would be very cool for an expansion to add another leader to every existing civ. This lets you really shake up things and would really get a new experience with each and every civ. I don't think it would be terribly hard to integrate, the largest expense would more than likely be recording new civ speech and creating the civ trading animation.
I appreciate tech going all the way up to future era from the git go, so there might not be many changes to the tech tree in an expansion. But it would be cool to see new units being put into some eras. Something like a battering ram would be really cool if made so that it can only attack cities directly adjacent to the unit and no iron required.
An expansion could incoorporate something that affects gameply similar to a mobil command post . Ancient era could view these as archer towers used to siege cities. You could place archers in them for increased defense and you can lay siege to a city. Later on, you can upgrade these into something like a general quarters that extends or compounds a general's radius. After satelites you could maybe select a radius of bonus to a group of units anywhere in the world. This is realistic because intelligence can travel across the entire world and greatly increase the effectivness of a unit's military ability. This would be interesting because you would then have supporting military supperiors to control the military at the front of the war. It would have a significan impact to the way you handle wars and would def be interesting to me.
I've never mentioned any of these ideas before, but literally i just thought of them by asking myself what would i want in an expansion. Many other ideas are out there to truly make an expansion pack that would not "just be a big DLC"
Expansion packs would be the best way of expanding CiV. This should have been the way they went. It is the way new and wonderful things have always been added to the games. The other thing they need to do is get away from steam, and make the game more user friendly for modding, like it used to be.
jtb1127
Deity
This is what is becoming of the video game market due to the DLC model.
Lexicus
Deity
Every single video game has become a DLC profit-making model...literally every single game. Call of Duty has been using a DLC model to treat its fans like ATM machines since the first modern warfare. Even my beloved Halo has gone that way, so why would anyone expect Civ to be any different? I don't much like the DLC model, either, but I'm pretty certain it's a lot more profitable than an expansion model, and in America profit is what matters, and nothing else.
The first Modern Warfare had free DLC for PC, but console players had to pay for the map packs. You know what happened? I remember reading uproar on the COD forums; the console players were raging and demanding PC should pay too. Kind of makes you lose faith in humanity in general. I mean, instead of demanding it for free themselves, they ask PC players pay too. Congrats guys, you've been brainwashed.
Lexicus
Deity
I love corporate America...
I have to say, the patches do give me a bit of faith in this game as more than just a money-making scheme.
i dont know myself, as i am on the hate DLC bandwagon
but i have heard people talk of pangea plus and continents plus, just to name a couple. I believe that they are in the explorers map pack
quote from steam store site, explorers map pack
this is something that i would really appreciate in my games, but i dont think that i should have to pay $6 for that after paying $90 for the game on release
Oh, silly me. I thought you were talking about one of the non-map DLC. I guess it's pretty obvious there'd be new mapscripts in the explorers dlc.
As for picking them up, just wait til they go on sale. I'd expect the next sale for civ5 on Steam to be 75% off or more and it'd be the same discount on DLCs.
Kerosene31
Prince
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2001
- Messages
- 409
No, DLC Civs are far from essential parts of the game. You can enjoy Civ V with or without them just about the same. Your argument would only be valid if you had to "buy" certain victory conditions or some other important game feature.
Would you say to someone who beat the base game on the hardest level with no DLC that they never won the game? Of course not.
Firaxis has never charged us for patches, every patch has been free and never part of an add-on.
Thoughtful Thug
Deity
I remember that like yesterday.
Probably just two Chinese guys in a basement somewhere making those awesome patches ...
Late to the party. I voted 'bought DLC for Civ V and dislike the model'. I bought the Denmark/Viking DLC and was pretty underwhelmed by it. I would much rather see a true expansion pack like BtS where you paid $30(?) for 11 scenarios, 10 new civs as well as new gameplay mechanics. But why would they do all that work for $30 when they could just keep releasing singular civs for $5?
jtb1127
Deity
Which is the point I have been raising.
I dislike the DLC thing, at least when it comes to Civ V. They release just new civs and wonders, which can be simply modded by players, who share it freely here. I`m not a modder, but I believe Babylon for example can be created with ease, of course missing its art assets, same going for most of the other civs.
I think the current DLCs hamper the developers incentive to create expansions, because they can obviously earn more money by providing less. Now if DLC brought along new content also new mechanics like espionage, or expanded diplomacy, or expanded city State relations, better modability, to name just a few, Then I would consider it a worthy purchase. However all they provide is what you can do yourself with little knowledge(without the flavor, like 3d leaders) in XML and little LUA in a hour or a few, and they get tens of thousands of dollars for it if not hundrets, how`s that not a rip-off?
Expansion model motivated developers to earn their money, by providing extensive content, new mechanics, improved game-play, if involved a good amount of hard work. But DLCs as they are now, prove consumers can be satisfied with much less, so yeah, why not give them less then...
I think the current DLCs hamper the developers incentive to create expansions, because they can obviously earn more money by providing less. Now if DLC brought along new content also new mechanics like espionage, or expanded diplomacy, or expanded city State relations, better modability, to name just a few, Then I would consider it a worthy purchase. However all they provide is what you can do yourself with little knowledge(without the flavor, like 3d leaders) in XML and little LUA in a hour or a few, and they get tens of thousands of dollars for it if not hundrets, how`s that not a rip-off?
Expansion model motivated developers to earn their money, by providing extensive content, new mechanics, improved game-play, if involved a good amount of hard work. But DLCs as they are now, prove consumers can be satisfied with much less, so yeah, why not give them less then...
Apologies for I have not seen CivWorld, however from what's been said on this thread about DLC already, I suppose the next logical step would be to make people bid/auction for the weather type
Take2 company most certainly has to be interested in profitable products, otherwise it'd have to change name to Take2 charity. Usually quality goes with profitability but in this case apparently it is popularity. A publisher like that will always have a port folio of games and push for bigger sales through increase in title's popularity. If the title still under-performs, it will be scrapped with no big loss to the publisher.
IMHO, the driving force behind CiV is the remarkable legacy of it's predecessors and a fanatic long-standing core community (maintained by mods and this forum in no small part). For the publisher, increasing the game's profitability means increasing [3] popularity means [1] DLCs (maintaining target market) and [2] streamlining or levelling down gameplay to the lowest common denominator (expanding target market). This approach cannot work well for Civ franchise - forever renown for it's [ad 1] free patches and mods, [ad 2] scope, depth and complexity of gameplay and [ad 3] fanatical core community as it takes away all the unique selling points [1][2] and alienates the [3] community in the process. Furthermore, the delicate balance between base and innovation is difficult to maintain, especially when there is little to no continuity in the development cycles/leadership and no clear vision as to where to take the title further - apart from the drive to initially impress the reviewers with (not-quite-thought-through) glitzy novelties. DLCs, 1UPT, hexes and "streamlined" gameplay are not the game's unique selling points. These are changes/enhancements not USPs.
Regretfully, Civ has become a niche product of a bygone era, of when games actually required patience and mental investment from the player. Due to it's unique character, in today's world of instant/corporate gratification, it may never become mainstream. The best thing for the quality of CIVX would be either to let it go completely "indie" (publish source code, not likely as the title alone is still a cash cow) or to work with and financially reward modders (create a mod-store like the app-store, with mod-of-the-month voting thing the whole chabang, where a publisher would oversee the quality/compatibility of the downloadable mods - DLMs and take it's cut in the process). The best mods (say 1/month) would then be packaged, endorsed, published and maintained for a small price, the revenue then split between the authors and the publisher on a per sale basis.
The solution is to involve the core community deeper, not to alienate it. It is not publishing £££ DLCs on the level a few talented and dedicated people may throw together in a couple of evenings. Imagine what those talented and dedicated people would throw together with such motivation!
Oh, BTW - I don't think we'll see an expansion pack with gameplay changes anytime soon - imagine having to re-balance all the separate DLCs! Yeyks
Similar threads
