DLCs after Brave New World

[Pouakai]

I think that there's a chance of another DLC run, although that will depend on what civs are in the expansion. If they omit the Zulus again (Which I doubt Given SfA) I'm going to assume there will be more content for Civ V until they're included, simply because they've been in every civilization game since it began (main franchise only). There's also, as you say, the possibility of politically sensitive civilizations such as Tibet and / or Israel from being included in DLC as it would mean only that one civilization would be banned, and not the whole expansion, in the respective countries where the civilizations are sensitive.

As for the Civilizations I would like to see, I'll post that when we know more about the expansion.

This does, however, bring up the question: Would they utelise the expansion features? If you were to have, say, Tibet as a DLC civ would they require G&K / BNW as a religious civ, would they only use Vanilla features, or would they have different versions for each major game version?

 

[Menzies]

They'd probably just make DLC civs that had UAs and such that didn't require any expansion features, it's hardly that hard to do.

 

[turingmachine]

They'd probably just make DLC civs that had UAs and such that didn't require any expansion features, it's hardly that hard to do.

Yeah, but people are arguing DLCs can be a great way to add Israel. However, you'd then be unable to utilize the religion mechanic in any way for Israel. It's not that hard to do, but it does limit what the developers can do.

 

[Menzies]

Yeah, but people are arguing DLCs can be a great way to add Israel. However, you'd then be unable to utilize the religion mechanic in any way for Israel. It's not that hard to do, but it does limit what the developers can do.

If a Civilization isn't going to be added in an Expansion, it's not going to be added as DLC. The controversy that is going to surround Israel and Tibet isn't going to go away just because they're an optional extra.

 

[Pouakai]

The controversy that is going to surround Israel and Tibet isn't going to go away just because they're an optional extra.

Of course not, but it might be able to be agreed that just the DLC be banned in the respective country (which is possible in Steam) and lose just $5 as opposed to banning a whole expansion and loosing $30 over one civ.

 

[Menzies]

Of course not, but it might be able to be agreed that just the DLC be banned in the respective country (which is possible in Steam) and lose just $5 as opposed to banning a whole expansion and loosing $30 over one civ.

If DLC were to be banned, they may ban the whole game anyhow. Although I may have to do some research, I do recall hearing of a case like this once.

 

[Pouakai]

I remember that for IV when Mao Zedong was included it was simply a case of removing the leaderhead and replacing it with Taizong to get the OK to sell in China

 

[Menzies]

Mentioning Tibet as a separate Civilization is a whole other kettle of fish, even if the DLC isn't available there.

 

[Pouakai]

True, but it still points out that compromises can be made without endangering the sale of a product in a restricted market, even ignoring the abilities of restricting DLC

 

[Matthew.]

I don't know if there will be more DLC's or not, but for those saying they won't because they will move on to Civ 6 or something else, that is the perfect scenario for DLC! New Civs require little manpower in relation to a full out expansion, so they could have a small team continuing to work on Civ 5 DLC and patches while the bulk of the resources are moved to working on something new.

I'd like to see the Inuit added. Purely for gameplay reasons, nothing to do with historical significance. I just think it would be fun to have a Civ use snow tiles more effectively than anyone else. I doubt they ever stand a chance in an official expansion, but maybe as DLC?

 

[AbsintheRed]

AbsintheRed, maybe its time to change your signature. You seem to be boycotting Civ V DLC there, but hoping for it in your thread. I didn't like it either before the first run came out, but I bought every piece (even the mapscripts I've never used) and hope for a second run. As long as the civ playstyles are unique between their UA/B,U's I'll make the purchase.

Also, the signature and thread combination is an absolute classic! I remember being on the "wrong" side of the DLC debate when defending the idea was seen as somewhat sacrilegious around here. At the time I said, and I still feel this way, that DLC in the style made for the game would ultimately be embraced and if we stopped getting it we'd be crying out for more.

True, it's rather funny this way
I don't really care though, I was mostly against DLCs because I was afraid there will be no expansions because of them
With 2 full expansions, I don't mind a couple further DLCs at all

 

[filli_noctus]

Perhaps there'll be a Tibet and Israel double civ pack as a final release once sales in the countries where it will be an issue drop low enough.

 

[AbsintheRed]

One of the reasons I think they stopped DLC after Vanilla is that it becomes complicated to design for the expansions. Either you have to make them require the expansions, which is a poor sales move as DLC by itself doesn't sell more than base games or expansion and then your limiting this audience even more (convince people to buy DLC for a DLC?), or you have to design a version which will work for everything, in which case you have to only include base features and abilities. (They can make new features, sure, but things like faith, espionage, the new trade routes, archeology, great works, would all be off limits, and no, it's even more unlikely they'll do twice the work to make two abilities each for half the audience).

This does, however, bring up the question: Would they utelise the expansion features? If you were to have, say, Tibet as a DLC civ would they require G&K / BNW as a religious civ, would they only use Vanilla features, or would they have different versions for each major game version?

The most work on a civ DLC is art, by far
I don't think it's a big problem to alter the UA/UU/UB of the civ, if it uses some expansion features
If they want to make it availeable for vanilla Civ V too, it's a couple hours work, at top

 

[mitsho]

If they do Civilization DLC's (as opposed to a "Modern Wonders", "Maps and Natural Wonders" or "Airports and Airlifts" DLC's), they would need to chose Civs that people are willing to pay for (or wait for the Full version/Sale Time). Civs that this applies to are in my mind

Sumeria and Zulu (as fan favourite)
Australia, Canada, Brasil (as modern nations and popular choice)
Vietnam, Tibet, Israel (as known civs in the West, Vietnam War and Buddhism...)
Native American Tribes (because they should be popular in the US, the biggest market)

I can't see them pushing "unknown" civs like Chola, Majapahit or Ashanti to DLC, as well as I don't see them putting "joke" civs like CSA or the Sowjet Union to DLC, though these two are highly likely to be presented in scenarios.

 

[Tsuchinoko]

I can't see them pushing "unknown" civs like Chola, Majapahit or Ashanti to DLC

I agree that it'd be harder to justify releasing some of the lesser known civs (unfortunately), but perhaps they could release them as part of a double pack? A 'Southeast Asian' pack with Vietnam and Khmer for example? Or make it a triple pack and add Indonesia/Majapahit too? Or a 'South American War of Independance' scenario pack with Brazil, Gran Columbia and Argentina?

 

[Uberfrog]

I think we should probably wait and see what civs are in the expansion before guessing which may come as potential DLCs.

Zulu is certainly a fan favourite, but deliberately leaving it out when you're making an African scenario seems like a bizarre bit of logic.

 

[aluelkdf]

I don't think we will see a lot of new civs, because we already have so many. We will probably see a lot of new scenarios, and maybe civs just for the purposes of those scenarios.

These are some scenarios I would like to see in a DLC:

Napoleonic wars
American Revolution
WWI & WWII
Cold war
A modern world year 2013 scenario (basically the scenario starts as the world currently is today, and lets see how it plays out over 10 or 20 years)

 

[AbsintheRed]

I agree that it'd be harder to justify releasing some of the lesser known civs (unfortunately), but perhaps they could release them as part of a double pack? A 'Southeast Asian' pack with Vietnam and Khmer for example? Or make it a triple pack and add Indonesia/Majapahit too? Or a 'South American War of Independance' scenario pack with Brazil, Gran Columbia and Argentina?

A double civ DLC with Khmer and Vietnam sounds very nice
Espeically if they include the Majapahit or Srivijaya in the expansion

On the other hand, I would be disappointed if we see any colonial civs
They just don't have their place in the civ series IMO
Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, heck even the USA are way too much tied to Europe and to their "mother civ" for my taste
Not to mention Canada, Australia, or South America. I see them proposed a lot, but those 3 would be horrible mistakes

 

[AriochIV]

I would be surprised if there were any more DLC after BNW, just because there won't be much of anything in terms of new civilizations that could offer meaningfully different gameplay. 43 is a lot of civs.

 

[AbsintheRed]

I would be surprised if there were any more DLC after BNW, just because there won't be much of anything in terms of new civilizations that could offer meaningfully different gameplay. 43 is a lot of civs.

I don't think it's that hard to come up with new and unique UAs with a little creativity
With all the new aspects added in the expansions, I can easily imagine having even 80-100 civs, while still keeping them unique enough
Obviously, there won't be that much civilization, nor would it be wise
But IMO we can potentially reach somewhere between 50-55 civs without any problems in a second DLC run
I think it would be very welcomed by almost everyone, still a reasonable amount of civs, and of course very profitable for Firaxis