dont split the MP-community

[diLuca]

would it be possible to release the new gamemechanics as a patch and sell the new civs as dlc?

i just dont like the idea to see lots of players left out at release since not everyone will buy the new expansion.

just look at it right now...1 out of 10 onlinegames are dlc-games...all others are not.

 

[Atlas627]

I don't think I understand what the problem is.

1.) The new mechanics are enough of an overhaul that it deserves an expansion. This will not and should not be patched in.

2.) The DLC already "splits" the multiplayer community just as much as the expansion would. People who don't have it can't use it, but people who have it can still revert to vanilla so that they can play with everyone else. This would be the same case with an expansion.

3.) Your 1 in 10 statistic is unhelpful. Those are public games, and to ensure that people get players, they need to have the most accepting options. When people play private games with people they know, they play with the same people constantly. Often these people will buy DLC to match each other, however much that may be. I own all the DLC, and my friends own all of it too but only so that they could play multiplayer with me with all of the features. Then they liked it a lot and are happy to have it in their singleplayer games too.

 

[KM]

..I ll buy the expansion but..
Right now in the big MP communities (not the public games, nor the private with friends but the private with steamgroups) Most games are played without DLC. Both because not all got them but also because some DLC (babylon..) is very unbalanced.

We ll see if people start playing the g&K or if everyone in the so called "pro MP games" stick to vanilla.. I guess it will not only depend on how many that will buy it but also if it s possible to make a game somewhat balanced without to many random luck elements that can decide a game...

 

[TyBoy]

Unlike DLC you can probably expect nearly everyone who is actively playing the game to pick up the expansion pack. The cost/content ratio on the expansion pack is going to be much much better than DLC, closer to what you'd expect for a full game.

It's also a single chunk of content which I think should help. When you have to sort through exactly which DLC people have it's easier to just say screw it all than when it is just the one big expansion pack.

 

[diLuca]

ok here is an example:

i played the mmorpg everquest for more than a decade. that game had like 15 expansions with new races, new ingame stuff AND new game mechanics (like spionage in the new expansions here). while you needed to buy the expansion to play the new race, the new game mechanics was free to download via a patch so everyone was on the same level.

if you want to hold a community together, you have to do it this way.

 

[The_Quasar]

ok here is an example:

i played the mmorpg everquest for more than a decade. that game had like 15 expansions with new races, new ingame stuff AND new game mechanics (like spionage in the new expansions here). while you needed to buy the expansion to play the new race, the new game mechanics was free to download via a patch so everyone was on the same level.

if you want to hold a community together, you have to do it this way.

However, Civilization is not a mmorg, and I hope it never will be. It is overwhelmingly a single player game with a multi-player add-on. As such, the whole ethos of DLC and expansion, together with new versions (I, II, III, IV & V) are aimed at it's main target of single players.

I would say that the Civ community has done pretty well over the years with doing it that way! I believe that if it had been a single game, no new versions, etc it would have died or stayed small long ago, and if that had happened, we wouldn't have had Civ IV or Civ V.

 

[diLuca]

the world evolves and so does the gaming industry. i started with civ in the early 1990ies and still, i wouldnt have bought civ 4 or civ 5 if there wasnt the multiplayer feature.

i brought an mmorpg as an example to demonstrate how wrong it is to implement new gamemechanics (changing the game) and not making those new features available for everyone. they can sell new civs and the like to make money and people can choose to get more civs or not, no problem, but dont split the mp-community by changing the game itself!

 

[wannabewarlord]

the world evolves and so does the gaming industry. i started with civ in the early 1990ies and still, i wouldnt have bought civ 4 or civ 5 if there wasnt the multiplayer feature.!

i brought an mmorpg as an example to demonstrate how wrong it is to implement new gamemechanics (changing the game) and not making those new features available for everyone. they can sell new civs and the like to make money and people can choose to get more civs or not, no problem, but dont split the mp-community by changing the game itself!

And so do games. Why someone would willingly forego the evolution of a game and then complain that he can't be "on par" with the others, is beyond me.

Same with your mmorpg example which is flawed. While the mechanics would be patched in, you still couldn't go play with your friends who would raid the new content, level beyond the current cap and get new stuff.

Time moves forward, games evolve and people want new content. Sticking to "vanilla" and then expecting others to downgrade to be on par with you (i.e. not play/install the new civs) is not going to work.

 

[diLuca]

And so do games. Why someone would willingly forego the evolution of a game and then complain that he can't be "on par" with the others, is beyond me.

its not about being on par but not being able at all to play together with vanilla players in MP.

Same with your mmorpg example which is flawed. While the mechanics would be patched in, you still couldn't go play with your friends who would raid the new content, level beyond the current cap and get new stuff.

wrong.
u could raid new content and also level beyond the current cap but u where not able to play the new race or have new mounts for example


on a side note: they failed with ingame rankings in civ4 and so they did with civ5, which i realy dont understand. they would have done a ton of money if they integrated a ranking system cause alot more people would play the game but right now there is no real incentive for them to play online (yea granted, there is civplayers etc. but its nothin official). and thats another reason why new game mechanics should be free (especialy on ranking systems) but well, that was just a sidenote hope to see something like this in civ6

 

[wannabewarlord]

wrong.
u could raid new content and also level beyond the current cap but u where not able to play the new race or have new mounts for example

Not wrong. Maybe for everquest it was like this, but not for WOW. So yes, you referred to everquest, but WOW had it done differently and it worked all the same (even better for Blizzard).

But all "it would be nice, if" aside. 2K or Firaxis or whoever is here to make some money. If "forcing" MP players to tag along with the upgrade does this, then so be it. I also believe that the G&K mechanics update is too large a body of work to give away free like a patch. It is basically a new game, so paying for it makes sense.

I still don't understand why somebody who wants to keep playing the game would not upgrade though. But that's another discussion entirely.

 

[diLuca]

But all "it would be nice, if" aside. 2K or Firaxis or whoever is here to make some money.

and thats exactly what iam sayin. they would make alot more money, if they would release the new game mechanics for free. as for me i just bought babylon back the day and nothing elsea after since noone is playing the rest of the DLCs because those with DLC cant find people to play with anyways.

the new expansion would be alot more attractive for potential buyers if they can play with the same mechanics and see new civs in game which they can only get by buying the new DLC...now THIS is marketing. (same applies also for the current DLC)

 

[Atlas627]

The MMORPG example is completely different.

A Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game has a different fan base, game design, and money-making scheme. The objective in an MMO is to have a ton of people always playing at the same time, in the same world. And they don't all play "together". But having them there is part of the atmosphere.

Civilization is not a massively multiplayer game and never will be. That would be a different game, with an entirely different feel. Only people that play "together" ever see each other, so it is ok to "split" the multiplayer community along lines they have already split themselves: those who like the game enough to buy an expansion, and those who don't. And if for some reason anyone ever wants to cross that boundary, they can make an exception and have the person with the expansion play without it for a game. Unlike an MMO, you don't need to constantly have those features active.

In an MMO, you are supposed to have 1 persistent world that everybody plays in. And you need as many players as possible to play at the same time because they all affect each other. So when you make an expansion, you can't leave the audience that only sorta likes your game behind. You need that group to keep the massively multiplayer feel alive for the rest. And vice versa, you will lose all of your casual players if the hardcore ones leave for the expansion and depopulate the servers. So you have to keep both playing with each other.


As for putting things into a patch, I think that is a terrible idea. It is not the same as an MMO.

1.) In your example, they patched the mechanics in, but none of the content that uses those mechanics right? You had to buy the cool dungeons, races, and classes. Other people could play with those classes and affect your world. This is because it is an MMO as I have said, and you need to keep everyone together affecting everyone. In order for the game to not break when a player with the expansion content interacts with a vanilla player, you need to patch the mechanics in for everyone! Just don't let the vanilla players use them.

2.) As a replayable game with semi-randomized components, there is no hard-coded content like in an MMO. You can't give the mechanics in a patch and guard the content, because the mechanics ARE the content. The whole point of the expansion is to give you new mechanics to play with. The content is generated by the game from these parts. Civs are mechanics too. The only part that is "content" that you can hold from the player are the AI leader screens.

3.) Your MMO analogy in relation to Civ would be like if they gave everyone the new civs, religion system, espionage system, melee ships, Great Admirals, new wonders, new units, and new techs, but only the AI can use the content. You get to see how cool it is, but you never get to use it! You never get to play with it. You are playing an entirely different game.

 

[diLuca]

gamerkg, its not only in mmorpgs.... ever played magic 2012 duels of the plainswalkers? its a card game (also available via steam) where u had basic decks when the game came out...now, there are new decks out as new DLC and you can play also vs vanilla players and vice versa....thats the best way to promote a new expansion (ingame!) AND to keep the community together

guess its to late for a change anyway..civ desperately needs an own ranking system and a community on one platform and not on different steam groups, own leagues, the current lobby. and if this ever happens (CIV. XI. ?), then it should be the way i explained... right now the whole civ 5 system is messed up for me, babylon was a waste of money since noone (of the serious players) plays it and i predict that the same will happen with the upcoming DLC.

yea, i could play singleplayer but that was interesting back in the 90ies, now i prefer to play vs real ppl. to bad there are still so many bugs, freezes and the like...that should be priority number one and not the dlc....but yea, thats a different story ... (kinda...)

 

[Ermak-]

When I host games I always make people go RM tribe so if all players have a particular DLC it will be randomly given to someone, but if not everyone still can green up an play.

 

[Atlas627]

gamerkg, its not only in mmorpgs.... ever played magic 2012 duels of the plainswalkers? its a card game (also available via steam) where u had basic decks when the game came out...now, there are new decks out as new DLC and you can play also vs vanilla players and vice versa....thats the best way to promote a new expansion (ingame!) AND to keep the community together

guess its to late for a change anyway..civ desperately needs an own ranking system and a community on one platform and not on different steam groups, own leagues, the current lobby. and if this ever happens (CIV. XI. ?), then it should be the way i explained... right now the whole civ 5 system is messed up for me, babylon was a waste of money since noone (of the serious players) plays it and i predict that the same will happen with the upcoming DLC.

yea, i could play singleplayer but that was interesting back in the 90ies, now i prefer to play vs real ppl. to bad there are still so many bugs, freezes and the like...that should be priority number one and not the dlc....but yea, thats a different story ... (kinda...)

That is because Magic is a trading card game. The whole point is to convince people to buy the new cards because they can build upon what they already have while playing with other people. And if those other people needed to have the same cards, it wouldn't work.

You are still describing games that have content that needs to be in the game but not usable by players who have not opted in. Civilization could be made like that using the example I gave (let whoever has the DLC play it, and whoever doesn't can't). There's just one problem. It is very very easy to lose money here. The publisher would never allow it.

In an MMO or in a game like Magic, you are always connected to the server when you play. That would clearly be annoying for a game like Civ. So the game has to be made so you don't need to verify authenticity every 10 minutes. If you patched in all the content but had a variable set that prevents players from accessing it, any amateur could hack that and give themselves the content for free. And since the game never authenticates if you don't ask it too, you could easily get away with it.

 

[apocalypse105]

THe real problem isn't the DLC's you can disable certain DLC's at you're game

but the simuntanously turns. It spilts the MP community

In people who play hotseat for turn based multiplayer and people who use the server for simuntanously turns.

I have to use a special site / programme to play turn based online


You're basicly palying a other game online

 

[Velvet Elvis]

I'm confused. How is this any different than Warlords and BtS being released for Civ IV?