Enough DLC, how about an expansion?

[AbbieRevo]

I could very easily see them releasing a 20$ dlcxp with things like espionage, foreign trade, and the like. But sort of like a lite expansion pack, that limited itself to a specific set of new features. Why would they include things like new civs, scenarios, or maps, when they can release those sperately at a greater profit.

They could even do mini expansions like: Espionage DLC for 10-15$

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I took the release of the GOTY edition as a sign that the DLC phase is over and there'll be a real expansion soon, but I was proven wrong with Denmark and now that they are selling wonders as DLC I'm losing hope. Next they'll be selling new buildings and techs separately.
A real expansion with new (or rather old) concepts would be welcome. The biggest problem with Civ V so far is AI and diplomacy.

I just know that I'm going to be attacked by everyone on my continent in most games and when i'm finally sick of the "Friendly" French declaring war every 10 turns after the peace treaty has run it's course, (even after I've defeated their armies time after time, have the more powerful military and have just sold them resources for a lump sum) and decide to destroy them I am the bloodthirsty one, and the way the AI just spreads like a plague upon the land makes me itch to declare war purely for pest-control and aesthetic reasons. It would be nice if human and AI players would play by the same set of rules. The AI can keep the bonuses on higher difficulties as long as it doesn't mean they can "pursue strategies" that would be suicide for human players and settle two or three cities in crappy locations (like just one tile away from a river or the coast) when one city would be enough to cover all the resources. Sometimes I feel they're only doing this for the happiness hit I get for razing.
Sorry for the rant, but these are the things that make Civ V into a decent game instead of a really good one. It's just hard for me to get over wasted potential.
Even with a better AI Civ V would still lack the older game's main reasons to not go to war: tech trading, trade routes and culture flipping. This game is much too focused on warfare and in dire need of an overhaul (and I don't mean another random policy makeover, we have had enough of those and I'm not happy with the last one.).

 

[_hero_]

I don't want them to put all the DLC in an expansion, that would be such a rip off to those who paid for the DLC. I'd rather have a discounted DLC bundle pack with ALL the DLC available, and also a separate expansion.

I think a healthy compromise would be to credit all those who paid for DLC towards future DLC of their choice. Something like 50% of the money you spent on DLC that is included in an expansion can be credited towards future DLC. That way they still stand to make money from future DLC, those who purchased it before won't feel totally cheated, and those who didn't won't feel like they are playing a partial game.

 

[mo123567]

Even though I paid for DLC, I would still like to see it included in an expansion only to get that content out to everyone so mods will have an easier time supporting it. I would like to see a disount, however, for those who have paid for it already and I would also want them to still add at least 8-10 completely new civs.

I agree with the people who want longer ancient and classical eras.

I also think a prehistoric and some future eras would be really fun but considering all the complaints about the GDRs, I'm not sure many people agree with me.

 

[svett89]

The contents could be the following:
Improvements to bad Civs like England.

*cough* Longbowmen *cough*

Seriously, I agree that England's UA is terrible, so is one of their UU, but the longbowmen are so amazingly overpowered against the AI. I won a domination game on emperor earlier today (continents, standard size) as England by just speeding towards machinery and have 6 archers ready to upgrade. With six longbowmen and two horsemen I managed to take out the whole world before I even hit rifling.

Anyway, sorry for going off-topic: I think the DLC model works fine to be honest. I would like to see more gameplay additions to the game, like random events and perhaps even some form of religion, but these things should be patched in, not given out as DLC.

 

[_hero_]

*cough* Longbowmen *cough*

Seriously, I agree that England's UA is terrible, so is one of their UU, but the longbowmen are so amazingly overpowered against the AI. I won a domination game on emperor earlier today (continents, standard size) as England by just speeding towards machinery and have 6 archers ready to upgrade. With six longbowmen and two horsemen I managed to take out the whole world before I even hit rifling.

Anyway, sorry for going off-topic: I think the DLC model works fine to be honest. I would like to see more gameplay additions to the game, like random events and perhaps even some form of religion, but these things should be patched in, not given out as DLC.

Longbowmen would be a lot better if their upgrade path didn't negate most of their promotions and erase their unique benefit. Simply making it so crossbows have an upgrade path that keeps them ranged would make England much better.

 

[Tamed]

You guys who say the DLC model works fine, you're missing one huge aspect of the game: MULTIPLAYER! I am punished for purchasing a DLC, because I can't use that DLC with my friends unless they ALL buy it. It's stupid!

 

[jtb1127]

I guess I'm up for another DLC vs Expansions thread. Just so y'all know I'm an expansionist.

Why I think DLC is evil:
DLC allows the developers of video games to sell stuff that should have already been in the game for rip off prices and lets them sell video games prematurely as to maximize profits. The developers know that if they sell one or two small things at a time for about $5 the consumers will think, "hey, the price of lunch, why not?" But these consumers are unaware of the fact that expansions allow for a much better value. Expansions typically cost $20-30 and offer a lot more.
I have posted this link many times:BTS info Center
Please look over all of the things that BTS came with and notice the price (it differed depending on your location, but most places got it for $20-$30 adjusting it to USD). If you guys don't want to check the link, then I'll be glad to post every thing from that page right here on this forum so you can see for yourselves. I believe that based on the price of BTS the average DLC should only cost around $.25. The majority of attacks against BTS are that the content is uncreative. I think this argument is completely irrelevant as the content of the DLC are just as uncreative yet they are also over priced.

Here I'll make my points more visible:
-Expansions are a better value
-Expansions offer more content
-DLC allow comps to rip-off loyal customers
-The fact that expansions can bring more change at one time allowing for a better gaming experience
-Expansions do not require you to have internet access or be a slave known to the soul-eating monster called Steam
-More that I might come up with based on the posts DLCists come up with

I shall now declare a war upon all who support DLC! If you are not with me, then you are against me

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I do not support DLCs at all, hwoever, I do want Spain, Inca (already have them from a friend) Polynesia, Babylon, Vikings and the Korea and the New Wonders.

 

[TopGearFanatic]

You guys who say the DLC model works fine, you're missing one huge aspect of the game: MULTIPLAYER! I am punished for purchasing a DLC, because I can't use that DLC with my friends unless they ALL buy it. It's stupid!

So your friends should get to play it without buying it...?

 

[jtb1127]

So your friends should get to play it without buying it...?

No, it shouldn't be sold one at a time so that some people have it while others don't. An expansion would segregate the two.

 

[ShahJahanII]

Well, I'm not THIS German guy but nevertheless I want to predict that an expansion was never as likely as now.

Why? Because said guy mentioned all the DLC we got so far. He predicted the exact content and the order it arrived. And he did not mention anything beyond Korea and Ancient Wonders!

My conclusion is, that everything from Polynesia to Korea was pre-planed and they might plan an expansion to follow next. As I'm still quite sure that there *will* be an add-on, I expect an announcement within two or three month (which is the time new DLC would have been announced).

He didn't give out all this information at once.
He mentioned
He was right.
Then, a few months later he mentioned Korea and WOTAW.
You might have said the same thing after he mentioned Spain and Inca, Polynesia, and Denmark.
But you would have been proven wrong a few months later.

 

[Kerosene31]

I doubt we will be having an expansion pack any time soon.
DLC's are more steam-friendly and make more $$$$

That's silly. An expansion would just be "bigger" DLC. Steam games have expansions all the time (and I'm sure Civ V will as well).

 

[ShahJahanII]

That's silly. An expansion would just be "bigger" DLC. Steam games have expansions all the time (and I'm sure Civ V will as well).

I hope I am wrong.
I want to have an expansion, but something tells me we won't.

 

[Kerosene31]

I hope I am wrong.
I want to have an expansion, but something tells me we won't.

I bet we will. There are lots of things to add to the game that wouldn't be smaller DLC.

They are still releasing patches and DLC, so those are both great signs that 2k is continuing to support the game.

I think it will just take more time, just like previous games. They need more patches to fix what they have first obviously.

 

[Pim]

I would like an expansion, but would like it even more when they would improve the game by patching. I'm affraid adding new things like religion and stuff, which would be nice, would only damage the gamebalance and make the game less fun to play.

Furthermore there is an active discussion on DLC's and i have been wanting to say something about it, but never did because a) probably it wont have effect and b) i didnt want to start a thread about it.

Im a student, dont have a lot of cash, so was really enthousiastic when Civ V came in cheaper on steam. Most of my favorite game series, like total war, civ and EU. I tend to buy some episodes because i want to sponsor the creators and approve of paying for stuff i use.
On steam there was an expanded version, including babylon, so i bought it and thought: 'yeah full game with extra's nice nice nice'. Then I started the game and learned about DLC's and never fellt ript of like that. I do want the extra civ's but im not going to pay for those extra's(i bought what they called on steam the FULL GAME). I think readers of this rant can understand that for me it feels like: if i buy all the DLC's now, there will probably be a bundle next week.

conclusion:
1)Postphone an expansion, patch and update first so the game is 'perfect', and then think about adding extra content.
2)Steam sold me the full game, but i need to pay more than 10 extra euro's for numerous DLC's if i want to get rid of the feeling: i dont have the full game.

 

[anandus]

That's silly. An expansion would just be "bigger" DLC. Steam games have expansions all the time (and I'm sure Civ V will as well).

Exactly, expansions are big DLC. Or DLC are micro-expansions.

Either way, I don't care that much if there will or will not be an expension (although more is better).

But I do disagree with the first part of the title of this topic, "enough DLC".
I don't think there have been enough DLC. By far. There are so many civs that still need to be included. "Enough DLC" would imply there are enough civs out and I don't agree. Where are the Zulu, the Dutch, the Portuguese, the Celts, etc.?
Especially if an expansion won't have any new content in, then I'd choose more DLC (content, like civs, wonders, scenarios, etc) over new expansion (with espionage, religion, whatever) anytime.
Maybe in a year, when another ten or so DLC have been released I'd think it time for an expansion, but at the moment I could do without.

 

[mo123567]

Exactly, expansions are big DLC. Or DLC are micro-expansions.

Either way, I don't care that much if there will or will not be an expension (although more is better).

But I do disagree with the first part of the title of this topic, "enough DLC".
I don't think there have been enough DLC. By far. There are so many civs that still need to be included. "Enough DLC" would imply there are enough civs out and I don't agree. Where are the Zulu, the Dutch, the Portuguese, the Celts, etc.?
Especially if an expansion won't have any new content in, then I'd choose more DLC (content, like civs, wonders, scenarios, etc) over new expansion (with espionage, religion, whatever) anytime.
Maybe in a year, when another ten or so DLC have been released I'd think it time for an expansion, but at the moment I could do without.

No one is saying they do not want more civs.

Look at the expansions for CIV 4 to get an idea of what people want, well BTS at least. There was plenty of new content added along with new features. The new civs in BTS alone (10 new civs and additional leaders) were a better value than the current Civ V DLC trend.

 

[anandus]

No one is saying they do not want more civs.

I'm assuming they won't put new civs in an expansion as they have DLC to distribute those.
So "enough DLC" implies no more civs, right?

 

[Wezqu]

They are not going to add the DLC's to the expansion as it would not benefit them at all. I can see them making a DLC bundle that they will give cheaper when you buy the expansion, but putting the DLC's to the expansion would not be anyway profitable.