Expansion Packs: Not What They Used to Be *Opinion Thread

[EtaNett]

**This is an opinion thread, meaning that you state your opinions here. Now, let's all play nice while on the forums.

So, let's get to the point: I miss the old expansion packs. This new "Pay nearly five dollars and you get one civilization!" is kind of ridiculous. Also, map packs? Seriously? Yeah, they may just be trying to maximize profits, but what ever happened to content? With any other Civilization game, you used to get multiple civilizations, new units and buildings, and multiple kickass mods. All for less than thirty dollars. They can suck nearly forty dollars from you with all of their downloadable content, which is about the same cost of both of the Civilization Four expansion packs, with less than half of the content.
In conclusion, I think they should start thinking (at least a little) less about money and more about their faithful customers.

I'll be back before the end of the day to check this thread.

Edit: I am no longer maintaining this thread. Do whatever you want with it.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think the quality per Civ is much higher. The investment is minimal on my end. An a la carte approach isn't all that bad (for example, I didn't get the first map pack). This is especially true as long as they keep making gameplay changes via free patches.

So I'm fine with this approach, which is far less risky for Firaxis and keeps the patching process going (and, since I still think Civ3: Conquests needs another patch, keeping the patching process going is a good thing).

 

[TW_Honorius]

Even though the cost of an expanison is the same as buying a bunch of civs over time, you get the chance to play the dlc civs without worrying about all the other civs you just bought and have to wait to play them. now if the dlc was not cost effective, then i would have a problem. not all civs cost 5 buck each, some are less and some are even cheaper if you wait for a sale, all of which does not happen with an expansion pack.

i wish expansion packs were brought back, but the dlc model is not bad that it makes me light a torch and go hunting.

 

[gingerbill]

i don't mind the DLC , with the cheap steam deals they been a couple of quid each. Though i dont buy them.

 

[Polynesian]

So, let's get to the point: I miss the old expansion packs. This new "Pay nearly five dollars and you get one civilization!" is kind of ridiculous. Also, map packs? Seriously? Yeah, they may just be trying to maximize profits, but what ever happened to content? With any other Civilization game, you used to get multiple civilizations, new units and buildings, and multiple kickass mods. All for less than thirty dollars. They can suck nearly forty dollars from you with all of their downloadable content, which is about the same cost of both of the Civilization Four expansion packs, with less than half of the content.
In conclusion, I think they should start thinking (at least a little) less about money and more about their faithful customers.

I'll be back before the end of the day to check this thread.

That's where any of these arguments fall down. Firaxis isn't some corner shop, diligently noting and caring for each regular, waiting with a tin of cat food for Miss Moggins cat, or keeping that bottle of Whiskey safe for Mr. Hutches when he pops in late on Thursdays. Firaxis is more like Tesco's, or Walmart. You can shop there year after year, and they won't remember you. It's a system that works, and works well. They are getting their money, we're getting satisfied with free patches and the ability to mix-and-match new civilizations for our game. Everybody wins. I enjoy playing as Polynesia, I think the money I payed is worth it, and I'm glad I didn't have to pay £30 just to play as them as part of an expansion pack.

I haven't bought the map packs, I don't intend to by the map packs, and they don't intend to force me to by them. I believe they are pointless, and I'm glad I'm not playing 1/5 of this hypothetical expansion to have them included.

 

[EtaNett]

Thank you all for your civilized replies.

I think the quality per Civ is much higher.

...as they keep making gameplay changes via free patches.

I do agree that the quality is MUCH higher. I do, however, believe it may be because it's meant for DirectX 11. And the fact that you have to pay for each individual one, so it better be good.

Any game should keep making free patches. It'd be ridiculous if you had to shell out a dollar each time they updated Team Fortress 2.

Even though the cost of an expanison is the same as buying a bunch of civs over time,...

...without worrying about all the other civs you just bought and have to wait to play them.

...not all civs cost 5 buck each...

wait for a sale, all of which does not happen with an expansion pack.

Actually, with Beyond the Sword, for example, you got ten new civilizations. And at five dollars a piece, (and the double pack that worth's seven dollars and forty-nine cents) costs more than just the civilizations that came with BtS.

That is an excellent point.

As previously mentioned, there is only one that doesn't cost five dollars. It's seven dollars and ƒorty-nine cents.

I've seen plenty of sales for Civilization IV expansion packs on Steam.


•I will check this thread tomorrow. until then, good day.

 

[BobDole]

**This is an opinion thread, meaning that you state your opinions here. Now, let's all play nice while on the forums.

So, let's get to the point: I miss the old expansion packs. This new "Pay nearly five dollars and you get one civilization!" is kind of ridiculous. Also, map packs? Seriously? Yeah, they may just be trying to maximize profits, but what ever happened to content? With any other Civilization game, you used to get multiple civilizations, new units and buildings, and multiple kickass mods. All for less than thirty dollars. They can suck nearly forty dollars from you with all of their downloadable content, which is about the same cost of both of the Civilization Four expansion packs, with less than half of the content.
In conclusion, I think they should start thinking (at least a little) less about money and more about their faithful customers.

I'll be back before the end of the day to check this thread.

Expansions are better IMO, but they aren't always amazing. Civ III's PTW wasn't good at all, and IV's Warlords didn't add a whole lot if you weren't a big fan of scenarios, aside from a few new civs and a handful of other additions (You could basically break down Warlords and sell it as DLC, seeing how it was mainly scenarios and some civs, which is what current DLC mainly is).

Anyway, I wouldn't necessarily say customers are against it, as they're obviously buying it, or else they wouldn't keep making it. I prefer expansions myself, but DLC is now the norm, so it's probably not going away (although we still may see an expansion).

 

[Wezqu]

Well the plus side of DLC system is that the game gets updated every time that new DLC comes out. In Civ IV you sometimes had to wait quite a long time until you got patches to the game. You can't say the same of Civ V. I don't see anything wrong with the DLC system, but I still wait them to be on sale when I buy them.

 

[anandus]

DLC and expansion packs are different things of course.

You should look at DLC as building blocks to pick, choose and build your own expansion pack with the DLC you want.

 

[TW_Honorius]

@EtaNett, the 7.49 civ includes 2 civs, that is 3.75 per civ, get your facts straight. And when did the civ 4 expansion go on sale after they were released for the first time? Civ 5 is just as cheap, so if your going to bring in the bts sale, you have to include my sale of civ 5 dlc into the mix, which negates your first argument complaining about the price to begin with.

Your whole point about price has been made null and void by sales of the civ 4 expansion and the civ 5 dlc. if you paid full price knowing they would be on sale, then your the fool and not me.

 

[Pouakai]

What you are ignoring are the scenarios. A lot of work goes into them too, and I am more than happy to pay $1.99 for one of them, and the other $3 on a civilization. Also, say there was one leader / civilization you dispised. Say in Civ 4, it was Stalin. You hated them, and never liked seing their face.. With Civ 4 and the expansion pack, you could only hope you didn't get him by luck-of-the-draw as your character or an opponent. In Civ 5 with the DLC, you would simply not buy that one.

 

[Sonereal]

Hopefully, since they've adopted a sort of pick-n-choose system for Civilization, an expansion pack would be more focused on mechanics and gameplay. I was against DLC at first but after seeing the quality of the civilizations (remember, they're making the 3D leaderheads from scratch and the unit art) combined with the scenarios (going off from the Mongolian ones, they're not just simple map packs ala the stupid map pack DLC), I think the price is worth it. If you're patient, just wait until a sell and watch the price halve or drop 75%. What's two dollars but a bottle and half of Coke Zero? Especially since the DLC'll last longer than the Coke Zero.

 

[aatami]

Actually it's more the other way around with the costs in some countries.
For example, BTS costed about 45 dollars here and Warlords costed about 40 when they came out (of course IV complete costs about 18 dollars now, but that's not my point), but DLC maintains it's same price as it is in America, so it's actually not that bad.

Also: The quality of DLC content is better than old expansion content.
Features that used to be released only through expansions are now released through patches a lot. (They have already added two buildings, a few map features and one strategic resource)

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

Hopefully, since they've adopted a sort of pick-n-choose system for Civilization, an expansion pack would be more focused on mechanics and gameplay. I was against DLC at first but after seeing the quality of the civilizations (remember, they're making the 3D leaderheads from scratch and the unit art) combined with the scenarios (going off from the Mongolian ones, they're not just simple map packs ala the stupid map pack DLC), I think the price is worth it. If you're patient, just wait until a sell and watch the price halve or drop 75%. What's two dollars but a bottle and half of Coke Zero? Especially since the DLC'll last longer than the Coke Zero.

I would also posit that DLC takes off much of the pressure to get an expansion pack out the door quickly, because 2K still gets to profit off of new content for Civ V.
I too think we'll see a mechanics-based expansion at some point. Their strategy seems to be to demonstrate that the game is alive and well by often releasing new DLC to coincide with patches landing, which naturally brings attention back to the game and insures that people realize how much better it has gotten. Plus, there's probably good money to be had and lots of potential for sales and bundles to further promote the game and bring in more players(and money!)

 

[Thormodr]

Until they start releasing new gameplay mechanics with DLC, I don't think it's realistic to declare that DLCs are superior to expansion packs.

Mind you, they still need to do a heck of a lot of work to get the AI to even use the base game mechanics before they can even dream of adding anything else new.

Time will tell of course but I'd say that so far the DLCs have been average to slightly underwhelming.

 

[Babri]

Until they start releasing new gameplay mechanics with DLC, I don't think it's realistic to declare that DLCs are superior to expansion packs.

Time will tell of course but I'd say that so far the DLCs have been average to slightly underwhelming.

Apart from map DLCs I have to disagree. The quality of DLC has been excellent though they are a bit expensive unless you get them on sale.

 

[EtaNett]

...the 7.49 civ includes 2 civs, that is 3.75 per civ, get your facts straight.

Civ 5 is just as cheap...

if you paid full price knowing they would be on sale...

your the fool and not me.

This is what I said. YOU need to read a little more clearly, my good sir.

How much was Civilization IV when it came out? Wasn't it around the $45 dollar mark? And Civilization V is still $49.99, before and after it's current sale.

How in any way should I have known it would be on sale?

Who's flinging around the term "fool" here? I never called you fool, so don't start using it. This is supposed to be a friendly debate or conversation about expansion pack comparison.

...an expansion pack would be more focused on mechanics and gameplay.

I was against DLC at first but after seeing the quality of the civilizations...

If you're patient, just wait until a sell and watch the price halve or drop 75%.

This is a better idea. Please elaborate on the changes that they might include.

Yes, their quality standards are MUCH higher.

This is true. I've only seen a couple of sales, though. There may have been some during autumn or winter, as I had no internet during that time.


Thanks again for your posts. Please, keep it civil.

 

[spider1]

At first I hated Steam and their DLCs, but now I like them. My main concern about Civ V is not expansion pack related, it's the diplomacy that they can fix and balance through free patches. When, or even if, they release an expansion pack for Civ V I want it to contain an entirely new functionality for the game. And hopefully one that works.

 

[TW_Honorius]

actually the topic is about money, as that is your only argument. All you did in the first post was complain about the cost, yet the DLC model has no financial difference compared to the expansion model.

 

[Camikaze]

I don't mind DLC. You get what you pay for, without having to buy extras. When added together, it might be more expensive, but the quality seems to be there.