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

[jtb1127]

I agree with you Eta Nett 100%. I consider my self an anti-DLC militant. I despise DLC from the bottom of my heart. I find it completely absurd that they would charge $5 for one civilization.
Take a look here to see all of the stuff BTS included. And the game was only around $30 when it first came out. There were 10 new civs. 10! If you apply the pricing for the civs they are selling as DLC, BTS should have costed $50 from the civs alone. But no, there was much more than just civs. Like I said earlier, please check out the BTS page to see all of the awesome stuff that this expansion had.

I think it is important that everyone realizes how much of a rip-off this is. It is important because we cannot sit by and allow video game developers charge us $50 for one incomplete video game, then slowly patch it up while selling civs for $5 each. And the maps too?! Why would anyone pay money for things that the honest modding community of cfc makes for free?

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

I agree with you Eta Nett 100%. I consider my self an anti-DLC militant. I despise DLC from the bottom of my heart. I find it completely absurd that they would charge $5 for one civilization.
Take a look here to see all of the stuff BTS included. And the game was only around $30 when it first came out. There were 10 new civs. 10! If you apply the pricing for the civs they are selling as DLC, BTS should have costed $50 from the civs alone. But no, there was much more than just civs. Like I said earlier, please check out the BTS page to see all of the awesome stuff that this expansion had.

I think it is important that everyone realizes how much of a rip-off this is. It is important because we cannot sit by and allow video game developers charge us $50 for one incomplete video game, then slowly patch it up while selling civs for $5 each. And the maps too?! Why would anyone pay money for things that the honest modding community of cfc makes for free?

Civ IV came with 18 civilizations.
Civ V came with 18 civilizations.
What's the problem here, exactly? You still have as many civilizations to play with as you did in vanilla Civ IV. You just have the additional option of purchasing further civilizations, most of which come packaged with scenarios, all of which is of the high quality that a Civilization game deserves.

 

[nokmirt]

I got everything and will continue to do so. Right now I am playing ETW and RTW, they are just more in depth, more interesting right now. When civ 5 gets fixed let me know. It will be great in the future!

 

[jtb1127]

Civ IV came with 18 civilizations.
Civ V came with 18 civilizations.
What's the problem here, exactly? You still have as many civilizations to play with as you did in vanilla Civ IV. You just have the additional option of purchasing further civilizations, most of which come packaged with scenarios, all of which is of the high quality that a Civilization game deserves.

1.) Civilization V was far from finished when it was first released. As I mentioned in my post I think it is ridiculous that they even charged $50 for it. I believe that when video games are released, they should be complete. Studios should not throw it out on the market just because the investors and 2k demand more money. It is unethical and you know it.
2.)If you read my post at all you would not that there is a huge fundamental difference between the expansions that were released for civ IV and the DLCs released for CiV. Please, I invite you to check out everything Beyond the Sword had to offer. Go. Go be enlightened and see for yourself how much of a ripoff releasing $5 DLC is. See how for 6 times the price, you could get 40 times your money's worth in one solid purchase.

I got everything and will continue to do so. Right now I am playing ETW and RTW, they are just more in depth, more interesting right now. When civ 5 gets fixed let me know. It will be great in the future!

Everything for civ V? Could you get me a price range for how much you have spent so far and what you got?

 

[Pouakai]

As you have said, that is your opinion, don't be harsh on other people's opinions. I am satisfied about the cost of the DLC, and more than satisfied with the product. I'll admit Civ 5 could have been better when it was released, but that is what patches are for.

 

[jtb1127]

As you have said, that is your opinion, don't be harsh on other people's opinions. I am satisfied about the cost of the DLC, and more than satisfied with the product. I'll admit Civ 5 could have been better when it was released, but that is what patches are for.

This isn't about respecting other people's opinions or freedom of speech. This is about how people like you are negatively effecting me and the video game market by continuously supporting DLC. It may be your decision to waste money but it shouldn't effect me.

 

[Pouakai]

And it doesn't. The beauty about DLC is this: You don't need to buy it. If there is one you want, spend $5 on it instead of having to spend $30 on an expansion just to get that one.

 

[Thormodr]

I agree with you Eta Nett 100%. I consider my self an anti-DLC militant. I despise DLC from the bottom of my heart. I find it completely absurd that they would charge $5 for one civilization.
Take a look here to see all of the stuff BTS included. And the game was only around $30 when it first came out. There were 10 new civs. 10! If you apply the pricing for the civs they are selling as DLC, BTS should have costed $50 from the civs alone. But no, there was much more than just civs. Like I said earlier, please check out the BTS page to see all of the awesome stuff that this expansion had.

I think it is important that everyone realizes how much of a rip-off this is. It is important because we cannot sit by and allow video game developers charge us $50 for one incomplete video game, then slowly patch it up while selling civs for $5 each. And the maps too?! Why would anyone pay money for things that the honest modding community of cfc makes for free?

You are exactly right of course. Nice link as well. Pretty impressive lineup if I do say so myself. I'd forgotten that they had added 10 new Civs! That alone blows the crappy DLC model out of the water. Lol.

If would be better for everyone if people, at the very least, boycotted DLC until the SDK was released. That would send a message that they couldn't ignore.

 

[Tatran]

I really start to hate those modern payment business models.
More and more leechers in the payment process.

They have already changed it for CivWorld.
Old situation : real money -> credit card -> CivBucks
New situation : real money -> credit card -> facebook credits -> CivBucks




DLC or expansion packs is a non-issue for me, because it won't improve gameplay.
They have been trying balancing civ5 for almost a year now.
So adding a new game mechanic will probably cause the same nonsense again.
Also, an expansion pack must have all the current available civs and this conflicts with the DLC model, IMHO.

 

[Peng Qi]

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.

No, they don't change gameplay mechanics with DLC, they do that with patches. Patches they have to pay for the development of. Development paid for and encouraged, in large part, by people who shell out for DLC. If DLC sales fell flat at some point they'd stop developing V and move on to VI I promise you.

 

[Thormodr]

No, they don't change gameplay mechanics with DLC, they do that with patches. Patches they have to pay for the development of. Development paid for and encouraged, in large part, by people who shell out for DLC. If DLC sales fell flat at some point they'd stop developing V and move on to VI I promise you.

Oh, I see.

So, where are the gameplay mechanics that have been added to Civilization 5 through patches? I see resources and a building or two but nothing gameplay mechanic wise really.

I get what you mean though. We all need to stop buying DLC to send Firaxis/2K Games a strong message that this is unacceptable. Hit them where it hurts. (Their pocketbook.)

However, the CEO of 2K Games may then feel vindicated that turn based strategy is not contemporary and put all resources into making Civ into an MMO. Big bucks there and he may draw upon Age of Empires Online for

inspiration. That game looks like it'll cost hundreds of dollars if you want to get everything eventually.

Either way we are all screwed.

 

[Ravellion]

There were 10 new civs. 10! If you apply the pricing for the civs they are selling as DLC, BTS should have costed $50 from the civs alone.

Apples and oranges. A Civ5 civ is actually unique. There were 8 traits or so in civ4, and a new civ would simply be a combination of two traits that wasn't done yet. The leaders weren't voiced, the art was les spectacular, and not full screen. The UUs and UBs were generally underwhelming, most with just a few more str or promotions. Nothing as unique as the Slinger or the Keshik.

In Civ4 I always played random leader. I don't do that anymore, simply because of the the uniqueness of each civ - a game with polynesia is very different from a game with the Inca.

So, apart from a few years of inflation, the argument that BTS was cheaper per civ is a rather silly one to me. Will you next start complaining that your car in the early 80s was better because it was cheaper and still had 4 wheels and seats? Conveniently forgetting the GPS, airbags, power steering, ABS, central locking, electric windows etc. that is pretty much standard in cars nowadays?

 

[Morningcalm]

Apples and oranges. A Civ5 civ is actually unique. There were 8 traits or so in civ4, and a new civ would simply be a combination of two traits that wasn't done yet. The leaders weren't voiced, the art was les spectacular, and not full screen. The UUs and UBs were generally underwhelming, most with just a few more str or promotions. Nothing as unique as the Slinger or the Keshik.

In Civ4 I always played random leader. I don't do that anymore, simply because of the the uniqueness of each civ - a game with polynesia is very different from a game with the Inca.

So, apart from a few years of inflation, the argument that BTS was cheaper per civ is a rather silly one to me. Will you next start complaining that your car in the early 80s was better because it was cheaper and still had 4 wheels and seats? Conveniently forgetting the GPS, airbags, power steering, ABS, central locking, electric windows etc. that is pretty much standard in cars nowadays?

I see your point about Civ 5 civs vs Civ 4 civs, Ravellion, but Civ 5 civ traits are inherently limited despite their uniqueness, and this actually (in my opinion) makes Civ 5 civs less satisfying to play with than Civ 4 civs, which makes the DLC model of Civ 5 stink even more in my perspective.

Consider England and the Ottomans, whose bonuses are intended for water maps, and who don't have anything to compensate on water-less maps.

You might say, "So what? Don't choose them! And Civ 4 has the same issue," but then you'd get this rebuttal: 1) What if I got the leader randomly, and am not happy with getting Elizabeth on a land-only map, despite the awesome longbowman 2) Civ 4 doesn't quite have the same issue, because of leader traits which work on land and sea, despite the naval UUs obviously having limited use.

Don't even get me started on how quickly units in Civ 5 get obsolete. Civ 4's more complex, intricate and deep tech tree made it so that units didn't get obsolete as quickly, Civ 5, many patches in, still has huge issues with its tech tree and unit obsoletion (not to mention diplomacy or AI in general).

To return to the topic of this thread full-on, the Civ 5 DLC model is inherently less satisfying than Civ 4's expack model, not just because it costs more, but because Civ 5 civs, for all their different traits, units and buildings, are limited in their uniqueness. If I play Japan in Civ 5 I can go cultural, but I get few if any bonuses for approaching it that way. In Civ 4 at least, I had a UB that could be used for various things beyond military. Likewise for Germany. If I choose Germany in Civ 5, my bonuses are ALL military-related, so I must needs use my military bonuses, and Domination victory looks like my best bet (or the UN, killing other players gives me gold I can then bribe the world with). In Civ 4, on the other hand, I can choose Frederick, whose Philosophical trait actually rewards approaching the game beyond the sword. The Panzer unique unit I will want to use, but I have more options when choosing Frederick in Civ 4 than I do choosing "Bismarck of Germany" in Civ 5. I think the inherent limitations of Civ 5 civs may be one reason why 2K/Firaxis is releasing scenarios with each DLC package--to allay fans who will get tired of simply having another (prettily decorated but limited) AI to play against. If 2K/Firaxis addressed the diplomacy, AI (i.e. make it so they aren't all just warmongerers like they are now postpatch) and made civs less limited strategically as far as bonuses go, I think I'd be willing to pay the current standard rate for DLC civs.

 

[Sonereal]

Not if you play on slower speeds.

 

[binhthuy71]

The DLCs seem like an attempt to stretch out the revenue stream from Civ V in an era where the market for strategic sims has shrunk to the point where a publisher probably gets 95% of their sales in the first year. As such it makes sense because the publisher will be more likely to justify the cost of continuing to work on significant patches if the game is still bringing in some revenue. It's all about the bottom line and the bottom line is orders of magnitude fatter for consoles and MMOs than it is for games in Civ's genre so anything that keeps Civ alive without breaking my wallet is, to my mind, a Good Thing.

If you don't like DLCs then don't buy them. You can get hours of gaming from V without a single DLC. Once the modding community gets up to speed we'll have more free content than anyone could reasonably exhaust anyway.

 

[jtb1127]

Apples and oranges. A Civ5 civ is actually unique. There were 8 traits or so in civ4, and a new civ would simply be a combination of two traits that wasn't done yet.

Well first, I and many others, enjoy the trait system so much better than the special abilities. Traits actually gave the AI personality and livelihood, unlike those pixilated dead people I see when I play civilization V. Combining two traits is not a negative for the AI. Every AI had a combination of the two traits, did they not? And it was not "simply" that. They actually based the traits of the leaders on the actual leader's personality. Maybe if they had done that for civ V. Gandhi wouldn't declare war on me for no bloody reason. But AI stupidity isn't exactly the point, I'm just saying intelligent AI are more worth the money than the stupid ones from civ V.

The leaders weren't voiced, the art was les spectacular, and not full screen. The UUs and UBs were generally underwhelming, most with just a few more str or promotions.

Oh so you care about art? Is that what you like in your video games? Less content and in depth gameplay and more art! Uh huh. Yes we all know that the graphics are the most important thing a video games can ever have. If you want art go waste your money at an auction. I'm not saying good graphics aren't important, I'm just saying everything else is more important. Also, that art you're talking about is the number 1 reason civ V goes slower than a snail.

Nothing as unique as the Slinger or the Keshik.

I'm not sure what the creativness of the unit has to do with anything. Lets make the special unit for the zulu an alien spacecraft! That's super creative. I think the special units for the bts civs are plenty creative:
Babylon- Bowman (same as in civ V DLC, no creativity)
Byzantine-Cataphract (you probably never heard of that)
Dutch-East Indiaman
Ethiopians-Oromo Warrior
Holy Rome-Lands-knecht
Khmer-Ballista Elephant
Maya-Holkan
Native Americans-Dog Soldier
Portugal-carrack
Sumer-Vulture

As you can see, the creativity argument does not fly.

In Civ4 I always played random leader. I don't do that anymore, simply because of the the uniqueness of each civ - a game with polynesia is very different from a game with the Inca.

You're basing this off of the whole special ability argument. Again, I would prefer personality over special abilities.

So, apart from a few years of inflation, the argument that BTS was cheaper per civ is a rather silly one to me. Will you next start complaining that your car in the early 80s was better because it was cheaper and still had 4 wheels and seats? Conveniently forgetting the GPS, airbags, power steering, ABS, central locking, electric windows etc. that is pretty much standard in cars nowadays?

BTS was released in 2007, don't tell me there has been a noticeable difference in inflation in that time. The only thing that has been inflated is the greed of video game developers, thus making DLC rip-offs the norm. You see it with the Call of Duty map packs and the Farmville crop growing. And you see it with Civilization V. Just face it. Never again will you get your money's worth when it comes to video games. DLC has taken over the market. The only way to solve the problem is to stop buying it.

 

[black213]

I would just prefer Valve's marketing on TF2 more. Adding new DLC for free but still making cosmetics and other stuff only purchaseable (in CiV's case it could be maps and other extras).

 

[black213]

No, they don't change gameplay mechanics with DLC, they do that with patches. Patches they have to pay for the development of. Development paid for and encouraged, in large part, by people who shell out for DLC. If DLC sales fell flat at some point they'd stop developing V and move on to VI I promise you.

They most likely are developing VI already.

 

[Jarwy]

Poor Civ 5, can't even get an expansion pack most likely.

Btw, here's an idea for DLC that doesn't suck, straight from Civ 4:BTS: Random events.

 

[Peng Qi]

Oh, I see.

So, where are the gameplay mechanics that have been added to Civilization 5 through patches? I see resources and a building or two but nothing gameplay mechanic wise really.

The diplomacy overhaul was a pretty big deal that made the game dramatically better.