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

[Truthy]

Regarding Civ V's DLC, if you ask me, they seem to be not all that they are cracked up to be. They seem to be a bit overpriced, especially when compared to something like this.

With 2K's CEO claiming that strategy games aren't "contemporary", I'd like to see a change in publisher.

 

[nokmirt]

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.

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

I bought the game in store for $50, and I would guesstimate another $60 altogether for the DLCs and map pack. The price of two Civ 4 expansions. I have to say that Civ 4 expansions were much more worth the money and play time. They did not just give you a civ or a map, but all new features, mechanics, civs, units, just a much better gaming package. I do believe that if CiV was not a steam entity, we'd see a whole new CiV upcoming, because a new expansion would be right around the corner. I would have guessed they would have had the first expansion come out this September. Steam seems to have changed the traditional way things are done. In doing so it has hurt this game. I could be wrong, but IMO I feel ripped off somehow!

 

[jtb1127]

I bought the game in store for $50, and I would guesstimate another $60 altogether for the DLCs and map pack. The price of two Civ 4 expansions. I have to say that Civ 4 expansions were much more worth the money and play time. They did not just give you a civ or a map, but all new features, mechanics, civs, units, just a much better gaming package. I do believe that if CiV was not a steam entity, we'd see a whole new CiV upcoming, because a new expansion would be right around the corner. I would have guessed they would have had the first expansion come out this September. Steam seems to have changed the traditional way things are done. In doing so it has hurt this game. I could be wrong, but IMO I feel ripped off somehow!

I do not think you are wrong about that at all. Like they say "Steam eats the souls of little gamers!"

 

[Uberfrog]

I bought the game in store for $50, and I would guesstimate another $60 altogether for the DLCs and map pack. The price of two Civ 4 expansions. I have to say that Civ 4 expansions were much more worth the money and play time. They did not just give you a civ or a map, but all new features, mechanics, civs, units, just a much better gaming package.

Even for a guesstimate, I think that's a little off. I ran the numbers quickly, and all the current DLC only comes to around £20 (if you buy the combo packs where possible), which directly translated (and that's surely not how these prices work) is $35.

I don't think there's any denying that the DLC approach is more expensive, but I'm not personally feeling ripped off just yet. I still enjoy Civ V and new content is appealing to me.

I do believe that if CiV was not a steam entity, we'd see a whole new CiV upcoming, because a new expansion would be right around the corner. I would have guessed they would have had the first expansion come out this September. Steam seems to have changed the traditional way things are done. In doing so it has hurt this game. I could be wrong, but IMO I feel ripped off somehow!

While Steam has certainly made a significant impact in PC games marketing, I don't think one can say it is wholly responsible for the DLC model. It's just the current state of the industry, for better or worse. Businesses are going to use what they can to make the best profit. So long as the costs aren't outrageous (which I don't think they are), or the game is quite clearly lacking features (which I don't think Civ V, for it's faults, truly is) it's not a problem.

I also don't think DLC and expansions are necessarily mutually exclusive. Games like Dragon Age: Origins received a ton of (rather poorly and intrusively advertised) DLC, and got a traditional expansion in Awakening. A little different, perhaps, but Dawn of War II has got two standalone expansions, the latest of which now even has its own DLC. While I wouldn't put money on a full expansion pack for Civ V anytime soon, one can't rule it out.


As a slight change in topic, I remember when BtS was released, feeling a little annoyed that it included nearly everything that Warlords did, and I wasn't a big fan of the scenarios. I'm not saying I felt cheated by it, since Warlords' content was excellent, and I had it a year earlier than I would've if I had waited. But from a purely economical perspective, that £20 or so was wasted. What are others' thoughts on this?

If they did the same thing with V, and the expansion contained the DLCs, that would be pretty similar, in my view.

 

[nokmirt]

In any case I still plan to buy whatever is brought out for CiV. I just hope it continues going in the right direction. Some new mechanics and features, along with fixed diplomacy would be a plus for certain.

I believe, I did over estimate what I spent. It must have been around 35-40 bucks. The reason I feel it was like money wasted, is that what was done to CiV, should have been done from the beginning. The new DLC civs, maps and scenarios are a bonus (However, there was a lack of new features and mechanics added, in fact none.), but the programming was essential, because the game came out a real mess. It seems to me the game was rushed out before it was completed properly. The game has yet to have a real expansion added to it. I hope this comes out soon.

 

[sqeaky]

Is it a given that there will not be an expansion pack (a la BTS), or are people just assuming there won't be?

I am holding off buying any dlc hoping they will all be included in an expansion sometime in the future, along with different game mechanics, etc.

 

[starrywisdom]

Is it a given that there will not be an expansion pack (a la BTS), or are people just assuming there won't be?

People are making assumptions based mainly on misconceptions. IMHO, the fact we've got no real expansion content yet(IE: game mechanics, large features, etc) it's safe to say either they are planning an expansion or they don't intend to release any new features.

 

[Casluerj]

I do not think you are wrong about that at all. Like they say "Steam eats the souls of little gamers!"

I couldnt agree more on that. I want expansions back.

 

[Wezqu]

I do not think you are wrong about that at all. Like they say "Steam eats the souls of little gamers!"

Thats statement is really from somewhere I will not say here. Steam gives small game companies chance to get their games out to the market. If there would not be place like Steam many innovative and small company games would never get popular as it would never find the consumer. Simply put I would have never bought certain games if they weren't on steam as I would have never ever got the chance to buy them or even know they existed. You people should realise that Steam helps the gaming community/industry and is not some big bad evil thing that is destroying it.

 

[Danild111]

Thats statement is really from somewhere I will not say here. Steam gives small game companies chance to get their games out to the market. If there would not be place like Steam many innovative and small company games would never get popular as it would never find the consumer. Simply put I would have never bought certain games if they weren't on steam as I would have never ever got the chance to buy them or even know they existed. You people should realise that Steam helps the gaming community/industry and is not some big bad evil thing that is destroying it.

Agree. Steam is a good thing, that allows a ton of opportunities for everyone. It's Firaxis that (IMHO ofc) uses them wrong.

 

[Thormodr]

Agree. Steam is a good thing, that allows a ton of opportunities for everyone. It's Firaxis that (IMHO ofc) uses them wrong.

It does give Indie companies a chance to get exposure, I'll admit. That is definitely a good thing.

It also made the DLC model possible which can be a bad thing. (Depending on the company) Unscrupulous companies will use it to milk their customers.

It certainly doesn't eat anyone's soul or anything ridiculous like that and isn't responsible for Civilization 5's rather underwhelming DLC to date.

 

[jtb1127]

To all responses: I agree with the fact it help games gain recognition and get a broader fan base. This makes Steam a good thing. But it also makes the DLC model possible. And I despise it for that. But I should not be despising Steam as some have pointed out, I should despise 2k and Firaxis for that. I guess their is some truth in "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

 

[starrywisdom]

To all responses: I agree with the fact it help games gain recognition and get a broader fan base. This makes Steam a good thing. But it also makes the DLC model possible. And I despise it for that. But I should not be despising Steam as some have pointed out, I should despise 2k and Firaxis for that. I guess their is some truth in "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

DLC was around long before Steam. Steam made it easier for companies to put out DLC, but it surely didn't create it. Just because a handful of games release bad DLC does not even remotely relate to Steam. 2K could have easily released DLC in a multitude of other ways, lol. You would be better off 'hating' on people like Microsoft who force companies to put up certain prices, rather then the companies that don't; lol. DLC is one of the best innovations of the genre, but like any step forward 'bad companies' will take it two step backwards.

 

[jtb1127]

DLC was around long before Steam. Steam made it easier for companies to put out DLC, but it surely didn't create it. Just because a handful of games release bad DLC does not even remotely relate to Steam. 2K could have easily released DLC in a multitude of other ways, lol. You would be better off 'hating' on people like Microsoft who force companies to put up certain prices, rather then the companies that don't; lol. DLC is one of the best innovations of the genre, but like any step forward 'bad companies' will take it two step backwards.

Well, you pretty much summed up everything I already said for me. Thanks

 

[Louis XXIV]

Standards are constantly being lowered I guess.

Now we should be grateful that we get FREE patches.

As I pointed out, Civ4: Warlords technically charged you for patch content, since they re-balanced the game but never incorporated it into the original game (so you had to pay for it).

 

[spider1]

Is it a given that there will not be an expansion pack (a la BTS), or are people just assuming there won't be?

I am holding off buying any dlc hoping they will all be included in an expansion sometime in the future, along with different game mechanics, etc.

Unless they have a "2K" in their name, or can prove they are from Steam, they are just giving an opinion. I wouldn't base any action on anything anyone says in this thread. If want one of the DLC's, buy it...or not, but don't make your decision based on what you've read in this thread about future expansion packs, DLCs or whatever. It's all speculation.

 

[Ravellion]

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.

You say you get my point, but I don't believe you do. Obviously each new civ in Civ5 needs to be playtested. In Civ4, you could playtest traits, and slap them together and call it a new civ. Therefore, Civ 5 actually has more and different ways of playing the game, whereas in Civ4 it was far more similar from one game to the next. Even if you chose a different Civ, you might end up with the same or similar traits.

Your argument about England/Ottomans on non water maps ring hollow.
If you are not willing to deal with random results, don't randomize your game settings. In Civ4, randomization mattered less, with more similar civs. In Civ2, it didn't matter at all! By your argument we should get back to generic civs, so you can use your random settings and don't feel shafted, when you don't like the results!

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).

I am sorry, but I don't see any of these issues. In fact, in Civ4 you needed to use a great merchant or several turns of full on cash production to upgrade your 40+ unit army. In Civ5, it is about 10 units, so you upgrade when needed, usually from spare cash. Feels more fluent and natural to me. Civ4 felt like this to me quite often: "Sorry scientific citizens of Rome. For the next two centuries you may not invent new things! Your efforts must go into the mercantile professions, so we can buy new swords for our praetorians". (oh, and I really hated that unit name).

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.

So I understand that what you are saying is that you rather have less unique and rather similar civs, and would be willing to pay for those in an expansion pack where they all would be collected together, but then only if the cost would be less than Civ5 DLC civs.

I suppose I agree with you in one way: I never bought the CIV4 expansions till I could get Civ4 complete for €20. The civs added little to the game, so I was only willing to part with a little of my money for it (I was annoyed by the expansions putting balance patches in that I couldn't get unless I paid for them though). The difference between you and I is that I am willing to pay for uniqueness, you are not. Guess which one of us is going to be the preferred customer of Firaxis, and will get what he/she wants?

 

[Ravellion]

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.

You mistake the traits for the personality coding. I had a reference sheet with CIV4 AIs, and when they would not declare war on you (how much of a + you needed). So much personality they had! Laughs all around.

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.

Yes. Let me reiterate.

Oh so you care about art?

Yes.

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.

you don't understand.

Babylon- Bowman

In Civ 4 this wasn't a creative unit: you used it exactly as you would a normal archer. In Civ5, it gains a new purpose: the Archer that can hold its own in melee. It opens up new strategies, and allows for games unlike the game you play with non-babylonian civs.

Byzantine-Cataphract (you probably never heard of that)

What your statement tells me is that you never heard of cataphracts before you saw them in Civ4, and then are projecting this lack of knowledge on someone you haven't met and know nothing about. In any case, in game, this was nothing more than a stronger knight, to be used as a knight just like any other civ.

Dutch-East Indiaman

What was this? A galleon that defend itself better? To be used exactly like you would use a normal galleon? You know, I am beginning to see a pattern here.

Ethiopians-Oromo Warrior

And here we have a musketman with some promotions. Oh that's creative. How would you use it in game? Exactly like you would a normal musketman, it would just be more effective.

The Dog soldier and the Elephant are the only ones in your list that changed the unit's use in any way, and both of them made the unit narrower in use at the same time, not opening up any new strategies at all.

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

That's nice. Please tell me how an oromo warrior has less personality than a maori warrior. The latter has special abilities, the former has "personality"? Really?

BTS was released in 2007, don't tell me there has been a noticeable difference in inflation in that time.

I was saying the exact opposite. Instead of inflation we are paying more because we are actually getting more. This is not oil or bread, where the prices go up and the product stays the same. We are paying more and getting more. yes, part of that is art, which you don't like. Yes, part of that is uniqueness of civ and unit abilities, which you don't like. So what you are doing is saying that you don't want to pay extra for improved features. You want a 70s car. Now for me, I'll take my airbags and satnav thank you very much.

 

[starrywisdom]

Your argument about England/Ottomans on non water maps ring hollow.

No, that's just bad planning. The Ux's need to be balanced AROUND random map settings. Making a Ux that's completely useless in a large handful of situation is not a good Ux. They need to be retuned to be more 'generic' to allow you to random without taking out what is supposed to make then unique from you.

In Civ2, it didn't matter at all! By your argument we should get back to generic civs, so you can use your random settings and don't feel shafted, when you don't like the results!

You're grosely misrepresenting the situation. There is a very big difference between getting into an unoptimized area, and obsoleting the uniqueness of the civ. England without water(or water that can't be used) is completely useless for their major UA. This is not good design. While a civ that needs a specific resource to be good is not 'useless' if they don't get it - since they can barter/conquer/expand/etc to get it.

I am sorry, but I don't see any of these issues. In fact, in Civ4 you needed to use a great merchant or several turns of full on cash production to upgrade your 40+ unit army. In Civ5, it is about 10 units, so you upgrade when needed, usually from spare cash. Feels more fluent and natural to me. Civ4 felt like this to me quite often: "Sorry scientific citizens of Rome. For the next two centuries you may not invent new things! Your efforts must go into the mercantile professions, so we can buy new swords for our praetorians". (oh, and I really hated that unit name).

The fact still remains that unless you play on marathon many units still obsolete very quickly. Even on marathon there are some points in the tech tree where units still obsolete a lot faster then they should. It just feels 'rushed'.

 

[Ravellion]

No, that's just bad planning. The Ux's need to be balanced AROUND random map settings. Making a Ux that's completely useless in a large handful of situation is not a good Ux. They need to be retuned to be more 'generic' to allow you to random without taking out what is supposed to make then unique from you.

Maybe, but saying "Ottomans and England need water so the system needs to be scrapped" seems to be throwing the baby out with bathwater. If, and I do mean if, this is a real problem the task is to make the water civs better suited for non water maps or alternatively exclude them from non water maps automatically.