Expansion Packs

00konichiwa00

Prince
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
346
Location
Norway
I have been trying to find out information about expansion packs, but it doesn't seem like there is any future expansion packs. Does anybody know of any plans for expansion packs? I do know of the map and civilization DLC's. It's strange they haven't released any expansion packs since the game is getting kind of old (1 year is a lot in the gaming world).
 
The DLC model is good for adding "things:" maps, civs, scenarios. Expansions would add new game features and mechanics. I've HEARD that they are working toward an expansion for the holiday season, but I don't have any evidence to support that claim.
 
The DLC model is good for adding "things:" maps, civs, scenarios. Expansions would add new game features and mechanics. I've HEARD that they are working toward an expansion for the holiday season, but I don't have any evidence to support that claim.

...and how exactly would the exp. packs 'merge' with the current 'things'? :confused:

Obviously the DLC released post the exp packs would/could have features only added by the exp pack, so those who didn't buy the exp pack would be restricted to only a few, specific DLC? I don't think so.

And by the looks of things, 2K is sticking to the DLC formula. *VERIFIABLE* claims are already being made toward 2 new DLCs (Korea & Wonders of the World) so don't think we'll get an exp pack any time soon.

Besides, would you buy an expansion pack only for new 'features' only? As in, no civs? I know I wouldn't, and again, it just wouldn't feel consistent to suddenly release a bunch of civs in an exp pack alongisde the already existant DLC.
 
...and how exactly would the exp. packs 'merge' with the current 'things'? :confused:

Obviously the DLC released post the exp packs would/could have features only added by the exp pack, so those who didn't buy the exp pack would be restricted to only a few, specific DLC? I don't think so.
Why not? With prior civ versions it was buy Vanilla and play as it was with patches to fix problems. Then an Expansion comes out. You either spend the money to get the new civs, wonders, mechanics, etc or you stick with the content of Vanilla.

With Civ5 you had to buy Vanilla and play as it's patched to fix problems. You can buy DLCs to add civs, scenarios, etc or stick with the basics. If they release an Expansion they may make it so DLCs can be used with Vanilla and the Expansion or they may force you to buy the Expansion to get new DLCs. What would be the difference between how that would work in Civ5 and how it worked in the previous Civs?

And by the looks of things, 2K is sticking to the DLC formula. *VERIFIABLE* claims are already being made toward 2 new DLCs (Korea & Wonders of the World) so don't think we'll get an exp pack any time soon.

Besides, would you buy an expansion pack only for new 'features' only? As in, no civs? I know I wouldn't, and again, it just wouldn't feel consistent to suddenly release a bunch of civs in an exp pack alongisde the already existant DLC.
More than likely, any expansion would include a few civs, map packs, etc so people would buy the expansion.
 
If 2K is smart they will certainly bring out an expansion, people will pay, if you build it he will come! :lol:
 
a exp. pack would add a lot more. a DLC only adds a few maps (I didn't care to buy them), and the civ dlc's only add a civ. I would like more features to be added. like they did with the warlod and bts expansion for civ 4.
 
a exp. pack would add a lot more. a DLC only adds a few maps (I didn't care to buy them), and the civ dlc's only add a civ. I would like more features to be added. like they did with the warlod and bts expansion for civ 4.
The Warlords expansion mainly had extra civs, extra resources, extra improvemens, extra scenarios and extra wonders.
Things we now already have through DLC and patches. Don't forget they've added some stuff with the patches too (National and natural wonders, stone, etc).
If you compare Civ 5 vanilla with Civ5 now (+DLC) quite some stuff has already been added. One could even count that as an expansion pack, maybe.
And probably more is coming (I have a strong hunch that the three missing wonders of the world also will be playable in the vanilla version).

So maybe the question shouldn't be: "Does anyone know about plans for an expansion pack?" but more like: "Do we already have an expansion pack-equivalent?". Especially when Korea and Wonders of the World are released.
 
anandus, I have to disagree with you. The patches that added content like national wonders was stuff that should have been in with the base game. That sort of stuff is not quite what I'd expect of a Civ 5 expansion. I'd expect entirely new mechanics. Civ IV Warlords added the warlord unit, which is far more flexible than a Civ 5 Great General, and major wonders as well. The fact that Civ 5 didn't ship with as many techs or wonders as Civ IV aside, it's quite clear that the development team purposefully withheld already existing art and content from the vanilla release for the sole purpose of releasing them as later DLC. Case in point: Panama Canal art was already in existence, and you can see it in the Civ 5 behind-the-scenes video. (How hard would it be to include the Canal in the base game? Not hard at all.)

So the DLC is hardly an expansion so much as "those assets we were going to include in the base game until we realized we'd make more money using DLC." This may seem a cynical interpretation, but consider the fact that Firaxis had to downsize. Having extra money squeezed out of already existing content allows them to continue. I don't mind DLC's existence as much, but I do expect an actual full expansion later on.
 
Sorry people but I wouldn't hold your breath on getting a meaningful expansion pack.

Firaxis has their hands full with Civ world and their Multi-platform RTS using the Unreal Engine, not to mention the Civilization 5 mobile project.

http://www.vg247.com/2011/04/27/firaxis-working-on-unannounced-strategy-title-civilization-revolution-ii-canned/

With all that on their plate, I doubt they have many resources for Civilization 5. At least they canned Civ Rev 2 anyway. Not contemporary enough I guess. ;)
 
If you look at the popularity of the DLCs and the content of the patches, an expansion is highly unlikely, almost redundant in fact.
 
I Hope seening that most people are still playing Civ4 and not Civ5 (Which Do You Play Mostly:Civ:1, Civ:2, Civ:3, Civ:4 or Civ:5) they would not put out an expansion pack and start looking into a Civ6 that Incorporate's civ3, civ4 and civ5 altogether

Yeah, and if they've only sold 20 copies of Civ 5 what are they even bothering with DLC for?! :eek:

I suspect that you have to accept that they're not going to make business decisions based on a low result fan forum poll....moreover, that the majority of Civ players aren't even members here and therefore making such an assumption meaningless anyway. (Unless someone would like to present credited membership numbers against sales figures?)

Edit: These are from October 2010, so assuming that there has somehow magically been a downward trend, I'd stop giving the game such a hard time.

http://www.vgchartz.com/weekly.php?reg=America&date=40454&console=&maker=
 
I'm not a huge fan of scenarios, and can live without them.

Additional Civs, OTOH, I love and am willing to pay for them (I have all the DLC Civs).

What I would be looking for in an Expansion pack are more:

Techs, Policies, Religion, Resources, Bonuses, Units, Wonders, Buildings.
 
90% of the patches are rejigging a few variables in the config files, the other 10% are new building graphics (granary, stoneworks, National College).

50% of the DLCs are nothing but a new leaderhead with a few lines of dialogue in the native language, while the other 50% are lame map packs.

So ... no expansion = no major additions.
 
The truth is that if Civ 5 doesn't do well in sales, there won't be a Civ 6 regardless of what we say on the forum - so we better hope it does do well in sales if you want to see the series continue.

Like it or not, game publishing a business. It cost a lot of money to develop and publish a game.

I manage a business and a single employee that you pay $60K to a year cost you nearly $120K in expenses after you figure benefits, travel, office space, utilites, office supplies, telephone, computers, etc... If you get a 10% return on that employee, you have to sell $1.2M in revenue just to breakeven. Add that to the fact that it might take three years to develop a game, 10 people working on it (and I have no idea if it takes 10 or 100), then the marketing/sales dollars for it - well, you get the picture. The cost add it quickly.

And if the company doesn't get a good return on investment, it will either go out of business or publish other games. The company simply doesn't have a choice.

And cash flow's a . Even if your profitable, if the money comes in at the wrong time, your still bankrupt. Because you don't have the money to pay your bills. And right now, borrowing money for most companies is still difficult - not impossible, just not as easy as it used to be.

So launching a new product or service is a huge gamble. In the gaming world, it could literally be a bet the company gamble. And the game has to appeal to a large enough audience to make sure it pays all the bills, not just to the hardcore fanatics (which I put myself in that catagory so if it offends anyone, that group includes me).

Its a tough act. Make it interesting and enjoyable for the diehard fanatics but appealing enough for the causal user. I have friends who play Civ 5 and can't get much above Chieftian - they simply don't play enough to understand the game. And I would guess that the majority of players - by that I mean 80% - never play higher than Prince. And like it or not, those are the folks that will fund the next Civ 6 expansion.

And for those who think the DLC are great money makers. I seriously doubt it. The great majority of players will never buy one. And even many of the fanatics will only buy a few. I suspect the profit per unit on a DLC is higher than on the game itself just because it doesn't require any basic research into a game engine - but the actual $ amount and actual revenue generate won't be very much compared to base game sales.

Its really more of service to this community.

If the company was really looking to make more of revenue killing, they would have packaged all the DLC together and released them as an Expansion Kit to have mass appeal. Not to get to a limited target market.
 
The truth is that if Civ 5 doesn't do well in sales, there won't be a Civ 6 regardless of what we say on the forum - so we better hope it does do well in sales if you want to see the series continue.

Like it or not, game publishing a business. It cost a lot of money to develop and publish a game.

I manage a business and a single employee that you pay $60K to a year cost you nearly $120K in expenses after you figure benefits, travel, office space, utilites, office supplies, telephone, computers, etc... If you get a 10% return on that employee, you have to sell $1.2M in revenue just to breakeven. Add that to the fact that it might take three years to develop a game, 10 people working on it (and I have no idea if it takes 10 or 100), then the marketing/sales dollars for it - well, you get the picture. The cost add it quickly.

And if the company doesn't get a good return on investment, it will either go out of business or publish other games. The company simply doesn't have a choice.

And cash flow's a . Even if your profitable, if the money comes in at the wrong time, your still bankrupt. Because you don't have the money to pay your bills. And right now, borrowing money for most companies is still difficult - not impossible, just not as easy as it used to be.

So launching a new product or service is a huge gamble. In the gaming world, it could literally be a bet the company gamble. And the game has to appeal to a large enough audience to make sure it pays all the bills, not just to the hardcore fanatics (which I put myself in that catagory so if it offends anyone, that group includes me).

Its a tough act. Make it interesting and enjoyable for the diehard fanatics but appealing enough for the causal user. I have friends who play Civ 5 and can't get much above Chieftian - they simply don't play enough to understand the game. And I would guess that the majority of players - by that I mean 80% - never play higher than Prince. And like it or not, those are the folks that will fund the next Civ 6 expansion.

And for those who think the DLC are great money makers. I seriously doubt it. The great majority of players will never buy one. And even many of the fanatics will only buy a few. I suspect the profit per unit on a DLC is higher than on the game itself just because it doesn't require any basic research into a game engine - but the actual $ amount and actual revenue generate won't be very much compared to base game sales.

Its really more of service to this community.

If the company was really looking to make more of revenue killing, they would have packaged all the DLC together and released them as an Expansion Kit to have mass appeal. Not to get to a limited target market.

30 new achievements were added to steam. These include references to new wonders, and Hittite and Sumerian civilizations. this might be what you are looking for. If it is not an expansion pack, then it might be a large DLC, which IMO, is the same thing.
 
The truth is that if Civ 5 doesn't do well in sales, there won't be a Civ 6 regardless of what we say on the forum - so we better hope it does do well in sales if you want to see the series continue.

Eh, don't kid yourself. I'm no fan of the publishers, but the Civ series is one of the best (if not THE best) known PC game franchises in history (and certainly the most beloved).

If the current makers don't put out a Civ VI, someone will.
 
30 new achievements were added to steam. These include references to new wonders, and Hittite and Sumerian civilizations. this might be what you are looking for. If it is not an expansion pack, then it might be a large DLC, which IMO, is the same thing.

IMO, it's not. DLC can only offer new civs, maps, scenarios etc on top of the old game. It can't bring new game concepts or better AI like Civ4 expansions did.
 
Civ 5 is still one of the top played games on Steam. It's been in the top 10 since release, and I've also heard a lot of people saying they bought at least 1 DLC. The game is doing fine. I could see them not releasing a true expansion pack like many games these days, but there will definitely be a Civ 6 of some kind. If they haven't announced an expansion pack by January, they are probably sticking with DLC. With Steam sales you can even get good pricing on all the DLC, so it sort of becomes an expansion pack.
 
Back
Top Bottom