Gre_Magus
Manet
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 273
The inclusion of the Babylonian civ in the deluxe package has raised many concerns, some of them about the legitimacy of DLC, especially day-one DLC, in general, and some about the potential impact on multiplayer. Now, I predicted that civs-as-DLC was probably going to come to Civ 5, and while it don't know if I like it, the announcement about Babylon all but confirms it.
But what does this mean for multiplayer? Lots of different games have dealt with the problem of "splitting the userbase" that is a risk anytime you introduce optional new features into a multiplayer game, whether as DLC or as a full expansion. I know some games actually give people who haven't purchased an expansion all the assets and let them use the new units or at least play against them in multiplayer (but not in singleplayer). Company of Heroes comes to mind. How does Total War deal with this? I know I haven't bought any of the "special units" DLC for Empire, but then, I haven't played multiplayer in that game either. So Civ 5 could either let everyone have the assets, so you could play against Babylon in multiplayer even if you hadn't bought the extra, or make it so that you can't use Babylon against someone who doesn't have it if they opt not to give everyone the assets. Some FPS games with DLC mappacks eventually release them to all players. Maybe Babylon will be wrapped into the first expansion - although if that wasn't explicit from the beginning, it might make people who bought feel like they wasted their money.
Another, more interesting (in my mind) set of questions arise with regards to "meta" multiplayer, which I think may be more common among Civfanatics folks than actual multiplayer. How does an extra civ impact Hall of Fame, Game of the Month, and Gauntlet competitions? Expansions have obviously launched new categories, because they introduce new features in addition to new civilizations. But if there were multiple DLC civs, and players had varying combinations of them, it would be hard to set up categories for all possible combinations. But what if one of those civs were especially suited to a particular gametype? There are restrictions on using Inca for conquest games in the Civ 4 HOF (right?) - perhaps the same thing would happen to "unbalanced" civs in Civ 5. But about the "slightly better but not unbalanced" case? Would that warrant the exclusion of a civ just because it's not in the core game?
None of this is as earth-shattering as some people would make it out to be - I doubt it will be as extreme as like adding new pieces to chess or letting pawns attack forward - and I imagine that it will all shake down to a workable system eventually. But I still don't know how I feel about DLC civs.
But what does this mean for multiplayer? Lots of different games have dealt with the problem of "splitting the userbase" that is a risk anytime you introduce optional new features into a multiplayer game, whether as DLC or as a full expansion. I know some games actually give people who haven't purchased an expansion all the assets and let them use the new units or at least play against them in multiplayer (but not in singleplayer). Company of Heroes comes to mind. How does Total War deal with this? I know I haven't bought any of the "special units" DLC for Empire, but then, I haven't played multiplayer in that game either. So Civ 5 could either let everyone have the assets, so you could play against Babylon in multiplayer even if you hadn't bought the extra, or make it so that you can't use Babylon against someone who doesn't have it if they opt not to give everyone the assets. Some FPS games with DLC mappacks eventually release them to all players. Maybe Babylon will be wrapped into the first expansion - although if that wasn't explicit from the beginning, it might make people who bought feel like they wasted their money.
Another, more interesting (in my mind) set of questions arise with regards to "meta" multiplayer, which I think may be more common among Civfanatics folks than actual multiplayer. How does an extra civ impact Hall of Fame, Game of the Month, and Gauntlet competitions? Expansions have obviously launched new categories, because they introduce new features in addition to new civilizations. But if there were multiple DLC civs, and players had varying combinations of them, it would be hard to set up categories for all possible combinations. But what if one of those civs were especially suited to a particular gametype? There are restrictions on using Inca for conquest games in the Civ 4 HOF (right?) - perhaps the same thing would happen to "unbalanced" civs in Civ 5. But about the "slightly better but not unbalanced" case? Would that warrant the exclusion of a civ just because it's not in the core game?
None of this is as earth-shattering as some people would make it out to be - I doubt it will be as extreme as like adding new pieces to chess or letting pawns attack forward - and I imagine that it will all shake down to a workable system eventually. But I still don't know how I feel about DLC civs.
