If Genghis Khan (Mongolia) was released as a DLC civ...

[Lightzy]

this new sales system with minicontent and crap just made me not buy any more new games..
You know for sure than in a little while there will be a version released for less money and with all the DLC content, and I'm patient

 

[Falk]

5$ for me. With the new leader screens and the leaders speaking in their own tongues I am willing to pay money for a new civ. We cannot compare it with Civ4 where a new civ essentially was some basic xml coding and some (sometimes elaborate) changes to existing 3d-models.

However, I'd really like Firaxis to tell us whether DLC civs will eventually be released in an expansion or not. Cause if so, I'd feel ripped off if I had paid significantly more money via micro-transactions.

I like DLCs but I dislike companies keeping such things secret in order to sell more stuff (= rip off customers). Firaxis/2k should be more open about their plans with DLCs/expansion.

 

[Tomice]

People that are willing to spend 5 or 10 dollars for 1 civ are insane imho.

Pretty much depends on your income, doesn't it? 5$ is significant for some, peanuts for others.

 

[parabellum9x19]

The Spanish are more important to me, but for the sake of the poll I assumed you mean any popular missing civ.

sorry for the off topic...but yeah, i hope Spain is in the next Civ we'll be getting for bonus content from D2D.

Isabella!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1eleven

 

[Schuesseled]

i wouldn't pay more than £1 - £2 for a single civ, and even then i might not bother.

 

[LegionSteve]

I voted $6-$8. $8 is a little over £5 at the moment. I would very, very much resent having to pay £5 for one civ, but I would probably pay. Any more than that, no way.

 

[lietkynes]

Pretty much depends on your income, doesn't it? 5$ is significant for some, peanuts for others.

Of course it's not for the 5 dollars. 5$ should be peanuts for almost everyone here, since we buying a game for 50$ or more. But if 50$ is the full game (18 civs + the whole game), 1 civ can't be 5$.

 

[Wuddel]

1) I bet they can't offer espionage as DLC. Too much balancing need, to complicated in multiplayer. Gameplay changes will come more bundled, independent on how they name it.

2) Quite the arrogant statement, no?

3) There are only very few games I'd consider to buy DLC for. Usually only those where I joined the community like here. Proven games that keep me busy for ages.

@1 Ture. But thats not the only thing that was in a traditional expansion pack. BtS contained the new concepts, new leaders/civs, and new maps. CivRev had DLC with wonders. I did not know how they handled MP with the wonders. So I guess. You will have all gameplay changes in one DLC. Civs and Maps in another, and possibly Wonders in even another.

@2 How? I am not apologizing for having (actually not that much) money. Because, guess what: I earned that. With work! Anyway, we probably have misunderstood each other here. My point was that, like you, I pick my fights and only consider DLC for games that I will "invest" a lot of time and "heart" in. Wouldn't like to spend that money for all the games I play, let alone I would have the time to experience all that content.

Of course it's not for the 5 dollars. 5$ should be peanuts for almost everyone here, since we buying a game for 50$ or more.

Indeed. Sadly, thats why companies put out DLC. Because they know people can afford it. And if you really HAVE to think about spending 5$, while buying a 50$ game and owning a computer that can run Civ5, then you are not spending your money like a responsible adult. Or you are a kid, and then your parents decide, or you can make your own call dependent on your allowance. Tip: Make that call by yourself. Quietly.

BTW. I clicked 4-6$ I could barley justify that to my self. Depends on the Civ. I would like to see more Vikings and Holland. Maybe Austria, for a change. Mongolia not so much.

PS: I guess it comes through. I am a bit sad that the publishers a milking us, but also I am a grown up person, that understands that this is how the economy works and I can decide on my own if I want to make a $5 purchase.

 

[Landiron]

0€ - not a cent,

I don't support DLCs of any kind, even if it's Civ

 

[thungrim]

I'd consider purchasing a substantial pack of well crafted Civs, but not one, and NOT soon after release. Immediate release of "bonus" Civs via DLC tells me that the resources are already in game and the publishers just wanted to gain a few more bucks at the margin. To me that just plain stinks.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Of course it's not for the 5 dollars. 5$ should be peanuts for almost everyone here, since we buying a game for 50$ or more.

I'm going to get the game for a bit under US$40.

As for a DLC Mongolia, I'm really not sure whether I'd buy it or how much I'd pay for it if I did. That's why I think this poll is an interesting question - there seem to be widely varying opinions on the matter in this community.

 

[thungrim]

Of course it's not for the 5 dollars. 5$ should be peanuts for almost everyone here, since we buying a game for 50$ or more. But if 50$ is the full game (18 civs + the whole game), 1 civ can't be 5$.

Perhaps, but some of us budget. $5 is "peanuts" when you look at my net income, however its a large enough % of my Video Game budget that I'll spend such a sum very judiciously.

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

Depends if they have the financial trait

No traits in civ5.

 

[wapamingo]

with the game framework and modding capability; what would firaxis have to offer of value in a new civilization they may wish to offer in the future as a pay-for DLC.

modders can easily add graphics / and leader heads; so, the only thing firaxis would bring are:

(1) animated leaders
(2) leaders that speak

Worth $0 on the open market. Maybe bundle 10 civs together and you can command a price.

 

[wapamingo]

Pretty much depends on your income, doesn't it? 5$ is significant for some, peanuts for others.

That's true; just refer to the "civ generations" thread where people polled their decade of birth and you'll notice vast majority of civers are adults with most likely some dispensable income as opposed to youth who depend on the whims of their parents.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Not bundled? I'd probably pay no more than $5. I'd actually argue that, as more civs get released, the value of each one drops. If a year from now they only release Civs one at a time, I'm expecting my average price to be about $2.50. That being said, if they bundle it with a map, I would probably keep the price in the $5-$6 range consistently. If they bundle it with a fun scenario or legitimate core gameplay additions, I would probably pay about $10. I would also pay $7 or $8 for two Civs bundled together (discounted for buying 2 at once, not the full $10).

I'm capping my number at $10 not because I wouldn't want to pay more for core gameplay changes and Civs I really like, but because I'd expect additional DLC and I don't want my overall spending cost to be crazily disproportionate to expansion pack costs. Even if I assume I'd buy both expansion packs at full price (which I never did), that would mean I'd want Conquests or BTS level content for $70 overall. IMO, Civs should be released in 2 packs or with a scenario to justify costing more than a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

 

[Thormodr]

Mongolia has always been my favourite Civ so sadly I would be willing to pay $10 for it provided that they included a Mongol scenario (say the conquest of China) and a map with it.

Without a scenario and map, I'd only pay $5.

 

[Sparthage]

I'd be willing to pay around $1 for the Mongols. $5 for Carthage (my favorite civ).

 

[Wuddel]

I guess they will package them exactly for that reason. 3 for 15$ with 1-2 maps. The urge to get your favorite Civ, will make you pay 5$ for each of them

 

[tom2050]

Any DLC Civ packs they do come out with, we should all scramble and make a better modded civ, just to show 2K their overpriced micro transactions won't work.