I would purchase a two leader-head DLC, for up to $5. I would hope that would include an interesting map-pack or scenario, but my moneys worth would actually come from the leaders/civs, and that's what I'd be willing to pay for.
I have mixed feelings about this. I definitely wouldn't go over $5 for a new civ, and I'd be fairly irritated if it was even that high.
However, there's another thing that might keep me from buying them. Say they release 8 individual civs via DLC for $3 each, with no other important content (gameplay changes, etc.) attached to any of them. Then, six months from now, they kick out an expansion pack that includes important gameplay changes/additions, along with the civs I already bought, for $30. At that point, it basically means that I just paid $54 for the content of one expansion. That would be ridiculous, to put it lightly.
I guess what I'm saying is that I'd need some more information from the company regarding any potential future packages/expansions before I bought the civs as DLC. I want to be assured that I'm getting a fair deal - I'm not much of a fan of having to pay for something twice.
Based on the D2D deal, I'd guess they will not release a single civ but a "Double Civilization and Scenario Pack". Which sounds like it will include two civs, a map and scenario. I'd pay a few bucks for that.
They have also indicated that the pre-order maps will be availible as DLC. I'd guess at a couple of bucks each.
Pff, I wouldn't pay for such micro-thing. I don't want to encourage game companies to sell small features like that. I want to buy a game and then play it, not buy ten different things in order to get a completed game. Just pff.
However, there's another thing that might keep me from buying them. Say they release 8 individual civs via DLC for $3 each, with no other important content (gameplay changes, etc.) attached to any of them. Then, six months from now, they kick out an expansion pack that includes important gameplay changes/additions, along with the civs I already bought, for $30. At that point, it basically means that I just paid $54 for the content of one expansion. That would be ridiculous, to put it lightly.
I guess what I'm saying is that I'd need some more information from the company regarding any potential future packages/expansions before I bought the civs as DLC. I want to be assured that I'm getting a fair deal - I'm not much of a fan of having to pay for something twice.
Yep, that's why I'll be waiting until the expansions are over until I buy any DLC, or possibly the game at all. It depends on how transparent 2K chooses to be. I have the same problem with Babylon-- I don't want to buy it now, especially for 10 frickin bucks, only for it to be released later as DLC or with an expansion.
2K has two options. They can be up front about what their plans are, or they can hide it from us. The former method is the honest salesperson approach-- help the consumer make smart decisions, hope the goodwill or word of mouth helps business. The latter is the dishonest salesperson approach-- trick someone into paying more for something or paying for it twice and enjoy the extra nickels and dimes you squeezed out of them.
People on the opposite side of us would say that you're paying extra for the privilege of having it earlier, but that argument doesn't really satisfy me when the company deliberately hid from me that I'd have the option of paying less but getting it later. It's one thing for prices to come down naturally as the game gets older (which we already know will be the case) and another for them to hide the cheaper option behind their backs until we've already paid for the more expensive option.
So here's hoping 2K decides to be the honest kind of salesperson so we know what we need to know to make an intelligent buying decision before the expansions are out.
I'm guessing that the expansions will not include DLC. There is probably some sort of lock specifically for the DLC, which is independent of the expansions. What I'm thinking is that every game might possibly have the content, and the purchase might just allow you to play it. That would be the only way you could play online with people without the DLC packages.
They wouldn't want to include the DLC in the expansions for three reasons:
1) It would make people who bought the DLC made.
2) It would mean people wouldn't buy that DLC in the future.
3) People would be hesitant to buy future DLC.
I'm waiting for the Super Platinum Game of the Century version of ciV that will be released next decade. This way I can have all the Civs, Maps, and patches.
Well, they used light and heavy calvary. So you could have as you said a knight replacement with extra movement and ranged attack (along with perhaps a lowering of base strength for balance) along with a lancer replacement. I'm not sure what kind of flanking modifiers and advancements there are in the new game, but that would be appropriate too. You could also have a trebuchet with increased movement, as they carried siege weapons with them when going after a city.
You could also do a replacement of that era's archery unit with a mounted archer type; from a gameplay standpoint, it'd basically be the addition of a bit of movement and access to a few other promotions, so that shouldn't be any more game-breaking than some other stuff UUs have shown.
Alternately, a UB could give horses access (though more likely their civ power would be related to having horses).
Either of these would make for some relatively unique gameplay in the context of the franchise, which is exactly what we should be looking for from DLC civs - much rather have a DLC civ that plays significantly differently from existing civs than one which plays similarly to an existing one, right?
The Mongols are kinda meh to me based on previous interations on Civilization.
I might be more interested in the DLC and deluxe editions if they would actually tell us what the civ's UA's, UU's, and/or UB are. I'm not buying the one with Babylon just because it's a 19th civ. I need to know some facts about it before I pay any attention.
I'd pay somewhere in the range of $1 to $2.50 per civ (assuming there are no scenarios, maps, or new game mechanics included as well in a DLC pack). I doubt I'll buy every DLC civ if they're all released piecemeal, just because I don't feel the need to have absolutely everything civ5.
If it was just the Civilization, I'd give no more than one dollar for it.
However, if it contained other fun stuff, such as maps and scenarios, then I would consider paying a bit more. But as it stands, how much will one Civilization change the game, and how much would I be willing to pay for that?
For the Mongols, Spain, Ethiopia, Inca, Vikings, and other civs I like I'd pay up to $5 each. (I voted for up to 10$, but I just realized how ridiculous that is; oops!)
Personally, I don't mind buying them one at a time if it's not too much. That way I can avoid civs that bore me (Zulus, Iroquois if they weren't in vanilla ) or that I find silly, (Remember the "Native Americans" and the "Holy Romans"?)
Edit: Also, I don't really want most scenarios, especially the sci-fi and fantasy themed, and it would be nice to not have to buy them just to get some extra civs.
Depends on how well-done they are. If it's a really boring civ, I wouldn't bother, but if the Mongols have interesting UA/UU/UBs I'd pay for them. Under $5, granted, but I'd do it.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
) or that I find silly, (Remember the "Native Americans" and the "Holy Romans"?)
