Isn't it about about time for expansion pack?

[GoodSarmatian]

I guess before they make an expansion pack they'll make a third GOTY edition with all DLC and for that they'll need some new DLC.

 

[headcase]

I guess that there will be an expansion pack, but since there is also DLC, it will be mid-to-late next year and perhaps only one in Civ 5's life.

 

[Babri]

They've already been introducing new features without an expansion pack or DLC. Why end this trend? So far, really the only major features introduced outside of the main game are the three wonders added in the Wonder DLC.

I am talking about major gameplay effecting features like colonization, religion, espanioge, stability & revolutions etc. Adding wonders, civs & bringing back demographs etc are not major gameplay features. To my perseption, right now ciV + DLCs = cIV + Warlords. We are missing Bts right now for ciV.

 

[jtb1127]

I'm pretty sure there's not going to be any expansion packs. The DLC serves to add extra maps, scenarios, and civs. The base game itself has already undergone a major overhaul without charging us for it. I'd prefer they continue refining the game like this the way they've been doing without trying to weasel more cash out of us to fix what's broken. Likewise, there doesn't need to be an expansion pack to fix the AI; they should fix it in the existing game.

No, releasing an expansion won't weasel out more cash. Their current model is the cash trap and everyone knows it. $5 for a civilization = ripoff.

Civ V costs $50. How is it that one civ could possibly cost 10% of the games? With civs alone the game should have costed at least $90 using that figure.

 

[TheLohoped]

I belove there won't be any expansion pack for Civ V. Expansion packs are not so actual anymore in the age of digital distribution.

 

[biar]

They should add new features such as foreign trade routes and more capitalism imo.

 

[Smokeybear]

if they bring out an Xpac, they might squeeze some extra cash out of tightwads like me that refuse to buy the DLC

Ayup. Sign me up too.

 

[Bechhold]

Doubt there would be any expansion pack, so it seems were stuck with what we have with the occasional Civilization and scenario.

 

[turingmachine]

In all honesty, people better hope there is an expansion pack. It's the only way the team is going to get the development budget to actually fix things such as MP and AI. Expansion packs also serve to reinvigorate sales of both the base game and DLC ensuring that stuff like patches continue for longer. Otherwise I don't really see major game play patches happening for more than six more months.

 

[CoolLizy]

I am talking about major gameplay effecting features like colonization, religion, espanioge, stability & revolutions etc.

I would argue that the patches are already adding major gameplay features. The game plays radically different than when it first came out.

To my perseption, right now ciV + DLCs = cIV + Warlords. We are missing Bts right now for ciV.

It's only been a year, of course we're only to Warlords. Give it another year and then Civ V + DLCs = BTS. (Hopefully with better AI, but that's another subject for another day.)

No, releasing an expansion won't weasel out more cash. Their current model is the cash trap and everyone knows it. $5 for a civilization = ripoff.

First off to be fair, you get a civ and a scenario, along with related Steam achievements. I'd say $2.99 a pop would be a better price, but they didn't ask me.

In any case it's a moot point. My argument was thus: why should they stop doing what they're already doing for free and start charging us extra for it by calling it an expansion pack?

 

[Kerosene31]

People are confusing a distribution model with content.

DLC = method of distribution

If I suddenly stop buying physical copies of books and switch to eBooks, does the content change? Of course not.

There's absolutely no reason we couldn't see new features such as espionage, religion, multiple leaders for a civ, corporations, etc, etc, etc added to the game.

"DLC" doesn't limit content. Many, many games on Steam have expansion packs.

 

[GlobularFoody]

I would argue that the patches are already adding major gameplay features. The game plays radically different than when it first came out.



It's only been a year, of course we're only to Warlords. Give it another year and then Civ V + DLCs = BTS. (Hopefully with better AI, but that's another subject for another day.)



First off to be fair, you get a civ and a scenario, along with related Steam achievements. I'd say $2.99 a pop would be a better price, but they didn't ask me.

In any case it's a moot point. My argument was thus: why should they stop doing what they're already doing for free and start charging us extra for it by calling it an expansion pack?

Would you mind explaining the "radically different" gameplay? Other than changing some social policies and a passive attempt at fixing the AI, it's the same game to me.

 

[Selous]

I would argue that the patches are already adding major gameplay features. The game plays radically different than when it first came out.

what are these major gameplay features that have been added? i must have missed them, the closest that i can think of is to add stone ....

 

[Montov]

what are these major gameplay features that have been added? i must have missed them, the closest that i can think of is to add stone ....

I dont know if it is major but: Aqueduct, more National Wonders, more Natural Wonders, more diverse way of gaining happiness (policies, buildings), replay, hotseat, etc.

 

[vsipinen]

What would be the point of an expansion pack that continued updates and DLC do not already address? As it is, buying all the DLC together costs more than most people probably payed for the base game.

I think there are still people that are not interested to buy DLC, but would like to buy some extensive expansion pack. Therefore they could make some money by selling expansion that they would not otherwise manage to do (because they could sell those to people who will not buy DLC as well as to those that buy DLC). There might be even people that are not aware of the possibility to buy these DLC, but would buy expansion in a physical form, if such would be available in shops. It seems that it is widely assumed that everybody is as well informed about these issues than people in these forums.

For example I am very reluctant to buy any DLC and so far I have not had any intention to buy them. Instead I would most likely buy an extension, if there is enough interesting content. I would be very dissapointed, if DLC would be only means to buy more content to Civilization. I hope that the game of the year editions will not be only means to buy additional game content from the conventional shops.

 

[Fluffball]

I dont know if it is major but: Aqueduct, more National Wonders, more Natural Wonders, more diverse way of gaining happiness (policies, buildings), replay, hotseat, etc.

All that has been done is tweaks, balances and extenstion of a current them. There have been actual gameplay changes or additions.

 

[CoolLizy]

People are confusing a distribution model with content.

DLC = method of distribution

If I suddenly stop buying physical copies of books and switch to eBooks, does the content change? Of course not.

There's absolutely no reason we couldn't see new features such as espionage, religion, multiple leaders for a civ, corporations, etc, etc, etc added to the game.

"DLC" doesn't limit content. Many, many games on Steam have expansion packs.

Quoted for truth.

If you want a specific example, go look at Fallout 3. Instead of expansion packs as we think of them, major features were added through the five DLC add-ons. Anything not added to the base game is most liable to come via the current method of DLC.

All that has been done is tweaks, balances and extenstion of a current them. There have been actual gameplay changes or additions.

Which is more than some Civilization expansion packs in the past have done.

 

[Babri]

Quoted for truth.
Which is more than some Civilization expansion packs in the past have done.

That is why I said ciV + DLCs = cIV + Warlords. We are still missing Bts right now & I don't think that DLCs would work well for bringing new BIG features. Maybe I am wrong but to my understanding, players who play multiplayer would hate that if they take DLC path for introducing new features (=> more difficult to find matches with players having same gameplay features DLCs).

 

[CoolLizy]

Maybe I am wrong but to my understanding, players who play multiplayer would hate that if they take DLC path for introducing new features (=> more difficult to find matches with players having same gameplay features DLCs).

Why would it be more difficult to find someone with the same DLC than it would to find someone with the same expansion pack(s)? And, as pointed out before, if they did do an expansion pack, it would be DLC.

 

[Horizons]

I can haz an expansion with moar features the AI can't use properly pls? Kbye
Moderator Action: don't troll here around.