My Guess: DLC Will Evolve into Monthly Subscription to Play Civ 6; Licensed Mods

[Krall]

Bunch of grumpy old men on this forum. DLC is new! DLC is bad! People who use DLC are bad!

You remember when your grandpa used to say, "When I was a kid we didn't have toys like that and everything cost $00.25!"

Fast forward to present and that's how some of us feel

DLC is an alien concept compared to the expansions we used to get. Man a $20 or so expansion easily added 10 or more civs, more features, scenarios, concepts, wonders, extended gameplay and the like. Now all you get is a civ or two...

 

[Venereus]

Bunch of grumpy old men on this forum. DLC is new! DLC is bad! People who use DLC are bad!

Corporations are old! Corporations are bad! People who fail to realize they're getting F'd are bad!

 

[Zednaught]

You remember when your grandpa used to say, "When I was a kid we didn't have toys like that and everything cost $00.25!"

Fast forward to present and that's how some of us feel

DLC is an alien concept compared to the expansions we used to get. Man a $20 or so expansion easily added 10 or more civs, more features, scenarios, concepts, wonders, extended gameplay and the like. Now all you get is a civ or two...

I guess, as a relative newcomer to Civ, it just doesn't bother me that much. I mean, virtually every company uses it as an important part of their revenue now. Nobody's forced to buy the DLC-you can pick and choose which parts interest you. I've only bought 1 piece of DLC, and none of the other civs or maps are priced low enough for me to buy if I'm only mildly interested in them. It's just optional content.

I think I mentioned earlier that an expansion pack could divide the community further. An expansion pack brings with it not just civs, but tons of new rules and features, and it has a price that's a higher barrier. People with it are basically playing a much different game, in a way that DLC content does not do. So, on top of a community that rabidly hates everything the game does and would absolutely decry everything in the patch (come on, you know that whatever the expansion does have, there will be tons of threads complaining about it, just the way things work), the expansion pack could create a substantial separation of people who've moved on to the expansion, and those who haven't.

I think that's a bigger risk than what DLC can do. That's not saying that I think an expansion pack is a bad idea, but I think people who are legitimately upset with the fundamental workings of the game are wrongly channeling their dislike towards DLC, as though it's somehow responsible for what's wrong with the game. An expansion pack wouldn't solve these fundamental problems, but many would feel like it's even more exploitative. Why pay $20 for a bunch of new civs and features when you hate the core gameplay mechanics?

 

[Sonereal]

I hate how people complain about DLC and then try to make up bunk, like monthly subscriptions. Does that even make sense to you? Really.

Again, if it does happen, it isn't the fault of 2k. It's your fault and everyone else's fault for going along with it. Corporations try to make money and it becomes possible to make a lot of money because consumers and people allow them to make money, they'll keep doing what they do to make money. But it doesn't matter because the monthly subscription thing for a mostly single player game is stupid.

 

[Callonia]

If I have to pay a monthly subscription, its cancellation time, I got lots lots of old games that don't require me to pay a monthly subscription, and what's more, they're very good.

heck, I still play Ogrebattle 64.

 

[Zednaught]

Corporations are old! Corporations are bad! People who fail to realize they're getting F'd are bad!

How is DLC screwing people? Last time I checked, no one (I hope) is forced to buy DLC. Are you? Are you forced to buy DLC? Can you not pick and choose which content you want to buy? I think you owe a serious answer here, just so we can be on the same page.

What I really want to know is why people who buy DLC are somehow suckers. A substantial amount of people purchase and enjoy DLC, not just for this game, but for many, many others.

I paid $5 for Babylon and played about a 10 hour game with them. I enjoyed the unique mechanics and atmosphere, and I felt like 10 hours of entertainment for 5 bucks was a decent return on my investment. I know you think I was a sucker and supporting an evil corporation, but I really don't see why. Did I overpay? Felt like I got a ton of enjoyment for my purchase.

I'll certainly agree that 5 bucks, for me, was a price high enough that I wouldn't buy a DLC civ I wasn't interested in, and the maps also seem too pricey for me. But so what? I'm not forced to buy them, and neither is anyone else.

I think you should also explain why an expansion pack is not also immoral by your logic. I mean, it's not even a proper sequel, and there may be a few token features and civs, but how can that truly justify the higher price? Shouldn't this content be free? Isn't it just another greedy attempt to squeeze me out of money?

Let me wrap up with an little thought experiment to find out what specifically it is about DLC that you hate. I want you to imagine everything you'd want to see in a a perfect expansion. Now, imagine that all of this is designed and coded, but sold in chunks as DLC, and we'll assume that these chunks can function independently.

Now, the total price for all this DLC adds up to the same as it would be for an expansion, only you can pick and choose which to buy. How do you feel about this?

 

[Venereus]

I think that's a bigger risk than what DLC can do. That's not saying that I think an expansion pack is a bad idea, but I think people who are legitimately upset with the fundamental workings of the game are wrongly channeling their dislike towards DLC, as though it's somehow responsible for what's wrong with the game. An expansion pack wouldn't solve these fundamental problems, but many would feel like it's even more exploitative. Why pay $20 for a bunch of new civs and features when you hate the core gameplay mechanics?

Keep in mind that this is the first time a Civ game get DLC. Couple that with the fact that a lot of old people play Civ sice time immemorial, and you get an awkward response.

How is DLC screwing people? Last time I checked, no one (I hope) is forced to buy DLC. Are you? Are you forced to buy DLC? Can you not pick and choose which content you want to buy? I think you owe a serious answer here, just so we can be on the same page.

What I really want to know is why people who buy DLC are somehow suckers. A substantial amount of people purchase and enjoy DLC, not just for this game, but for many, many others.

I paid $5 for Babylon and played about a 10 hour game with them. I enjoyed the unique mechanics and atmosphere, and I felt like 10 hours of entertainment for 5 bucks was a decent return on my investment. I know you think I was a sucker and supporting an evil corporation, but I really don't see why. Did I overpay? Felt like I got a ton of enjoyment for my purchase.

I'll certainly agree that 5 bucks, for me, was a price high enough that I wouldn't buy a DLC civ I wasn't interested in, and the maps also seem too pricey for me. But so what? I'm not forced to buy them, and neither is anyone else.

I think you should also explain why an expansion pack is not also immoral by your logic. I mean, it's not even a proper sequel, and there may be a few token features and civs, but how can that truly justify the higher price? Shouldn't this content be free? Isn't it just another greedy attempt to squeeze me out of money?

Let me wrap up with an little thought experiment to find out what specifically it is about DLC that you hate. I want you to imagine everything you'd want to see in a a perfect expansion. Now, imagine that all of this is designed and coded, but sold in chunks as DLC, and we'll assume that these chunks can function independently.

Now, the total price for all this DLC adds up to the same as it would be for an expansion, only you can pick and choose which to buy. How do you feel about this?

WHOA! Hold your horses. DLC in itself is not that bad, but I count myself among those who see in it a gateway to really bad stuff come the future. And the thing about gateways, is that people get used to it, and if the change is incremental and comes in small doses, generations come and go and Boom! Corporate apocalypse is here, and people are left wondering why didn't people before them see it coming and stopped it.

 

[Zednaught]

Keep in mind that this is the first time a Civ game get DLC. Couple that with the fact that a lot of old people play Civ sice time immemorial, and you get an awkward response.



WHOA! Hold your horses. DLC in itself is not that bad, but I count myself among those who see in it a gateway to really bad stuff come the future. And the thing about gateways, is that people get used to it, and if the change is incremental and comes in small doses, generations come and go and Boom! Corporate apocalypse is here, and people are left wondering why didn't people before them see it coming and stopped it.

OK, fair enough. It's just that I happen to think worrying about a monthly fear to play the game is ridiculous, and I think it stems from worries about DLC.

Now, that said, I'll definitely say that I draw the line at microtransactions, and I can share your concern about what might happen in the future. I hate them, especially since there's nothing 'micro' about them. World of Warcraft made millions and millions selling a $25 digital horse. Team Fortress 2 is selling digital hats for $18 dollars. Hats...that you normally never see on yourself while playing. There's an enormous difference in the value between what we're getting for DLC and what is being offered in micro-transactions elsewhere. The fact that they're so incredibly profitable for what is often just a recolored texture has alarming implications for the industry as a whole.

As a single player game, I think the risk of seeing Civ go headfirst down this path is much smaller, and the monthly subscription thing is totally implausible. Like someone else suggested, it'd be more likely to see a free to play model (which I'd also hate). In any case, if Civ 5 does, say, start charging $3 bucks to change the color of your units' hats, then I unhappily will eat my words and shake my head in disgust.

 

[Jatta Pake]

I hate how people complain about DLC and then try to make up bunk, like monthly subscriptions. Does that even make sense to you? Really.

Just so we are clear, I'm not complaining about DLC. I like it. I want more DLC.

Monthly subscriptions make sense. I would get new content every month and I wouldn't have to pay a la carte for them. The company would have a steady revenue stream that would allow them to continue development of the game. I would have the comfort knowing they are committing to develop the game more and they would have the comfort knowing I'm going to be paying them for it.

A Mod Store would strengthen the modding community. Modders would have a financial incentive to expand the game in ways a for-profit company with fixed costs cannot. Companies need to worry about per hour labor costs, but a volunteer may work on an amazing mod for pennies per hour. Right now, volunteers work for nothing but community status. Shouldn't they be able to build their resume and collect a little scratch too?

 

[Thormodr]

If they could make the Civ game of our dreams that was utterly fantastic, deep, balanced, fun and immersive I would pay a monthly subscription.

Blizzard's income from WoW allows them to take their time on games, not worry about $$$ and get it right. Firaxis could do the same.

Of course Firaxis would have to dump the load stone that is 2K Games first though.

For the ultimate Civ experience I'd be willing to pay $10 a month.

 

[Venereus]

Blizzard's income from WoW allows them to take their time on games, not worry about $$$ and get it right.

Remember how the egyptians built those awesome pyramids using slaves? We should feel guilty and ashamed everytime we enjoy one of Blizzard's perfectly polished games.

 

[BINARYGOD]

FreeToPlay with micro and macro (think expansions, etc) transactions seems more likely, with a sub being an option for those who want it all automatically.

Like with LOTRO... or maybe also with an initial price like with other MMO's. The initial sales must only cover the cost of development, and the continue revenue stream is from transactions and subs.

someone else brought up a similar point in another post that no one cared to reply to, so I will do it again and expect a different results. Beucase I am insane


However, it must be asked, can the market really support having EVERY or MOST games do this? Me thinks not.

Remember how the Egyptians built those awesome pyramids using slaves? We should feel guilty and ashamed every time we enjoy one of Blizzard's perfectly polished games.

Just in case you actually believe that and someone reading it will believe it too - the pyramids were not built by slaves, but by citizens of the empire. It was considered your civic duty, and an honor, to spend part of your day or year working on important projects like that. After all, they actually believed their pharaoh was a god walking on earth...

And then ends today's useless and probably unneeded history lesson...

 

[deanej]

I think I mentioned earlier that an expansion pack could divide the community further. An expansion pack brings with it not just civs, but tons of new rules and features, and it has a price that's a higher barrier. People with it are basically playing a much different game, in a way that DLC content does not do. So, on top of a community that rabidly hates everything the game does and would absolutely decry everything in the patch (come on, you know that whatever the expansion does have, there will be tons of threads complaining about it, just the way things work), the expansion pack could create a substantial separation of people who've moved on to the expansion, and those who haven't.

You're leaving out one crucial factor: everyone buys the expansion pack (eventually), at least everyone on CFC (the community) does. There is virtually nothing going on with civ4 that doesn't involve BtS. Everyone has it. If someone's talking about just vanilla people will look at you funny (unless you're talking about vanilla and comparing it to civ5).

 

[Zyxpsilon]

There's no way in hell i'd spend a monthly fee on any games no matter what, how, good, enjoyable they'd be designed for.
I played Warcraft 1 & 2 and never got caught by the crap_trap gimmick that WoW truly is.
The gaming Industry might think this is the future of Gaming but they're confusing rights of access to product & renting a stunt without any supplemental value.
Don't be fooled by the cloud computing trends either, they'll shove spywaring tactics down your throats if you let them and steal most of your leisure time with fakes as useless as a cheap set of clubs on a golf course where even if you hit the ball deadon, the sandwedge is still a device you don't own and have to borrow for a swing and a miss.

I don't rent movies on DVD, i either watch some on Cable TeeVee (yeah, i know -- indirect subscriptions too) or simply buy the shiny plastic plates to insert in an extra device i paid for. I then own the privilege to see what i like.

Computers are no different. And that XBox360 overthere, works the same. I feed it with property.

We just can't allow anyone to rent fun. It's too irrational of an abuse as it is with Cars & Appartment Buildings.

 

[Drawmeus]

While the monthly subscription fee in Civ is just ridiculous, I could get behind the idea of a mod store. Mod-makers making a few bucks for their work wouldn't bother me at all, and it might even prompt me to get off my butt and implement some of the mods I want to make.

 

[BINARYGOD]

I feed it with property.

silly you, thats not YOUR propery, that's someone else's that you've purchased a license to use!

 

[Zyxpsilon]

silly you, thats not YOUR propery, that's someone else's that you've purchased a license to use!

Well, not again!!!
This is beating a dead horse.
Licensing is a lawful asset that we've been enforced to accept.
Fine, there - here's my signature at the bottom of a contract.
You built a software, i use it.
My Win7HP OS by M$ is a borrowed property that's either an essential part of the whole PC structure or something they rent to me?

I spent ca$h on that too.
They could make a 10 foot thick book of rules & regulations for legal usage of anything, the fact remains i paid for value & product.
That's the mathematics of consuming.
Change the commonly acceptable principles, you're in for a ride and a wave of protest (as in boycott, btw) that will lead directly to a business shutting down for lack of profitable outlets.
Their fault, not ours.

 

[Venereus]

Just in case you actually believe that and someone reading it will believe it too - the pyramids were not built by slaves, but by citizens of the empire. It was considered your civic duty, and an honor, to spend part of your day or year working on important projects like that. After all, they actually believed their pharaoh was a god walking on earth...

And then ends today's useless and probably unneeded history lesson...

All the Pyramids I whipped into existence in Civ IV say otherwise, but IRL you'd be right. Anyway, my actual point still stands, Blizzard developing great games while living of WoW is akin to building great monuments on forced labour. It's a moot point and I'm half-serious as usual but still, considering the topic at hand, it makes you wonder...

While the monthly subscription fee in Civ is just ridiculous, I could get behind the idea of a mod store. Mod-makers making a few bucks for their work wouldn't bother me at all, and it might even prompt me to get off my butt and implement some of the mods I want to make.

I like my mods made with love, by the people for the people. The moment it becomes profitable, corporate ideals start sinking in. I'm pretty sure a mod market will lead to something akin to outsourcing. Third-party modding companies will arise, and modders will either be hired and absorbed, or left behind in isolation, cut off by the rules. 'Cause, you know, the minute mods start carrying a price tag, publishing free mods will get you in trouble.

 

[BINARYGOD]

All the Pyramids I whipped into existence in Civ IV say otherwise, but IRL you'd be right. Anyway, my actual point still stands, Blizzard developing great games while living of WoW is akin to building great monuments on forced labour. It's a moot point and I'm half-serious as usual but still, considering the topic at hand, it makes you wonder...

Blizzard empoyee's dont get paid enough for what they do or are the slaves the mindless masses grinding for their next step up in leet loot?


And the slaves are a whiney bunch, at least in civ v - waaaaa, i need food... waaaaa, i need some distractions like theater's or col's... waaaaaaaaaaaaa.....

 

[BINARYGOD]

Well, not again!!!
This is beating a dead horse.
Licensing is a lawful asset that we've been enforced to accept.
Fine, there - here's my signature at the bottom of a contract.
You built a software, i use it.
My Win7HP OS by M$ is a borrowed property that's either an essential part of the whole PC structure or something they rent to me?

I spent ca$h on that too.
They could make a 10 foot thick book of rules & regulations for legal usage of anything, the fact remains i paid for value & product.
That's the mathematics of consuming.
Change the commonly acceptable principles, you're in for a ride and a wave of protest (as in boycott, btw) that will lead directly to a business shutting down for lack of profitable outlets.
Their fault, not ours.

Ya know, i was just being facetious... I actually like to think that when I buy something, its mine to do what I want with that isnt horsehockyting all over someone else rights.

Companies would like to change that... I resist such change even if I am basically buying into it everytime I purchase software...

Elipse...