Victorvanwavere
Warlord
Stop DLC'ing and release a Patch.
New DLC at December, 16th: Spain and Incas
- Thread starter The_J
- Start date
slightlymarxist
Comrade
2 new civs and a scenario isn't enough for me to spend money. I say this as a "fan" (well, "not angry" 
).
I understand that this DLC was probably decided upon long ago. In order for me to buy something, I need AT LEAST a new feature, some wonders and a snazzy theme. Something like this:
Civ 5 - New Worlds
* 5 new civs: Spain, Inca, Maya, Dutch, Portugal
* 2 Scenarios: "1492 AD" and "Revolutionary War"
* New feature: Colonies
* 2 new Wonders
* 4 new Units
I won't spend even 1 euro on DLC of that size. But I'll spend 20 euro on a proper expansion.
).I understand that this DLC was probably decided upon long ago. In order for me to buy something, I need AT LEAST a new feature, some wonders and a snazzy theme. Something like this:
Civ 5 - New Worlds
* 5 new civs: Spain, Inca, Maya, Dutch, Portugal
* 2 Scenarios: "1492 AD" and "Revolutionary War"
* New feature: Colonies
* 2 new Wonders
* 4 new Units
I won't spend even 1 euro on DLC of that size. But I'll spend 20 euro on a proper expansion.
cephalo
Deity
I can't waste an opportunity to express my disdain for DLC. It creates an enormous amount of ill will. Eventually everyone will be playing a different Civ game, which means that Firaxis must give up all control over the experience. How content is introduced is the essence of game design, and this is how to introduce content in the least dramatic and interesting way, making said content nearly worthless.
I'll pay $100 for a proper Civ game any day, but this is unacceptable. If you bring in marketing people to design your games, you will fail.
I'll pay $100 for a proper Civ game any day, but this is unacceptable. If you bring in marketing people to design your games, you will fail.
I'm getting tired of hearing the same s**t from everyone.. ohno, an optional dlc that I may pay for I want to... don't pay for it and s**t up...
As far as a patch, I excpect it to be released very soon, but what on earth makes you think that the artists and designers who created these two new civs have anything to to with the programming needed to create a patch, thus creating a delay for the patch?
I for one don't find the game that buggy (but then again I don't play multiplayer), at least not compared to the first version of Civ3 and Civ4. It took several patches to iron out the problems for those games as well.
It strikes me that every time a new game comes out, everyone compares it to the quality level of the fully patched and expanded predecessor, not to how it was when it first came out.
As far as a patch, I excpect it to be released very soon, but what on earth makes you think that the artists and designers who created these two new civs have anything to to with the programming needed to create a patch, thus creating a delay for the patch?
I for one don't find the game that buggy (but then again I don't play multiplayer), at least not compared to the first version of Civ3 and Civ4. It took several patches to iron out the problems for those games as well.
It strikes me that every time a new game comes out, everyone compares it to the quality level of the fully patched and expanded predecessor, not to how it was when it first came out.
Says someone with his/her second post in 9 years.
Mustakrakish
In 'Node' We Trust
No matter how bad Civ4 was when it came out, still it wasn't as bad as civ5 is now with a few patches in it already. Deal with it...
sqeaky
Chieftain
Dear Developers,
I am a diehard Civilization fan since # II, and for any prior versions of the game I would have jumped like lightning at the chance to pay even $10 or $15 for 2 new civs, but very sadly (for everyone involved) for the first time I do not feel that compulsive need to start up a game, and so I have stopped playing Civ V and will not be purchasing the new content. I believe the game has potential and I look forward to the day when it is a worthy successor to the Civ-line, but as of now it is borderline insulting to ask us to spend $7 on minimal content when the game is barely functional, at best. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sqeaky
A concerned Civ fan.
PS. 'Giant Death Robot' made me lose a lot of respect for you guys.
I am a diehard Civilization fan since # II, and for any prior versions of the game I would have jumped like lightning at the chance to pay even $10 or $15 for 2 new civs, but very sadly (for everyone involved) for the first time I do not feel that compulsive need to start up a game, and so I have stopped playing Civ V and will not be purchasing the new content. I believe the game has potential and I look forward to the day when it is a worthy successor to the Civ-line, but as of now it is borderline insulting to ask us to spend $7 on minimal content when the game is barely functional, at best. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sqeaky
A concerned Civ fan.
PS. 'Giant Death Robot' made me lose a lot of respect for you guys.
Says someone with his/her second post in 9 years.
What, I need to post here regularly to have a valid opinion?
For me, Civ5 is a refreshing new take one Civ, and different enough that I still play both Civ4 and Civ5. I never bothered to play Civ2 after Civ3 came out, or Civ3 after Civ4. I'm sure that given a patch or two it will be even better.
jacyp
Winter Lover
If you don't find the game buggy, you are simply accepting bugs as a normal thing. The bugs and exploits are there for every one to see. You are seeing, but you are just thinking that the bugs are actually part of the game.
It also took YEARS to release additional content for the fans to spend their money with. By the time they were launched, the game was already stable.
I'm not saying others don't have problems, I'm just saying I'm not particularly bothered with the bugs I have seen. I've never had any crashes after the last patch.
As for exploits, since I don't play multiplayer it's not that important, I can just avoid using them if I think the game gets too easy.
Anyway, my point was that this a thread to discuss the DLC, not the bugs.
So what, you are absolutely allowed to wait YEARS before buying any DLC's. That shouldn't stop those of us that like continuous upgrades from getting them though. As said previously, all currently released DLCs are artist/designer stuff, thus it does not interfere with the development of any patches.
wurstburst
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 301
$7.50 is way to much for 2 civs and a scenario. If they priced it at $2.50, they'd probably get 75% or more of civ owners to buy it. At $7.50, they'll be lucky to get 10% of owners to buy it.
Bad marketing. Less profit and ill-will from the customer base.
I'd have no problem with being nickle and dimed to death. $1 a civ? I'll buy them all, as fast as you can make them. $3.75 or $5 (babylon) a civ? I'm not buying a single one.
Bad marketing. Less profit and ill-will from the customer base.
I'd have no problem with being nickle and dimed to death. $1 a civ? I'll buy them all, as fast as you can make them. $3.75 or $5 (babylon) a civ? I'm not buying a single one.
Broken Hawk
Emperor
Waiting for Civ VI 
spicytimothy
Warlord
Come on guys... it's just additional content... It's just catering to that group of players who might want Spain or Inca, and it doesn't hurt those who don't care for them, so what's the harm?
I'm a very impatient person so I very much prefer to get new civs every few months, rather than wait a year or two for a full expansion pack. I understand I'm paying more this way, but it's more than worth the shorter wait for me.
I'm a very impatient person so I very much prefer to get new civs every few months, rather than wait a year or two for a full expansion pack. I understand I'm paying more this way, but it's more than worth the shorter wait for me.
Beef Hammer
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 255
I think most people are just venting their hate for DLC, which is fine, I hate it too. In fact is one of the main reasons that civ V is the ONLY game I bought this year. (well except the new AvP game but steam put it on sale for 6$ so I just HAD to get it.)
I now wait until games are fully patched and done getting DLC and are on sale for 30-40$ before I look at em. So games like Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2 and Starcraft 2 will be great buys, next year or so...
I now wait until games are fully patched and done getting DLC and are on sale for 30-40$ before I look at em. So games like Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2 and Starcraft 2 will be great buys, next year or so...
PreLynMax
Your Lord and Master
It's clear that 2K has became the Electronic Arts of Civ games.
Seriously? I haven't even installed Civ V on this computer! And I don't have any plans of touching the disk afterwords. Now, I'm one of the few that actually defended Civ V, but seriously? $8 for some stupid scenarios? Not worth it.
Seriously? I haven't even installed Civ V on this computer! And I don't have any plans of touching the disk afterwords. Now, I'm one of the few that actually defended Civ V, but seriously? $8 for some stupid scenarios? Not worth it.
What, I need to post here regularly to have a valid opinion?
For me, Civ5 is a refreshing new take one Civ, and different enough that I still play both Civ4 and Civ5. I never bothered to play Civ2 after Civ3 came out, or Civ3 after Civ4. I'm sure that given a patch or two it will be even better.
You first need post: "i am no0b, dull and very optimist". Then you may post: "i love civV and i think it will become better".
Similar threads
