New DLC at December, 16th: Spain and Incas

[kroket]

So basically they want us to pay 7,50$ online (How the bleep do you do that? i always buy games in stores and i do not have a creditcard as that seems to be the only way to buy stuff online)... and people who pre-ordered (who knew) get the civilizations for free...

What's worse it clearly states that this is the 'First pack'. Meaning more will follow and firaxis will follow this path rather then getting expansions out. The game currently is far short from CIV4 lets be honest... main reason for me is because i never get the one more turn feeling and dont get sucked in as much... this game needs to be improved.

As for DLC i seriously dislike this concept. Firstly because prizes will be relatively higer than for expansionpacks and secondly because these things are only sold online and i have no idea how to buy even if i wanted to.

Spain and Inca should have been in the coregame already (Seriously Siam/Iroquois??) not representing South America at all was completely ridicilous but now it is clear why they have done this. To get some more revenue. The people making the game clearly care about money more than the game or the gamers.

 

[jacyp]

Well, at $7.50 per 2 civs, how would that equate to Warlords and BtS? Both of which provided some gameplay features. It seems what people are sensing is a comparable cost of DLC to Civ4 expansions, yet no addition of gameplay features/mechanics enhancements.

Don't compare to Civ IV and its expansions, compare to Civ 5:

The game costs US$ 49,90. The DLC costs US$ 7,50.

It's above 10% of the price of the game. Is it adding above 10% to the game?

Before anyone say that there's 19 (yes, mongols were for free, so it's part of the game) civs and +2 is over 10% of addition, let me remind you that the game isn't just a collection of civs, but several other features.

 

[dojoboy]

Don't compare to Civ IV and its expansions, compare to Civ 5:

Doesn't matter, the point is the same.

 

[Michael d' York]

I've put down Civ V. I'll play it again later when it gets fixed.

I'm back to Civ 4 BtS, and will return to Civ 5 in a few years when it is debugged, and evolves into something as complex, challenging, and rich in scenarios as BTS. I love "Earth1000AD", but it could never work with the Civ 5 Earth map. I couldn't bear having a Longbowman who could bombard France from Dover, or tube artillery that could bombard Sicily from Tunis. It offends my sense of reality.

What I hope is that the combat system will eventually be used to create mods on the regimental/brigade scale, for Civil War or Napoleonic battles.

At the Strategic Level, the Civ 5 combat system is just plain silly.

 

[Merkill]

The dlc are way overpriced.
Hoping for 1 big expansion in a year or two.

Meanwhile im back in Civ 4 bts batmod until they fix civ5 i will check back in on civ 5 every 6 month or so im not in a hurry civ4 is pleny good for me.

 

[nokmirt]

I have no idea where you get this idea from. Civ was released a few months ago and now we get some new civs. Perfectly in line for an expansion a year or so down the line, which was the release cycle before.



The first one was one civ though, now there are two.

I think 5 bucks is enough for this DLC. What is it going to go up another $2.50 each time??? To have this game I bought the in store version for 50 bucks. Then I got the first DLC for 5 bucks, and Babylon for free. The people that bought the steam download paid 60 bucks to get Babylon, and 5 bucks later for the first DLC and one civ the Mongols, and a scenario, for a total of 65 dollars. So I guess it was better to buy the in store version of the game after all. So after this DLC, I will have paid $62.50, and steam people $72.50 for one civ game. Wow that is unbelieveable! I hope the patch makes a big difference in gameplay to rationalize the expense of all this. But the steam people must feel like they walked into a trap, and feel quite cheated.

 

[jacyp]

Doesn't matter, the point is the same.

It isn't. If you compare to Civ IV, you'll be giving lots of reasons for someone to disqualify your comparison. Like this:

1 - Civ IV and its expasions came out in a different context: DLC wasn't by that time what it is today.

2 - today we are experiencing a change in paradigm in terms of game release where digital download is gaining strengh, for better or worse.

3 - Civ IV and expansions were launched by some time now, by computing stardards. If you look at how the computing world was 2 years ago and look at it now, you'll see major differences, so it's really dangerous to compare anything on the computer world that has years of difference.

4 - The purpose of expansions are totally different from the purpose of DLCs, so far. It's hard to compare them in a game like civilization because games like civilization are extint and we have no means to compare them. But looking at other games you can say that expansions have the purpose of prolong the lifespan of a game by adding content and changing gameplay so you can play the same game differently, but DLCs have the sole purpose of adding some flavor to the same gameplay, or, in cases of story driven games (ME series, Dragon Age etc) also they can close loose ends of the story adding no more than a couple of hours of gameplay, but still the same gameplay.

An expansion always present a change in the way you play the game somehow, making you play the game for a couple of months or even years more than you would have otherwise. But a DLC will make you play the game a couple of hours more than you would, otherwise. If you are tired of Civilization 5, it isn't 2 new civilizations that would make you play it again.


So that's why, when talking about value, I think you will have a stronger point by comparing Civ 5 to Civ 5. And it's important to have a strong point in this matter.

 

[Krieger66]

steam customers do not receive it - it was the direct2drive per-order deal: get the game and "the first 2 civilizations + scenario" DLC pack with an ETA at the time being "late 2010".

that seems a little unfair that because of what website you visit to preorder civ determines if you have to pay an extra $7.50 or not, everyone who preordored civ v should get it for free, whether they preordored it from steam or Best Buy.

This is obvious favoratism for one site on Firaxus' part; they could easily have included that as a bonus to every preorder customer, but whether through greed or just bias favoring Direct2Drive Sid shafted us off $7.50-because we went to a store to preorder or bought from Steam. How can you expect us to know every site's offers? This is discrimination against a custmer's preference for one site as opposed to another.

 

[dojoboy]

4 - The purpose of expansions are totally different from the purpose of DLCs, so far. It's hard to compare them in a game like civilization because games like civilization are extint and we have no means to compare them. But looking at other games you can say that expansions have the purpose of prolong the lifespan of a game by adding content and changing gameplay so you can play the same game differently, but DLCs have the sole purpose of adding some flavor to the same gameplay, or, in cases of story driven games (ME series, Dragon Age etc) also they can close loose ends of the story adding no more than a couple of hours of gameplay, but still the same gameplay.

An expansion always present a change in the way you play the game somehow, making you play the game for a couple of months or even years more than you would have otherwise. But a DLC will make you play the game a couple of hours more than you would, otherwise. If you are tired of Civilization 5, it isn't 2 new civilizations that would make you play it again..

jacyp, that's exactly what I've been saying.

 

[Hashishim]

Firstly, if anyone here spent money to purchase CIV that alone gives them the right to complain about the game, if they dont like it, and gives them the right to complain to firaxis to improve it. And clearly they didnt, i bought the game pre-order, i added a civ pack for civ iv aswell, With this it seems that they made modding the civ leaders ie new graphics etc damn difficult and more complex, not forgeting the mechanics of the game, to change your social policies was much better in CIV IV under the civics ways. This is way is crap,

Now gettign back to the dlc, well its good but all we need is leaders, and we can create the civs for you
If for example they released a dlc of "LEADERHEADS" like 5 or 10 leaderpack, based on what was done by the CIV IV modders, then i dont mind buying that regularly, aslong as the game is stable and mechanics improved. And i feel they should for a few elements (not the 1 unit per tile though) go back to CIV IV mechanics for tax and social policies because that worked and worked like a bomb. Everything else though is fine, oh and improve workers.

 

[mamba]

As for DLC i seriously dislike this concept. Firstly because prizes will be relatively higer than for expansionpacks and secondly because these things are only sold online and i have no idea how to buy even if i wanted to.

Agreed, DLC makes it more expensive to get the same amount of expansion, as it is split into pieces which are somewhat overpriced compared to an expansion.

Spain and Inca should have been in the coregame already (Seriously Siam/Iroquois??) not representing South America at all was completely ridicilous but now it is clear why they have done this. To get some more revenue. The people making the game clearly care about money more than the game or the gamers.

You should check your facts before stating something like that, Aztecs are South American.

 

[mamba]

I think 5 bucks is enough for this DLC. What is it going to go up another $2.50 each time???

I agree that $5 is enough (in fact I said a fair price would be $4 - 5 to me in another post).

I only was pointing out that while the first DLC cost $5 while the new DLC costs $7.5, comparing just the price is not fair, as the first one was one civ only, while the second one is two civs.

My reply was not about whether the price is justified but about your argument which compared prices without taking the number of civs in each into account.

 

[Avs]

$5 bucks is a lot. $5 bucks today gets you Left 4 Dead 2 on Steam. But this costs $7.50.

 

[jacyp]

You should check your facts before stating something like that, Aztecs are South American.

Funny you saying that one should "check your facts before stating something".

Aztecs are not south american, they were where today is Mexico and that means north american.

Incas were south americans and Mayas were central to north americans.

 

[mamba]

Funny you saying that one should "check your facts before stating something".

Aztecs are not south american, they were where today is Mexico and that means north american.

Incas were south americans and Mayas were central to north americans.

I know where they were, pretty much in the same location as the Mayans, i.e. the southern end of Mexico.

In civ I always considered them part of south america, not central america, must be because they use the SOUTH_AMERICA artstyle.
Oh well, too used to civ abstractions I guess. If you make a distinction between Aztecs and Mayas in Central America and Inca in South America, then I agree, there is no south american civ in 5 yet (and Inca is the only one in any version ever, which is another reason I always lump Aztec, Inca and Maya into one group).

 

[Bleser]

It amazes me how much time/effort goes into people type-arguing about $7.50. If $7.50 is a lot of money to you, get a job.

I'm looking forward to the upcoming DLC. Leader animations and new music will probably be just as excellent as the original civs'. The upcoming patch will make it even better and help balance the game out a bit just as they did in the other Civ series over time. DLC sounds like a nice Christmas gift to me, and $7.50 doesn't affect my budget. At all.

 

[Beef Hammer]

I'm really more angry that some people get this for free because they happened to see the deal somewhere else, I think anyone that pre-ordered the game should be getting DLC civs for free...

 

[kroket]

You should check your facts before stating something like that, Aztecs are South American.

Not the first but you are the one who should check your facts my friend!!
Culturally (no expert here) i think you can say that maya, aztec, inca are all meso-american but geographically... well there was just no civ in South-America.
Aztecs lived in Mexico, their capital city was Tenochtitlan which is situated where Mexico City is now. It was (at least partially) an island city in a lake with loads of water and stuff (floating gardens building) pop. over 200,000 i think... Anyways the Aztecs lived in Mexico and Mexico City is NOT Southern Mexico (i actually had an entire chapter in history class on the aztecs back in high school but that is like 12 years back).

The Mayas lived in Yucatan/Guatemala primarily. Again that is no South-America!!

Funny but pointless discussion. Still i would have prefered if they had dlc with Siam and Iroqouis and had Spain and Inca in the core game...

Obvious problem there is that no one (outside of Thailand maybe) is going to pay 7,50 for two not that important civs (comparison to Spain or Inca is odd at least). Firaxis clearly planned this in advance. Really dissappointed by the way they want to make money and neglect their fanbase.

 

[LegioCorvus]

It amazes me how much time/effort goes into people type-arguing about $7.50. If $7.50 is a lot of money to you, get a job.

Principle.

It's like paying $5 for a half-liter of soda. The price is much more than my perceived value of the product. The price, independent of the product, is not the limiting factor. $5 is a pittance. Much like $7.50 is here. However, much like I would refuse to pay $5 for a half-liter of soda at modern prices, I also refuse to pay $7.50 for 2 DLC Civs.

 

[Bleser]

Principle.

It's like paying $5 for a half-liter of soda. The price is much more than my perceived value of the product. The price, independent of the product, is not the limiting factor. $5 is a pittance. Much like $7.50 is here. However, much like I would refuse to pay $5 for a half-liter of soda at modern prices, I also refuse to pay $7.50 for 2 DLC Civs.

That analogy does make sense, but to me the value is where it falls apart. A half-liter of soda would be gone in less than ten minutes never to be seen again (until you pee), very little value, whereas this DLC provides content with infinite value/re-playability depending on how often you play. I'll play countless Civ5 games with the new civs over the coming years, so $7.50 for a bit of added entertainment (not to mention the fantastic music scores - people pay more than $7.50 for music all the time - we get amazing leader art, units, buildings, music, a scenario - etc. etc.) is excellent value in my book.