1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

New DLC on December 16

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Supr49er, Dec 9, 2010.

  1. marioflag

    marioflag History Addict

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,902
    Location:
    Napoli, Italy
    New civilizations won't alter gameplay infact you can play with vanilla 19 civilizations without noticing anything different about the gameplay.

    I would even say that civilizations is the perfect content to be released as DLC, considering that they give you different options and content to play the game without changing basic rules; unlike gameplay features which I really hope will be released in an expansion otherwise the multiplayer aspect of this game would be destroyed due to a divided community.
     
  2. Zyxpsilon

    Zyxpsilon Running Spider

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    3,250
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    On Earth
    I beg to differ. Talent isn't an exclusivity concept. Widely unknown people DO have the skills to perform extraordinary work on MODs and some of them dare offering it to the community.
    Heck, even here in the libraries are fantastic examples worth official DLC status for Civ4; Fall from Heaven 450,000+ D/Ls is an obvious choice... RoM, BlueMarble, etc.

    I doubt CiV won't get its fair share, sooner than later. Just wait, the revolution is comin'. I'll probably be an active participant in such "add-ons* racing (or competition!) by Modders as shown in my signature below.

    We're at dawn. Zenith will come, in due time.
     
  3. PieceOfMind

    PieceOfMind Drill IV Defender Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    9,319
    Location:
    Australia
    Well to be fair, I didn't say modders were any less talented. I just said it's more difficult for them. If only because having access to the same sort of facilities (hardware,software) that Firaxis employees have is not cheap, and producing the same quality result takes a lot of work unpaid.
     
  4. Zyxpsilon

    Zyxpsilon Running Spider

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    3,250
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    On Earth
    Adobe Photoshop => Free Gimp!
    Autodesk 3dsMax => Free Blender!
    Nuf' said.

    Difficulty is not an investing issue when it comes to most talented individuals.
    Some modders may even be *real* professionals which are already working in the gaming Industry, btw.
    Recognition by peers (example; somebody gave me Kudos in the comments section of Z-Eras & Z-Advisors... worth a big early morning smile of pseudo_$$$ from me!) is sometimes payment enough for someone dedicated to his/her work or duty to strangers at large.
     
  5. Morningcalm

    Morningcalm Keeper of Records

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,115
    Location:
    Abroad
    I beg to differ. The DLC in Civ affects the game more, the DLC Blizzard gives out doesn't, meaning customers feel less of an urge to get it (as it's purely aesthetic). The CiV DLC, while it can be emulated with mods, includes the gameplay+artwork, that is, the feeling of completion, to the game--as these are civs we're adding to the array of game options. Having more civs to choose from than other people means your game is more "complete". This in my opinion is stupid. If the DLC was actually finished before the game was released, it looks as though the only thing that stopped Firaxis from releasing all the finished civs together was because they wanted to make more money from what they made than they would otherwise be entitled to. Why should I pay for an incomplete game, when I know the complete game was broken up into DLC? This was a major cry I remember hearing on this forum about people who were asking why they should have to pay for a Genghis Khan/Mongolian civ DLC.

    A purely aesthetic DLC is easy to dream up. Maybe not just maps, but additional music, or more customization options in general (which the game sorely lacks at the moment). And yes, I do believe people would buy DLC for Civ 5 if it didn't affect gameplay whatsoever. They do that with plenty of other games that exist.

    I'm complaining that there's DLC at all. If they finished the civs before the release of the game, they should have released it with the base game, rather than trickling it out to customers to get money (and we all know they'll be included in a future expansion anyway, so we're paying extra to "rent" the DLC basically).

    DLC civs should be playable in multiplayer. I think they haven't made them playable yet because of the apparent difficulty in coding game compatibility issues (how do you get X person with Babylon to play with Y person who doesn't have Babylon? Will they both be able to play a game where X can choose to play as Babylon and Y can't? Will they not be able to play a game with Babylon at all?)

    Your analogy does not hold. I paid $60 for a Steam preorder of Civ 5. Others paid $40 for a D2D preorder of Civ 5 which had everything the Steam preorder had, plus Civ III, plus the first double civ and scenario pack (Inca and Spain) free. Is that fair? Hardly, especially since Steam didn't let me cancel my order and my preordering early meant I wasn't aware D2D had their option available until much, much later.

    Blizzard is openly letting you know the DLC is largely aesthetic (we're selling pets and mounts), and that the proceeds are going to charity. As it's largely aesthetic, players are likely to protest less. It's not essential, after all. Our game doesn't necessarily feel more complete having more pets than it does having more civs/races to choose from. I don't buy your argument that having the base game's proceeds go to charity is somehow better.

    The proportion is not similar. Do you know how I know this? Because CiV’s box announces a specific lump sum that will go to charity—Blizzard said that a percentage of the proceeds from their pet DLC would go to charity. In actuality, the amount Blizzard donated was larger, and had more potential to be larger from the beginning. Now, you can legitimately say it’s because Blizzard has more resources. Sure. But you have then conceded the point that the amount they gave to charity is not similar. Not similar at all.

    And I find it curious that you didn’t respond less vaguely to my comparison between the Genghis DLC and the WoW free DLC pre-Cataclysm.

    Sure, but as you yourself said, CiV is a Singleplayer game, or at least, it’s largely played that way. Therefore this DLC option stinks, though we don’t have to pay a subscription monthly—that’s because of the way the game is (largely SP, not an MMORPG). That doesn’t give Firaxis permission to screw players out of content that would have been with the game originally, but which was withheld for monetary purposes.

    I was responding to this quote from you: “WoW a social experience? Ok, that it probably is. Civ for facebook probably will be too. I don't need a turn-based strategy game to be multiplayer to be able to enjoy it. If you hadn't already noticed, civfanatics already provides a significant community aspect - one that is IMO already much more interesting and rewarding than that offered in WoW's gameplay.” Shrugging off with a “so what” makes you look bad here. 

    Both have DLC and that’s what we’re talking about—the different marketing schemes and gameplay alterations therein. I don’t see how what you say here affects anything. Sure, different expectations. That’s part of the problem, in fact, as I’ve pointed out.

    Correction: Blizzard’s DLC doesn’t alter the gameplay or make the game feel more complete. I don’t see a Naga Race DLC for WoW, or any suchlike. I see instead aesthetic DLC, which are cute to have but not essential. CiV’s DLC is more screwy because no one wants to feel like their game is somehow less complete.

    Yes, and you have no evidence that they were not artificially held back. You’re saying we should give them the benefit of the doubt. I think not. They certainly had Pacachuti’s lines recorded, and Genghis Khan’s image was likely set in stone.

    The issue is that they purposefully withheld content that would otherwise have been in the game. As the DLC civs are likely to be included in a future expansion, I don’t see why I should buy them at all, especially given how I was screwed out of switching from Steam’s preorder to D2D’s preorder option.

    Sure, DLC takes planning and proper management. They need more of the latter than the former, imo. They have their monetary plans set out, without realizing how the player base (in some numbers) really, really dislikes the idea of DLC and how they’re setting out civs for DLC rather than in an expansion pack or other.
     
  6. Zydor

    Zydor Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,120
    DLC is DLC .... if you like it - buy it - if you dont .... then dont. The latter is the quickest way to get a Company to change its practices.

    The reality is a games Company is exists to make money - at least the vast majority do, and that'll never change. Any argument that falls outside their desire to affect the bottom line is going to fall on stoney ground, no matter how righteous or not the argument maybe.

    There's an old saying "dont bring a sword to a gunfight". In this case the guns are money, and that'll never change. Fact remains DLC is a lucrative process, and will remain so probably for ever as the cost base of it to the Company is Infinitesimal. We might feel great bringing the heroic sword to the gunfight, but it will never trump the gunfight, not in the real world anyway.

    Regards
    Zy
     
  7. Morningcalm

    Morningcalm Keeper of Records

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,115
    Location:
    Abroad
    Exactly, that's why I'm not buying the DLC. I'm presenting reasons why I think this DLC scheme smells horrible, I never made any mention about "winning the fight" or that other stuff you are talking about with gunfights and swords. O_o

    I was mostly presenting my reasons for dissatisfaction. I know that DLC will always exist, and that it is as it is. I'm also saying it *would be nice* if Firaxis hadn't stooped to it. At least not in this way.
     
  8. Louis XXIV

    Louis XXIV Le Roi Soleil

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    13,579
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    Actually, this isn't true. While the narration for the Mongols was finished ahead of time, the artwork wasn't started until after the game was released. The Inca and Spanish weren't started until after the first patch was released.

    Of course, they didn't charge for the Mongols and never said they would.
     
  9. PieceOfMind

    PieceOfMind Drill IV Defender Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    9,319
    Location:
    Australia
    "It looks as though" doesn't make it so. You make an assumption and then a judgement using that assumption. Your choice, your potential mistake.

    Let me ask you. How many civs should have been in the release version of the game that Firaxis/2k/Valve were entitled to the $50 asking price?

    Again, unfounded assumption. Future DLC was likely scheduled, but the DLC civs we are seeing now were probably not finished at release. Calling this a broken up game is just a matter of perspective. By those standards, you should be calling Starcraft 2 only one third of a game, because it has been broken up into three parts.

    As for your question about why pay for an incomplete game... Why pay for WoW? It's an incomplete game in the sense that new content is regularly added. "Incomplete game" is just the language you prefer to use in this instance because you feel negative towards it.

    It's pretty clear from your past posts that your negativity is stemming from you missing out on the D2D deal.

    Ok, fair point.
    Ok, so don't buy it, or wait til it's put in the expansion pack which you apparently "know" is coming somewhere down the track. Everyone who pays up early just gets to enjoy the extra content earlier, ok?

    Oh wait, now you'll probably complain that people paying for the DLC get it earlier than you do buying the expansion pack. Such is life?

    Lots of things can happen in IF Land.

    So you're against developing any extra game-changing content for the game. I can only assume you oppose the model that Blizzard take with WoW then, where you have to pay monthly and they release new content presumably every month. You obviously have double standards here.



    This is a fair complaint. I think they should be playable in multiplayer as well.

    It's a bit amusing that here you are wanting the DLC to be playable in multiplayer, thus altering the gameplay in MP, while at the same time you're complaining that there is game-altering DLC at all for the game. You are contradicting your own position.

    If anything, you should be happy that the DLC cannot be used in multiplayer.

    D2D tried to be more competitive than Steam and you're complaining that it's not fair?

    Take your complaint to D2D then. I for one applaud D2D for even selling a Steamworks game as it was a risky business decision. Steamworks games previously had not been sold through competing digital sellers because it can be seen to enhance their direct competitor Valve/Steam.

    And here you are complaining that D2D customers got a good deal. And really that's only because you bought the game too early. Learn your lesson and don't preorder so early next time. Also, your beef is probably more direct at Valve/Steam who refused to refund your preorder. Unfortunately I don't know if "I want to buy from another store" is a legally sufficient reason to expect a refund. I know it isn't in my country.

    Yep, that was a mistake.
    Fair enough. I really don't care about the charity argument. In reality these are only marketing tricks anyway.
    You like to argue don't you.

    Again, I said the proportion of profits donated to charity is probably similar. 'Proportion' is a key word there. If you have good evidence that the proportion of profits from sales of civ5+DLC and sales of WoW+DLC that go to charity are not similar then I would appreciate seeing it. Otherwise we're just arguing about something neither of us know anything about. There difference is I'm making a guess, and you're making like you 'know' it.

    Ok, is this less vague?

    You pay a monthly subscription fee for WoW. The price per month is greater than the price of a Civ5 DLC.

    More of your unfounded accusations. Lol, look at how Blizzard screw you out of more money every month for new content that should have been in the game originally. (I don't actually believe it should necessarily have been in the game originally, I am only mimicking the language that you have used for a similar thing)

    I am bad.:eekdance:

    Stop feeding Blizzard the x dollars you pay each month and what happens? You can't play the game at all.

    That looks exactly like essential DLC to me. It's bad because you have no choice to not buy it.

    If you don't buy it, you can't play. That makes me sad.:(
    Ok, so you're admitting your bias. Firaxis/2K hold things back. Blizzard obviously don't.;);)

    So that constitutes complete civs that they held back? I think you need to realise that any DLC doesn't just happen overnight.

    Fixed.

    You're complaining about something you don't know is true. Nice work.

    Don't buy them then. And protest to Steam/Valve if you have a problem with their policy of not allowing refunds. That isn't Firaxis' or 2K's fault. Your blame is misdirected.

    (There might even be an appropriate consumer advocacy group in your country that would help you out with such a formal complaint. Sorry I can't help you more than that though.)

    Ok, that is an understandable opinion that I can't fault. It's fair to say those things. I originally disliked the idea of DLC as well. I hardly ever buy DLC for other games so I know the feeling. Personally I am prepared to look over my own selfish concerns of not wanting DLC, and will look at the broader picture of how DLC allows continued revenue generation for the game dev in order to (1) keep them in a job (feeding their families in these tough economic times yada yada) and (2) increasing the likelihood of seeing extra content down the road (whether it be DLC or xpacks) for all players. I especially appreciate that I don't have to pay a subscription fee every month and that I have the option of not buying the DLC if I happen to be strapped for cash or don't believe it worth the purchase price. I also appreciate Firaxis' efforts to make the game as moddable as they have that I can mod in civs for free. If that had not been so, I assure you I would have had a different perspective/position in this very argument.
     
  10. PieceOfMind

    PieceOfMind Drill IV Defender Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    9,319
    Location:
    Australia
    Hi again.

    Yes you have a fair point. Of course there are talented individuals who can make these sorts of mods. I can only assume there is some aspect of difficulty in this process based solely on the fact we have seen very little content created by modders that directly rivals the quality of what Firaxis have produced. From the mods that I know of, there's only 1 or 2 leaderheads that had new animations and models that directly rivalled those of Firaxis, and how many years did they take to produce?

    I'm not trying to denigrate the great work done by modders nor their talents. I'm only claiming they are in a more disadvantaged position to provide the same level of quality leaderheads, graphics and audio. That of course won't stop people from trying, and being exceptionally good at what they've done, but it takes hard work and organisation for a modder to achieve these goals.
     
  11. Buccaneer

    Buccaneer Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    3,562
    You guys do realize that if 2K declared that Civ5 had been delayed until December (from the long-announced September release date), the outcry here at CFC would have been far greater than the outcry of releasing a rushed game.
     
  12. Palfouri

    Palfouri Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    85
    If they gave out free ponies and sexual favours with every copy of Civ V people here would find a reason to complain.

    Pleasing CFC in regards to Civ V is impossible apparently.
     
  13. Buccaneer

    Buccaneer Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    3,562
    And yet, Blizzard charges for sparkly ponies through a DLC. :) Anyone who believes that extra civs (and maps) through a DLC is not purely for aesthetics, is nuts.
     
  14. Morningcalm

    Morningcalm Keeper of Records

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,115
    Location:
    Abroad
    Louis, I don't see how you can conclude work on them was started after the first patch when the art assets for the Mongolian Keshik and Incan Slinger *among other things* was in the encrypted info pre-release.

    Let's be fair here. "It's looks as though" you think Blizzard holds back DLC and 2K/Firaxis doesn't deserve as much blame for doing so themselves.

    How many civs? The number of civs they had made (which was over 18).

    Your "probably" is quite tenuous. The reason why I think it's fairly reasonable to say they were more or less complete before release is because early previews confirmed the existence of art assets and voicework for them. Emile K, who voiced Augustus, mentioned on the Latin forum that voicework for Civ V started 1.5 years before the release of the game, whereas his Latin work for Civ IV started only a few weeks prior to launch. It makes sense, then, that for Pacachuti and Isabella, the voice work was done at around the same time the other voice work was--about a year prior to release.

    WoW isn't an incomplete game, see. It had all the stuff in the game they had promised, and then some, and the DLC is largely free (patch release, balance changes, addition of new quests etc). Unlike CiV's patches, the WoW patches tend to include quite a bit of additional content. It's nice the upcoming patch will have more wonders, but that doesn't compare to having low-level zones entirely revamped in WoW.

    No, I won't "probably" complain paying for DLC gets you the stuff earlier than the expack. I'd complain that those people are "renting" out the content prior to the expansion, and thus are being ripped off of money. And yeah, I'm not buying the DLC. I made that clear. The point in me complaining is to point out the flaws and disadvantages of this DLC approach to adding content.

    I'm not against expansions. And you can not play WoW (and see what changes are made) and then return when those changes have been made. I had a friend who quit WoW for 3 years, and then returned prior to Cataclysm to see the low-level zone revamps and talent tree changes. He didn't buy Cataclysm, but he's enjoying the content that was cooked up for it (for free). And I say for free, because even though he's paying $15, that's the same $15 you'd pay for a pre-patch WoW and for a post-patch, Cataclysm WoW.

    No, because the DLC promised on the website more or less said they would be multiplayer compatible civs (at least, according to 3 forumers). It would alter the gameplay, but I point this out because it's another example of a time when 2K/Firaxis didn't deliver on what they said they would (aside from the base game's disappointments).

    I'm complaining that 2K/Firaxis didn't let their customers know of the pre-order options earlier. They waited a number of months before the D2D, Amazon, etc preorder options were released, and the Steam option, one of the worst preorder options, was announced beforehand.

    "I wasn't informed of my choices and would like to change my purchase" is a sufficient reason to get a refund in Korea, and even if not legally sufficient in the U.S., it doesn't stop feeling (justifiably) ripped off.

    The proportion isn't similar, again based on just the raw numbers. 2K/Firaxis promised a flat charge out of their proceeds, and Blizzard offered a percentage. The amount of money made from the pets etc "DLC" for Blizzard was quite high, and the percentage proceeds therefore expected estimates. The proportion is NOT similar at all.

    Sure, but as I said, you pay the same $15 (or less if you pay for multiple months) pre-patch and post-patch in WoW, and can choose when you subscribe. CiV you buy as a one-time thing (and they don't let you get a refund on Steam). Some angry Civvers here said the reason why the game demo was released on the same day as the game was because 2K/Firaxis wanted to cover up how bad the game was. People who had already bought CiV by that stage (me included) and who now felt justifiably disappointed at the disparities between the pre-release game talk (the game is for the hardcore, etc etc) and the game itself--we didn't have a chance to get our money back.

    Actually, 2K/Firaxis screwed me out of more money. $20 or so net. One month of WoW cost me $15.

    More like inconsistent with your responses. Naughty! ;)

    It would make me sad if I didn't feel it was worth it. I do have a choice not to buy it. I can take a break and come back, and more things will have changed. Not so with Civ V. Which I suspect is why single player games do not charge on a monthly basis--it wouldn't be worth it.

    Um....Cataclysm pre-release changes were given free to all WoW players, active and non-active, subscribed and unsubscribed? Has 2K/Firaxis done anything like this? The closest they came is Genghis, and we all know how long the fun from that lasted.

    True, DLC doesn't just happen overnight. They had prepared for these civs far earlier than the release of the game (see above). And yes, to me that constitutes complete civs. They probably took months to release them because they wanted the DLC to coincide with patches for marketing and money purposes (notice how the previous patch coincided with Genghis, this upcoming one coincides with Isabella/Pacachuti).

    And you're rebuffing my complaints with things you don't know are true. *shrug*

    Again, I have made it clear I will not buy the DLC. I did protest to Steam/Valve. My purpose in posting on these forums is to make my discontent clear. Many other posters (including well-regarded ones like Sulla) did so, for the purpose of expressing their opinion.

    And your sarcasm on your consumer advocacy group is well appreciated.

    I think the expansion will hit regardless. 2K/Firaxis needs it to satisfy the discontent that has been brewing since release. Some of the discontent may subside with the patch, but crashing, multiplayer fixes, and AI hating you for liberating them will still need fixing.

    Firaxis didn't make the game moddable. They said it would be the most moddable civ ever, yet the SDK that came with the game's first patch (or around about that time) came with severe limitations, as many modders made the community aware of through this forum. The upcoming patch will change that slightly. But the pre-release talk of this being the most moddable Civ was fairly close to marketing pep talk--all talk, no walk.

    You're being quite insulting. I am not impossible to please. But I do have problems with 2K/Firaxis' approach to nickel and diming us through DLC. I'm not used to thinking of 2K/Firaxis as manipulative, but here we are, in the first Civ game that features DLC.

    Right, and it's superfluous. It doesn't feel as "necessary" as entirely new races in WoW or entirely new civs in Civ (which is how 2K is doing their DLC).
     
  15. PieceOfMind

    PieceOfMind Drill IV Defender Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    9,319
    Location:
    Australia
    For the record, that was not sarcasm. I was being serious. I'm no expert on legal matters but I know that here we have ombudsmen for situations like this, where a consumer has been bullied around in a contract where he had less power. Contacting such bodies means they can contact the company on your behalf (for free usually) and often that is enough to help get your complaint resolved. They also offer advice on what your rights are etc. in the position that you have.


    As for your argument, it's becoming more and more apparent that your main interest is a rant against the game and every single thing that could possibly be criticised about the game will be used as fuel by you. You don't have a coherent line of argument, as I have pointed out some of the ways you have contradicted yourself. You bring up, for example, the limitations on the release version of the SDK in your latest post. These are limitations that are quite reasonable to have while the game is still being heavily patched, and are likely to be lifted when the c++ core sdk is made available. Firaxis also made it clear before release that full access would not be available right away.

    You're turning this into a battle rather than a coherent, logical and directed complaint about some aspect of Firaxis' or 2K's business practice.

    If you truly want to influence their future actions, complaining about everything about the game (heck, you're even complaining about the free Mongolia DLC because it didn't provide enough entertainment to you :sheesh: ) only makes you look like a serial complainer than a rational poster with their (Firaxis/2K) best interests in mind. I can only suggest being more targeted with your criticisms (as Sulla has been, for example).
     
  16. Churchill's Hat

    Churchill's Hat Mortal

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Messages:
    325
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Okay, can we actually discuss the content here? If you're not going to buy it, don't post on a thread about it.

    That being said...leave Firaxis alone. They're not forcing you to buy anything, including Civ 5. It's their game and their intellectual property, they're the ones who made it available to modders. You don't have a right to content from Firaxis.
     
  17. PieceOfMind

    PieceOfMind Drill IV Defender Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    9,319
    Location:
    Australia
    Fair call, CH.

    Out of interest, are there any good links to media releases or news articles about the upcoming DLC? I've seen suggestions of how it will be priced but only as second hand info on the forum.

    I'm curious, for example, whether DLC will again be priced differently in different regions. It wouldn't surprise me if it gets priced at $10 in Aus/NZ if it's priced at $7.50 in North America. (Babs was $6 in Aus/NZ, $5 in NA)
     
  18. Louis XXIV

    Louis XXIV Le Roi Soleil

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    13,579
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    I don't remember that. I remember the Mongolian Dawn of Time file being there, but that's it. I guess I could look at the pre-release comment thread and see if it was mentioned, but if you know where to look, let me know.

    EDIT: I know they're distinguishing between GBP and USD, so they'll probably do the same for Aussie dollars.
     
  19. MouseyPounds

    MouseyPounds Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2010
    Messages:
    417
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    The shacknews article only says "The Double Civilization Scenario Pack: Spain and Inca will have a suggested MSRP of $7.49 when it hits digital distributors on December 16." Haven't seen any pricing info for other regions on any other articles I looked at through a Google news search
     
  20. PieceOfMind

    PieceOfMind Drill IV Defender Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    9,319
    Location:
    Australia
    Well, so you know, it's not because of Aussie dollars, but just Aussie full stop. Prices on Steam are in US dollars in Aus/NZ. Prices are higher because the publisher (or Valve, who knows?) sets them so. Some call it the beautiful beaches tax. :p

    By the way, the Dawn of Man file for "Mogolia (sic)" is all I know of as well. While it's certainly evidence not to be ignored, it is hardly convincing to use that to argue the civ was finished before release.
     

Share This Page