New DLC on December 16

[squeebus]

I'll try it this way instead. Assuming they had an infinite amount of time to produce the game, at what point do new civs stop being things that should be included and can count as additional content that they're allowed to charge for? I've seen "should have been in the game" type comments since Play the World was released. I'm never sure what the line is between "should have been there already" and "welcomed new content."

The simple fact is that given a few extra weeks 2K could have released a slightly better product by merely including a few more civs, maps, and scenarios. We don't have to assume infinite production time for this to make sense. The majority of the work was already done for what has been, and will be, released as DLC. There is no tangible reason to withhold content at release, which is to be later sold as overpriced DLC, except for the fact that 2K is greedy. But, that's ok, I understand that is all part of the new DLC and RMT business model.

The problem, which you've already acknowledged, is that 2K willingly released a product that wasn't quite ready for market. Everyone who has purchased the game realizes that there are improvements which could be made to the game prior to release. Improvements, such as added content; less bugs; better mechanics; etc., which do not require an "infinite amount of time." So instead of releasing something polished and proven, 2K released something buggy and broken. And yet they still have the audacity to overcharge and under-deliver.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yeah, it's why I'm not supportive of Niagara Falls (I'd prefer Victoria Falls). I also liked the idea of the Copper Canyon because, although North America, it's at least not the United States.

I could be completely wrong with my guess. But think about what the scenario entails. If it involves Europeans going to America, they're going to need to be American wonders.

EDIT:

The simple fact is that given a few extra weeks 2K could have released a slightly better product by merely including a few more civs, maps, and scenarios. We don't have to assume infinite production time for this to make sense. The majority of the work was already done for what has been, and will be, released as DLC.

And you know this how? It seems to me that the artists have a lot of work to do for this game. Odds are that, while the voice acting might be done (presumably, at a minimum, the intro was done), do you know for a fact that everything else was finished?

 

[lolno]

squeebus

The simple fact is that given a few extra weeks 2K could have released a slightly better product by merely including a few more civs, maps, and scenarios.

Then you'd say they should have waited a few weeks more and added 10 more Civs at launch

 

[Valkrionn]

The majority of the work was already done for what has been, and will be, released as DLC. There is no tangible reason to withhold content at release, which is to be later sold as overpriced DLC, except for the fact that 2K is greedy.

This is simply not true.

 

[squeebus]

And you know this how? It seems to me that the artists have a lot of work to do for this game. Odds are that, while the voice acting might be done (presumably, at a minimum, the intro was done), do you know for a fact that everything else was finished?

Civ 5 was released on Sept. 24th. It's now Dec. 10th. Do the math.

Then you'd say they should have waited a few weeks more and added 10 more Civs at launch

No, I wouldn't.

This is simply not true. The DLC civs were not yet started on when the game was released.

Hell, these two were not started on until the last patch was released.

False and irrelevant to my argument. Babylon, Mongolia, and the accompanying maps and scenarios would have to have been fully complete or mostly complete given the amount of time between retail release and DLC release. Also, there were files included in the retail release that pointed to groundwork already laid for introducing Spain and Inca as the next Civs.

 

[lolno]

As it is now many game companies work on expansions even while the base game is in beta or earlier

 

[Civsassin]

This is a discussion page for the upcoming DLC. Buy it or don't buy it. This is becoming a Civ V/DLC rants page, and I think there is already a page for that elsewhere.

If you all insist on ranting about a game and a developer that you apparently don't like, you are sorry lot indeed for spending your time on this site at all.

Move on, and allow those of us whoe enjoy the game and are looking forward to the DLC to discuss it in earnest without having to navigate through pages of your disgruntled BS. Find a site for a game that you like and have a pleasant discussion, and leave us to ours.

Moderator Action: please do not tell other users to stop posting their views of the game or in this case the DLC
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[squeebus]

Now, feel free to ignore everything I say simply because it does not agree with what you know to be the case. I'm expecting it, honestly, as it's the general attitude of much of this forum.

I will plainly reiterate to you my assertion that the game was not released in a good state. That much you should agree. The fact remains that given a few extra weeks of development, the added content in the form of DLC could have been released within the original retail version, included in the original retail price. That extra time could have also been spent refining the game and testing for bugs. As it stands, the game is inferior to other triple-A titles released by publishers who also rely on the DLC business model.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Well, there's also a thread specifically for the Inca and Spanish, so all these threads have gotten mixed together. That one's degenerated a bit into a competition of historical knowledge, though.

Anyway, anyone have thoughts on the Spanish (the Inca seem to get far more attention). Obviously, the UA is the only known thing, which many feel leaves some to be desired, but I'm curious if anyone wants to speculate about the Tercio and Conquistador (I think they're both confirmed, based on the screenshots).

 

[squeebus]

Move on, and allow those of us whoe enjoy the game and are looking forward to the DLC to discuss it in earnest without having to navigate through pages of your disgruntled BS. Find a site for a game that you like and have a pleasant discussion, and leave us to ours.

I appreciate your input.

 

[Celevin]

The simple fact is that given a few extra weeks 2K could have released a slightly better product by merely including a few more civs, maps, and scenarios. We don't have to assume infinite production time for this to make sense. The majority of the work was already done for what has been, and will be, released as DLC. There is no tangible reason to withhold content at release, which is to be later sold as overpriced DLC, except for the fact that 2K is greedy. But, that's ok, I understand that is all part of the new DLC and RMT business model.

If the game was released with 15 civs, would you be angry that they didn't release it with 18? I think LouisXXIV's argument works perfectly here.

Bug, exploit and balance fixes are a completely different animal. Some game genres (ie mainly strategy and MMO) have a habit of not being balanced nearly as easily as, say, an FPS, and people care about balance more in these genres as well. These balance issues and game winning exploits are almost always found by the community and missed by the dev teams no matter what game. There are simply that many more players and they have a different way of approaching and looking at the game since they have a fresh perspective. What would take the dev team a couple months could take the player community only a couple weeks. Within 2 weeks of the game being out, we saw lightning fast culture wins, 500 AD Industrial beelines, ICS empires everywhere, and Horsemen slaughtering everything in sight. No these shouldn't be in the game, but I don't blame the devs for overlooking them. Instead I just expect them dealt with, and think of all the bugs/exploits/balance issues that we didn't see.

I don't think people whined that 70% of the guns in Counterstrike sucked when it came out, yet it's one of the most popular games of all time.

 

[squeebus]

I don't think people whined that 70% of the guns in Counterstrike sucked when it came out, yet it's one of the most popular games of all time.

Counterstrike was a free mod, and was in open beta for years.

Civ 5 retail + DLC = $75. And there is yet more DLC to come...

And the game is released "as intended?"

 

[Celevin]

Counterstrike was a free mod, and was in open beta for years.

Civ 5 retail + DLC = $75. And there is yet more DLC to come...

And the game is released "as intended?"

I wish I didn't include that in my post, because now you aren't addressing the bulk of it.

Look, there was no way the dev team was going to catch all the things that needed to be caught, especially with a game this size, and a playerbase this size. And it's not like they didn't stop working the moment the game was released. Would you have rather waited until this patch day for the game, have it released, and because of a small test team (in comparison to the community size), chance seeing bugs and exploits anyways?

 

[Louis XXIV]

Thoughts? How about they're fun, and will have a few surprises?

To quote myself from earlier:

Damn You!

Although I've been definitely thinking in the Civ4 box for UUs (since only about half of the Civ5 UUs have truly new changes, imo), so I forget to think of the interesting when a mere stat change will do. I'm definitely looking forward to them.

 

[Valkrionn]

There is much I cannot and will not reply to; I have no interest in back trolling.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I hope that wasn't directed at me

 

[Valkrionn]

I hope that wasn't directed at me

Oh no no, that was directed at Ischnarch.

Moderator Action: Calling other users trolls is flaming them - neither trolling nor flaming are allowed here.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Louis XXIV]

No worries, it's less than a week. You've been more than helpful in this thread and the other thread with clarifications and passing some info back to Firaxis.

I'll save my complaining for when they release some Civ I truly love (e.g. Carthage or Byzantium) and you get to play it when I don't. Right now, it's only fake anger.

 

[squeebus]

If the game was released with 15 civs, would you be angry that they didn't release it with 18? I think LouisXXIV's argument works perfectly here.

I don't care if there are 10 civs, 20 civs, or 100 civs. The game as released for retail was unrefined (from a design and mechanics standpoint), it was rushed, it was buggy, and flat-out didn't live up to expectations of most fans of the franchise.

Take a look at Blizzard's release of Starcraft 2 and compare it to 2K's release of Civ 5. The difference in release quality is astounding. Blizzard is a company which knows that first impressions count for a lot in the gaming industry. They can literally make or break the future prospects of a game.

It seems like 2K just didn't have the confidence in the Civ franchise, or the development team, or the game design. So they rushed it out the door to try and reap as much of a profit as possible before the consumers knew what hit them. Releasing overpriced DLC so quickly after a release indicates desperation for more money now.

On the other hand, Blizzard is releasing full-blown expansion packs for each race that will cost as much as the original retail purchase. They're not nickel-and-diming their customers for a few extra units and maps here and there. Amazingly, they know that they need to actually test their content thoroughly before they release it for market. And I guarantee you that SC2 will have a larger fan-base for longer than Civ5 can ever dream of having at this point.

 

[lolno]

I love how some people repeatedly compare a game developed in 2010 to ones that cost maybe a few hundred thousand to a million to create.

Notice that the prices have not raised so much, while the prices of EVERYTHING else have gone up 100, 200, 300%.

Food, housing, transport, energy, tickets, you name it. And I entered in codes so the Deluxe Edition cost me $50 or $45, I don't remember.

squeebus

I don't care if there are 10 civs, 20 civs, or 100 civs. The game as released for retail was unrefined (from a design and mechanics standpoint), it was rushed, it was buggy, and flat-out didn't live up to expectations of most fans of the franchise.

Most games are released unrefined. I like how on the Bioware boards you have millions of people complaining about DA:O bugs and whatnot, shrieking about nickel and diming and comparing Bioware to Blizzard which apparently never does cashgrabs or releases buggy, unbalanced crap. There were what, 18 Civs at release? And they are voiced, well-rendered, with unique units and abilities. Civ 4 just had the same bag of random traits assigned to each leader. I got all four of the new Civs for free and some maps and paid $45-50 for all of it.

Take a look at Blizzard's release of Starcraft 2

A company with free access to billions from WoW. Which is a kiddie game that costs $15 dollars a month to make you fat and socially awkward.

It seems like 2K just didn't have the confidence in the Civ franchise, or the development team, or the game design. So they rushed it out the door to try and reap as much of a profit as possible before the consumers knew what hit them. Releasing overpriced DLC so quickly after a release indicates desperation for more money now.

Overpriced to who? Someone working minimum wage in America can easily afford the DLC by either doing 40 minutes of work or just not buying truly overpriced stuff like fountain sodas. Almost every game company now is releasing "overpriced" DLC or mini-games. Take a look through PSN or any Bioware DLC, or Virtual Console.

On the other hand, Blizzard is releasing full-blown expansion packs for each race that will cost as much as the original retail purchase. They're not nickel-and-diming their customers for a few extra units and maps here and there.

$25 for an internet horse is reasonable to you?