New DLC on December 16

[Louis XXIV]

So people, what civ are you going to play as first, Inca or Spain? Or are you going to play the scenario?

Believe it or not, my plan is to play as the Iroquois and intentionally select both Civs to play against. That way I can see their leader art.

Out of the two of them, probably the Inca. They seem more interesting and closer to my play style.

 

[Pouakai]

Believe it or not, my plan is to play as the Iroquois and intentionally select both Civs to play against. That way I can see their leader art.

Out of the two of them, probably the Inca. They seem more interesting and closer to my play style.

I'll probably do exactly the same as you, except in the other order. Play as Pachacuti first, then see the leader art.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I might try the scenario if (a) the patch lives up to its promise & delivers a more enjoyable game-play experience & (b) if its not totally lame like the Mongol Scenario was. Seriously, I know it was *free*, & I know it was DLC, but they could have given the non-Mongol leaders historically accurate names!!!

Aussie.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yeah, the leaders thing bugged me the most about that scenario. I liked the game concept of giving you crap for conquering city-states. I wasn't impressed by the rest.

But it was completely free. Overall, the Mongols have a very "get what you paid for" vibe to them.

 

[Civsassin]

The practice of selling civs as DLC strikes me as being slightly distasteful, but whatever.

As a thought, the money that they are making, and probably will continue to make, off selling DLCs may have a bigger picture. Perhaps they won't have any expansion packs, and the revenue they generate will come from DLCs. They could offer expanded features via DLC. It doesn't have to be reserved for just new leaders and scenarios. At the very least, I would hope that if they do offer and expansion pack

a) it either overlaps the DLCs, and it that case, those who have purchased the DLCs get a discount or
b) it is completely new and different content without the DLCs included, and everyone pays full price.

Either way, I think they owe it to gamers to devise a scheme that takes into account their loyal fan/consumer base and the discontentment some feel towards the DLC.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

As a thought, the money that they are making, and probably will continue to make, off selling DLCs may have a bigger picture. Perhaps they won't have any expansion packs, and the revenue they generate will come from DLCs. They could offer expanded features via DLC. It doesn't have to be reserved for just new leaders and scenarios. At the very least, I would hope that if they do offer and expansion pack

a) it either overlaps the DLCs, and it that case, those who have purchased the DLCs get a discount or
b) it is completely new and different content without the DLCs included, and everyone pays full price.

Either way, I think they owe it to gamers to devise a scheme that takes into account their loyal fan/consumer base and the discontentment some feel towards the DLC.

From a multi-player compatibility point of view, this would be a *very* bad road to go down. As someone who still plays *loads* of Civ4 MP, I know the only reason the games came together was because everyone had the game & its various expansions. Yet if people in MP have differing amounts of game-changing DLC, then I don't see how *any* MP game can gel!

Aussie.

 

[ThERat]

From a multi-player compatibility point of view, this would be a *very* bad road to go down. As someone who still plays *loads* of Civ4 MP, I know the only reason the games came together was because everyone had the game & its various expansions. Yet if people in MP have differing amounts of game-changing DLC, then I don't see how *any* MP game can gel!

Not only MP, they couldn't even ensure that SG's work due to save game incompatibility. The game is supposed to be developed by a modder who was active here and yet, they managed to split the community so much. Kudos really

 

[TheArchduke]

Just wait for the discounted, complete civ V addon thingie sure to hit stores at Christmas 2011.

Anyone buying anything before that, good riddance.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

So people, what civ are you going to play as first, Inca or Spain? Or are you going to play the scenario?

Inca & the Scenario... simultaneously. Save/Load/Save/Load.
Against Spain.
Then all hell brakes loose.

 

[Civsassin]

From a multi-player compatibility point of view, this would be a *very* bad road to go down. As someone who still plays *loads* of Civ4 MP, I know the only reason the games came together was because everyone had the game & its various expansions. Yet if people in MP have differing amounts of game-changing DLC, then I don't see how *any* MP game can gel!

Aussie.

That's a good point. The bottom line is that a retailer doesn't do anything without a strategy. I'm quite sure that Firaxis has thought this through and isn't just releasing content willie nillie. It will take some time obviously to see what their strategy is, but there is a strategy lurking out there.

 

[krunsh]

I think they will continue to release new Civs and scenario trough DLC, and gameplay change by free patch. I don't think they will release any expention... only a ''gold edition'' or something, coming with all DLC and patch already in it. I think this is good, you realy don't get less stuff than before.

And as far as multiplayer goes... They just need to wise up a little and do as Relic did for company of heroes and dawn of war (and other dev for other game). You buy the DLC to be able to play as them, but everyone still get the file when they comes out so you can play against the civs that you don't own (online).

 

[Civsassin]

I think they will continue to release new Civs and scenario trough DLC, and gameplay change by free patch. I don't think they will release any expention... only a ''gold edition'' or something, coming with all DLC and patch already in it. I think this is good, you realy don't get less stuff than before.

And as far as multiplayer goes... They just need to wise up a little and do as Relic did for company of heroes and dawn of war (and other dev for other game). You buy the DLC to be able to play as them, but everyone still get the file when they comes out so you can play against the civs that you don't own (online).

Either way, whether they release everything via DLC or go with an expansion, they will have to take into account those who have purchased the DLC. They will not release an expansion with all of the previously received DLC without discounting it in some way for those who purchased the DLC upon release. I tend to thing that if they release and expansion, it will be without the previously released DLC.

 

[Vordeo]

Just read through several pages of this thread, and still don't know what the Inca/Spanish abilities/units exactly are. All I've been seeing are the same old arguments people have been having over DLC since before the Mongols were released.

A.) Why have people not gotten over the fact that DLC exists yet?
B.) Why do people complain about Firaxis being interested in making money?
C.) Why do people still reply to posters who have been making the same complaints for months now?

Rhetorical questions, of course, as this is the internet.

I'm just disappointed that the board is still like this, personally. I'd thought the creation of the big complaint thread would cut things like this down so people could actually discuss the topic.

Random thoughts:

Spanish UA looks kinda weak, unless the gold rewards are incredible. Settling near natural wonders doesn't seem like a viable strategy, even with increased yields.

Inca UA looks above average IMO, but that Terrace Farm is really interesting.

Be a bit hard to evaluate relative strengths with all the changes from the patch. Interesting few days ahead, I think.

 

[Valkrionn]

Just read through several pages of this thread, and still don't know what the Inca/Spanish abilities/units exactly are. All I've been seeing are the same old arguments people have been having over DLC since before the Mongols were released.

A.) Why have people not gotten over the fact that DLC exists yet?
B.) Why do people complain about Firaxis being interested in making money?
C.) Why do people still reply to posters who have been making the same complaints for months now?

Rhetorical questions, of course, as this is the internet.

I'm just disappointed that the board is still like this, personally. I'd thought the creation of the big complaint thread would cut things like this down so people could actually discuss the topic.

Random thoughts:

Spanish UA looks kinda weak, unless the gold rewards are incredible. Settling near natural wonders doesn't seem like a viable strategy, even with increased yields.

Inca UA looks above average IMO, but that Terrace Farm is really interesting.

Be a bit hard to evaluate relative strengths with all the changes from the patch. Interesting few days ahead, I think.

For the Spanish, keep in mind that all NW now provide unique effects.

 

[Vordeo]

For the Spanish, keep in mind that all NW now provide unique effects.

Sounds good, but relying on natural wonders still seems a pretty iffy proposition. I mean, settling a city leagues away from your empire proper just to get a nat wonder doesn't seem like a valid strat, though obviously it's a nice bonus. Be interesting to see how it plays out though.

That said, having seen the uniques of both civs on another thread, I've got to say I'm impressed with the creativity in the design of both civs (especially the Conquistador). I still wish the Inca had gotten the UA of being able to move across mountains though .

 

[PieceOfMind]

A.) Why have people not gotten over the fact that DLC exists yet?
B.) Why do people complain about Firaxis being interested in making money?
C.) Why do people still reply to posters who have been making the same complaints for months now?

Probably we can just start a new thread once the DLC is released, and all discussion will end up there.

 

[Vordeo]

Probably we can just start a new thread once the DLC is released, and all discussion will end up there.

Sounds good, and I hope the DLC 'debate' is kept out of that thread.

 

[PieceOfMind]

If it's just the content of the DLC you want to discuss, there is already a thread about it anyway:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=402264

 

[Vordeo]

If it's just the content of the DLC you want to discuss, there is already a thread about it anyway:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=402264

Yep, saw that a bit after I first posted on this thread. Thanks though!

 

[Balerune]

Either way, whether they release everything via DLC or go with an expansion, they will have to take into account those who have purchased the DLC. They will not release an expansion with all of the previously received DLC without discounting it in some way for those who purchased the DLC upon release. I tend to thing that if they release and expansion, it will be without the previously released DLC.

Perhaps they can find a way to charge us $15 a month and kill all the DLC business so we all can have the same game to play. So after a year we'd all be out $180. for Civ V. At this rate with DLC coming out every month or so we'll be out $70. or so before the $55. expansion pack and we'd all be playing different Civ V games to boot. Then they can take away the turn based, make it real time and call it something new and catchy like a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game.
/emote chants: They have a plan, they have a plan, they have a plan......