Everybody has a different take on DLC. Love/hate, overpriced/right/bargain, and their own value. Someone who has 40hrs played vs 1000 hrs, will have different values. I've been lucky, in that I can play a few hours each day, most days. I've had times where I'm unable to play for a time. When CiVI was released, I had no access to a computer. I had to wait until mid November that year, to buy the base game, and be able to play.
2) Actions speak louder than words--where is proof I am a vocal minority among the Civ community at large?
3) No, through no fault of my own. But the Steam DLC reviews are overwhelmingly negative. Not just mediocre, but overwhelmingly negative.
Not all of us have so much time or disposable income to see $5 per DLC as good value. But I'm sure Firaxis is glad some people like their DLC and play them a lot.
Even in this thread you have minimal support. I don't care what Steam reviews say. I'd be interested in the numbers if someone has them. I'll bet most of the DLC's have sold well.
I can see that the reviews for VI are mixed overall, so it wouldn't surprise me if those who don't like the game also don't like the DLCs.
In other news, I see (in trying to find stats on DLC downloads) that the number of VI players is sitting just behind the number of V players. That gap has closed hugely.
In other news, I see (in trying to find stats on DLC downloads) that the number of VI players is sitting just behind the number of V players. That gap has closed hugely.
Psst... This is from all the way back in November. So, basically, from Firaxis' point of view, the "omg stop selling us stuff" people in this thread seem to be in the very, very tiny minority and that would explain why Firaxis is almost non-existent on this forum. Civ6 is the fastest selling Civ game in the history of the series, far outpacing 5 or 4.
I think that Firaxis/2K are apprehensive in selling alternative leaders as DLC. If are too few in the pack, the comunity could be unsatisfect (even more if the alt leader prove to be mediocre and not so interesting ingame) and could prefer another civ, even more with so many mainstream and waited civs lacking. If there are too much leaders in the pack, could be too expansive to be profitable with a reasonable price.
But if they balance this and release interesting and well made leaders, there's no reason to not be a success. Would be grate to have, for example, a pack of French leaders with Napoleon and Louis XIV, one of Germans with Bismarck and Frederich or one of Chinese with Taizong and Kangxi. (Remembering that Elisabeth I appeared in all other games in the series and is still missing in Civ VI).
The main issue with alternate leaders is that they're almost as much work to create as a full new civ but add only a fraction of the gameplay variety. I think most people would be happy to see Bismark, Louis XIV, Hatshepsut etc., but the question is whether its worth investing resources in them when those same resources could be used to create, say, Italy, the Creek and Ethiopia.
Just to throw my hat into the ring. I NEED paid DLC leaders. Because at the rate we are going we will only get the Civ Staples and I NEED Vietnam to finally come to civ lol. So if it means I have to buy some more DLC (Which I buy all of them anyway) in order to finally see my true love come to Civ, its a neccesary evil. I would almost buy the DLC for my friends too if it encouraged them to release more DLC so there is space for Vietnam
I would love to see DLC with a mixture of content. A new civ, an alternate leader (or two--remember that the alternate leader still carries the civs UU and all that, just the leaders UA and animation changes)...
The more I think about it, I'd rather see some alternate leaders at this point, so a 2-1 ratio holds value for me.
Additional leaders could come in DLC together with new civs and scenarios. Julius Caesar could be bundled with Celts, Bismark - with Austria and so on.
I'd say having (or not having) R&F requirement is bigger issue, but could be solved too.
I think we all agree that more civs and more leaders = more fun. Now, whether you want it as paid DLC or not is just a matter of preference. Modders can make a new civ / new leader at zero cost, and Firaxis can do DLC to rack up more money. Regardless, we have all options to get more civs and more leaders.
I would like to think we will get DLCs, of which I would also like to think we will get the following:
Tonga - lead by Momo (Civ can embark over oceans from turn 1 and get bonuses from islands. Leader gets bonuses from tributaries such as citystates and trade routes with direct neighbours)
Vietnam - led by Trung Sisters (leader(s) are at peace with free cities and can send routes to them. Receives additional resources from trade routes to citites in empires for the number of cities the empire has less than the largest empire. Exerts double loyalty pressure on Cities.)
Inca
Portugal & Morocco
Byzantium & Ottomans
It would be cool if we got an Alt Chinese leader to go with Vietnam and an Alt Spanish leader to go with Inca, but I doubt it.
Even in this thread you have minimal support. I don't care what Steam reviews say. I'd be interested in the numbers if someone has them. I'll bet most of the DLC's have sold well.
I can see that the reviews for VI are mixed overall, so it wouldn't surprise me if those who don't like the game also don't like the DLCs.
In other news, I see (in trying to find stats on DLC downloads) that the number of VI players is sitting just behind the number of V players. That gap has closed hugely.
This thread is for Civfanatics, and if you saw previous threads about DLC pricing specifically you would see many more people who disagree.
Equating those who don't like the game with those who don't like DLC is silly. People who dislike the game won't be tempted to buy DLC and rate it, and many negative comments are specific as to the price being high, civs being badly designed, etc, all of which imply they played the base game.
If you think reviews for Civ VI are mixed you should see the scathing reviews of the DLC.
I'm sure the gap will close a bit more with the second expansion. I don't mind VI as such though it's deeply flawed, what I mind is the awful pricing scheme for DLC.
I'm sure the gap will close a bit more with the second expansion. I don't mind VI as such though it's deeply flawed, what I mind is the awful pricing scheme for DLC.
6 isn't deeply flawed. It's actually very polished and smooth. 5 was a deep pile of horse manure.
The numbers even back me up on that: After 8 years and countless Humble Bundles and Steam sales, according to SteamSpy about 10.5 million people have a fully patched, 2 expansion, full-dlc Civ5. It has about the same number of concurrent players as Civ6 did just prior to R+F with 1/3 the number of units in circulation, (at the time) no expansions, and less "familiarity time".
5 barely got notice out of me and never made me fully leave 4, and I promise you I'm not the only person that felt that way. 6 did.
However, unlike some people I'm not going to claim I speak for "everyone", only that Firaxis knows their sales numbers and will act according to how they think they can make money, because that's what businesses do (and are supposed to do). We in strategy gaming are an evolutionary descendant of tabletop gaming, and I can tell you that Magic: The Gathering and its constant "DLC" model won out over Avalon Hill's catering to the grognards complaining that other game systems were designed for the "casuals". There is a niche for strategy gaming companies that want to cater to history buffs, but here's a secret, the biggest company in that market is in the constant-dlc strategy, too. Only a tiny subset of game companies that make a tiny subset of games are going to make a tiny subset of games that lack any DLC, any expansions, and focus on mechanics.
...and because they're going to be tiny companies, they're probably going to be buggy messes. So you get to pick your poisons. I use Firaxis/Civ for my quick-and-fun (hence why I use duel/tiny maps that are overly clogged with civs/city states for 2-3 hour games) and Paradox for my ongoing campaigns.
6 isn't deeply flawed. It's actually very polished and smooth. 5 was a deep pile of horse manure.
The numbers even back me up on that: After 8 years and countless Humble Bundles and Steam sales, according to SteamSpy about 10.5 million people have a fully patched, 2 expansion, full-dlc Civ5. It has about the same number of concurrent players as Civ6 did just prior to R+F with 1/3 the number of units in circulation, (at the time) no expansions, and less "familiarity time".
5 barely got notice out of me and never made me fully leave 4, and I promise you I'm not the only person that felt that way. 6 did.
However, unlike some people I'm not going to claim I speak for "everyone", only that Firaxis knows their sales numbers and will act according to how they think they can make money, because that's what businesses do (and are supposed to do). We in strategy gaming are an evolutionary descendant of tabletop gaming, and I can tell you that Magic: The Gathering and its constant "DLC" model won out over Avalon Hill's catering to the grognards complaining that other game systems were designed for the "casuals". There is a niche for strategy gaming companies that want to cater to history buffs, but here's a secret, the biggest company in that market is in the constant-dlc strategy, too. Only a tiny subset of game companies that make a tiny subset of games are going to make a tiny subset of games that lack any DLC, any expansions, and focus on mechanics.
...and because they're going to be tiny companies, they're probably going to be buggy messes. So you get to pick your poisons. I use Firaxis/Civ for my quick-and-fun (hence why I use duel/tiny maps that are overly clogged with civs/city states for 2-3 hour games) and Paradox for my ongoing campaigns.
Please provide proof of the sale stats. And I will point out VI's sales don't bear upon just how reviled it is compared to V at this time. V has "overwhelmingly positive" reviews right now, VI is "mixed" with less than 50% positive reviews.
I don't think V was a deep pile of manure at all. It was far more atmospheric, had a better UI, fewer civs whose abilities replicated another civ's,
War themes, less plasticky wonder/building/unit icons, better sound effects, a narrator with more gravitas, more interesting scenarios with unique quotes, music, loading screens and units, and didn't have anything (ala VI's districts) costing more than a Wonder.
Your tangent about Magic and history I'm just going to ignore since it doesn't respond to anything I said.
As to the DLC, I again repeat how reviled paid DLC is, even the entirely optional cosmetic ones that don't feel necessary. Civ VI's DLC have reviews that would make anyone blush with shame. And it's not because they are awful as such--rather, repeatedly you will see pricing come up as a negative. See reviews of Khmer/Indonesian DLC on Steam for easy examples.
And once again you are strawmanning my arguments. I did not ever claim to speak for "everyone", nor did I say companies should focus entirely on mechanics and not release DLC or expansions. I said that DLC was fine as long as it wasn't paid DLC, and I didn't say anything negative about expansions in comparison--quite the opposite; I pointed out how the VI DLC is poor value compared to Rise and Fall, even without any scenarios in Rise and Fall. And of course game companies should focus on mechanics. Releasing the new year's flavor of culture bomb civ is hardly as interesting as a balance patch that makes significant changes, or actual mechanic changes that widely affect everyone and not just those with $ for paid DLC.
Helpfully that search lists owners has 10.591 million for Civ5, 2.976 million for Civ6
Players in the last two weeks are statistically even (641k/615k, both with margins of error around +/- 25k)
Fun Fact: Civ4's Steam version has 662k (+/- 25k) users in the last 2 weeks out of 1.5M owners, and I'd guess a large portion of CIv4 owners (me, for example) didn't use the Steam version of CIv4 to play it. Which means your beloved Civ5 is losing to Civ4 on a platform it isn't even native to. I am amused.
Please provide proof of the sale stats. And I will point out VI's sales don't bear upon just how reviled it is compared to V at this time. V has "overwhelmingly positive" reviews right now, VI is "mixed" with less than 50% positive reviews.
I don't think number of owners gives any useful information. Old games are often sold with huge discounts and vanilla Civ5 was given away for free a couple of times. Can't remember all of them, but surely I got a second Civ5 copy with XCOM preorder. Can't remember such details about Civ4, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people got it because it was free or nearly free.
Even in this thread you have minimal support. I don't care what Steam reviews say. I'd be interested in the numbers if someone has them. I'll bet most of the DLC's have sold well.
I can see that the reviews for VI are mixed overall, so it wouldn't surprise me if those who don't like the game also don't like the DLCs.
In other news, I see (in trying to find stats on DLC downloads) that the number of VI players is sitting just behind the number of V players. That gap has closed hugely.
And many DLCs get bad reviews simply because many gamers HATE paying for DLC. It is still a format that is settling in. Older gamers cry for the days where they paid their $80-$100 (in Australia) for a game that was "complete" out of the box (while ignoring the glaring bugs, inbalances and oft incomplete state of the game, or dismissing them as "personality"). Now people pay $80-$100 for much more developed games and rage if a company wants to add more to it, while asking for more money to cover the cost of developing that product. And you regularly see such rants in threads about DLC across virtually every game.
Does that mean Firaxis can't do better? Not at all, but it's not like the DLC is adding anything essential to the game. There are more Civs in this game than any other base game, so really does it matter if you don't buy the DLC?
This is especially true for Civilization, which is a game that has many players from the earlier iterations of the game which never had any DLC. So having it now is rage inducing to many people. Despite it actually allowing you access to more content than ever before.
Please provide proof of the sale stats. And I will point out VI's sales don't bear upon just how reviled it is compared to V at this time. V has "overwhelmingly positive" reviews right now, VI is "mixed" with less than 50% positive reviews.
You have a very short memory. Civ5 was absolutely panned by the wider community upon release. On steam it was negative, and it was widely loathed in it's vanilla state. It wasn't until later that the expansions fleshed it out into an excellent game, and people had enough time to get over the fact that it was such a big change from Civ4 and begin enjoying Civ5 in its own right.
How do they get so many positive reviews to counter the negatives? Often companies will release new editions of the game on steam, removing the old ones, which gives them a fresh start.
They were horrific. Mine was one of them. Civ5 was hot garbage on release.
I don't think number of owners gives any useful information. Old games are often sold with huge discounts and vanilla Civ5 was given away for free a couple of times. Can't remember all of them, but surely I got a second Civ5 copy with XCOM preorder. Can't remember such details about Civ4, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people got it because it was free or nearly free.
Earlier in this thread I mentioned that, before I was asked to cite the webpage. Civ5 has 8 years, 2 expansions, a full set of DLC, countless Humble Bundles, Steam Sales, Give-aways, etc to get to 10.5 million owners. SteamSpy is pretty reliable at getting counts on Steam data (Valve is cagey about Steam data).
I asked about the sales number because 2 years ago when Civ celebrated their 25 year anniversary they said (at their anniversary Dice panel) they had sold 8 million copies of civ 5. It would interesting that it has sold 2 million since that time.
I said that DLC was fine as long as it wasn't paid DLC, and I didn't say anything negative about expansions in comparison--quite the opposite; I pointed out how the VI DLC is poor value compared to Rise and Fall, even without any scenarios in Rise and Fall. And of course game companies should focus on mechanics.
DLC is much cheaper than an expansion. And you don't have to buy it! I don't understand your hatred of paying for work. Is this actually some kind of socialist thing!? Cos to most of us, your bolshy statement that your issue with DLC is the cost rather than the content, just comes across very entitled.
I asked about the sales number because 2 years ago when Civ celebrated their 25 year anniversary they said (at their anniversary Dice panel) they had sold 8 million copies of civ 5. It would interesting that it has sold 2 million since that time.
It seems to be a trend with the Civ series for players to not jump across to the next iteration until it is complete. I know there were lots of people who didn't jump to Civ5 from Civ4 until it was cheap and complete. Same with Civ4, which wasn't popular on release either. Civ2 was seen as a crowning glory, so it wouldn't surprise me if people were slow to come to 3 also (I don't have any figures or basis for that though)
DLC is much cheaper than an expansion. And you don't have to buy it! I don't understand your hatred of paying for work. Is this actually some kind of socialist thing!? Cos to most of us, your bolshy statement that your issue with DLC is the cost rather than the content, just comes across very entitled.
Especially as it gets us more content than would otherwise be in the game. Look at how much stuff was in Civ6 compared to any other Civ game. So people can't say they just left stuff out to sell as a DLC. Plus the DLC profit line is what allows developers to get money from their financiers. If there was no revenue stream in the future they would be given less money in the first place. I, for one, am happy to pay a few dollars to get something new for a game I know I will devote a few thousand hours to over the years. Money to hours played shows that it's a brilliant investment.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
