Partially Off-topic Rants against Take 2 and Steam

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Introduction:

The following rant was in part a result of not being able to read Neuro's third place Save files in the the Beta 1 Gauntlet, because he used Deluxe Civ V and I used Standard Civ V. It appears that only Deluxe Civ V users will be able to read his save files. Neuro is completely without fault; he should be able to freely use any version of Civ V he cares to use.

I consider this thread to be at least Partially On-Topic, because the differences between Deluxe Civ V and Standard Civ V must be considered by the Hall of Fame when it produces a Hall of Fame module for Civilization V. The remainder of this post is primarily a Rant without much, if any, constructive comment. Perhaps, other posters will add such content. I'm just a bit too angry to think of any at the moment.

The Rant:

Why Take 2 divides Civ V Players into a lower class that purchased Standard Civ V and an upper Class that purchased Deluxe Civ V I will never understand. I bought Standard Civ V, because that's the first version I was able to find in a Brick and Mortar Store. There are now two classes of Civ V Players that have no middle ground because the Civ5Save format of the Deluxe version can't be read by the Standard version (even with Gyathaar's conversion script), thanks to Take 2.

I don't even want to talk about how much I hate and despise Steam and Take 2 for forcing me to use Steam to play Civ V. Steam is as guilty for automatically updating a Civ V without getting a user's permission. Sorry, I just thought I needed to detail at least one reason (relevant to the issue at hand) why I hate Steam. Others are its blatant self-promotion and Micky Mouse like competitions it offers, "Steam Achievements" or whatever it calls them.

Steam has a total lock on the Distribution of Civilization V and when Steam goes bankrupt, no one will be able to play Civilization V, except the Developers who still have unlocked versions of the Game. Until then, Steam will be in your face everyday you go on-line. Luckily they seem somewhat liberal with their off-line mode; I've been able to start several Games without going on-line. With Civ IV no company knew I owed the Game series, but now with Civilization V, quite likely several dozen Game publishing companies do know I own the Standard version of Civilization V.

I didn't even get into the huge Game balance issues within Civ V.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Xger]

Why Take 2 divides Civ V Players into a lower class that purchased Standard Civ V and an upper Class that purchased Deluxe Civ V I will never understand.

I find it highly unlikely that Take 2 sat there and deliberately separated the Civ 5 players in classes. There is not a single reason to think that this was a maliciously intended result. It seems unlikely that this will remain an issue, and extremism is pretty uncalled for. It would have been simple enough to say "While the 2 save files are not fully interchangeable, there should be special consideration for the ramifications of such" or something similar. That is a valid point, but it doesn't need to be surrounded by angry uncalled for assumptions.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

I find it highly unlikely that Take 2 sat there and deliberately separated the Civ 5 players in classes. There is not a single reason to think that this was a maliciously intended result. It seems unlikely that this will remain an issue, and extremism is pretty uncalled for. It would have been simple enough to say "While the 2 save files are not fully interchangeable, there should be special consideration for the ramifications of such" or something similar. That is a valid point, but it doesn't need to be surrounded by angry uncalled for assumptions.

First of all, I don't think there was any malicious intent in dividing Civ 5 players into two Classes.

However, the facts are extremely clear that the developers and publishers of Civilization V did in fact divide the Civ V market into two tiers. One that would be willing to pay double for extra features and another that would prefer to get not much more that the basic Game Software. Class 1 is supplied with Deluxe Civ V and Class 2 is supplied with Deluxe Civ V.

There's nothing much wrong with this division, except the two Games for the two classes were made from the onset deliberately capable of refusing to load Games from each other. Otherwise, why aren't the exact same load and save routines used in both versions? Why is DLC from one version not handled correctly by the other version? The class differences were further enforced by including DLC Babylon Civ in the Deluxe Civ V that is not included in the Standard V? The DLC Babylon Civ can't be explained away as poor Quality Control.

The final straw in the Camel's Back in my opinion is the enforced installation of Steam without any regard for those Players who prefer to avoid such Game distribution systems. The DLC Babylon Civ costs an extra $4.99 <http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/216956/civ-v-dlc-announced/>. So if I want to load someone's Save that contains the DLC Babylon Civ, I have to pay $4.99, worst yet probably through the Steam system that I don't want on my system, but tolerate with extreme prejudice because I was forced to install Steam to Install and even play Civ V. It's not so much the amount of money to pay for the DLC, but the distribution system that makes it so easy to pay $5 for each new DLC Civ.

What makes this worst is the poor quality control that allows the Game to crash (Standard Civ V 1.0.0.621) when it attempts to load Deluxe Civ V 1.0.0.x where x is either 20 or 62 (I'm not sure which).

Sorry, I was wrong. The developers have not divided Civ V Players into two classes. They have divided Civ V Players into as many classes as there are valid combination of DLC (free or fee) that become available in the future. I'm beginning to believe that Mesix made the right choice with regard to Civilization V <http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=394988>.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[factorial]

How exactly do you propose this should work? Your claim is pretty much identical to "I can't open BtS save games without BtS". Obviously if you're not in possession of the assets used by the save game, you can't load the save game. Yes, there are obviously implications to the HoF and GoM, but you can't honestly expect the devs to make any concessions in their game to cater to these crowds as they make up a fraction of a percent of the game's audience. And since that fraction of a percent is also some of the most hardcore fans, most of them will buy all the DLC and expansion packs anyway.

 

[pagh80]

How exactly do you propose this should work? Your claim is pretty much identical to "I can't open BtS save games without BtS". Obviously if you're not in possession of the assets used by the save game, you can't load the save game.

Its not fair to compare a whole new expansion with a DLC Civ.

Yes, there are obviously implications to the HoF and GoM, but you can't honestly expect the devs to make any concessions in their game to cater to these crowds as they make up a fraction of a percent of the game's audience.

Well they have focused alot on multiplayer in this version of CiV and you have the same problems here.(DLC cant be used) Furthermore in todays world, pure single player games are becoming less and less popular, so devs should have this in mind when they design games.

And since that fraction of a percent is also some of the most hardcore fans, most of them will buy all the DLC and expansion packs anyway.

Whether or not you feel like buying the DLC has nothing to do with being hardcore. It has more to do do with what you find moraly right and wrong.(I personally think its a cheap immoral way of taking my money.)

 

[factorial]

Its not fair to compare a whole new expansion with a DLC Civ.

I don't see why this is an unfair comparison. The reason behind incompatibility is the same, and rather obvious. If a save game contains the Babylon Civ, you can't open it if you don't have the Babylon civ. Much like if a save game contains corporations or any of the other things in BtS, you can't load it if you don't have those assets. So I ask again, how do you think this should work?

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

I don't see why this is an unfair comparison. The reason behind incompatibility is the same, and rather obvious. If a save game contains the Babylon Civ, you can't open it if you don't have the Babylon civ. Much like if a save game contains corporations or any of the other things in BtS, you can't load it if you don't have those assets. So I ask again, how do you think this should work?

You can't seriously compare a DLC Civ that adds nothing to the Game System of Civ V other than the Civ itself to a Civ IV release like Beyond the Sword that added at least two major subsystems to the Game, Espionage and Corporations in addition to several new Civs?

Banning DLC Civs seems like a workable solution, right?

The vast majority of Players have purchased the Standard Civ V Game without DLC. It makes the most sense to allow only Civs that everyone who has a Civ V Game must have.

If DLC Civs are permitted for HOF Play, will there be any limit to the additional money and the unsavory way Take 2 is getting it? (I'm not the only one unhappy being forced to use Steam to play Civ V.) Does the HOF really want to require all DLC Civs as soon as they are released? I'm not sure there can be a middle ground.

How many DLC Civs will be released per year and how much will they cost? The additional cost could easily exceed the cost of the original Standard Game ($49.95).

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Denniz]

DLC is the new marketing model companies are using. Instead of expansions like Warlords or BTS, we are going to see more DLC content that incrementally adds up to the same thing.

The issue of save file compatability is something that Firaxis will have to deal with. Without a DLL SDK that exposes necessary code, no one else can. It remains to be seen whether they with fix the issue or release a DLL SDK. We just have to be patient. The only other option is to lobby them directly.

How the HOFwill handle the effects of DLC content is a work in progress. Our intent is to start out with just the Civs that are available to all. We shall have to see what comes next. With Civ4, we always tried to keep in mind that not everyone owned Warlords or BTS expansions. We shall try to do the same with Civ5.

 

[factorial]

You can't seriously compare a DLC Civ that adds nothing to the Game System of Civ V other than the Civ itself to a Civ IV release like Beyond the Sword that added at least two major subsystems to the Game, Espionage and Corporations in addition to several new Civs?

I obviously realize that a full expansion and a single civ DLC are different in general, but in this particular situation, the problem is exactly the same. You can't load the save game because you're missing "something" required to load it. Whether that's a single civ or an entire system is irrelevant. You can't load a save game without everything in the save game, I really don't understand what's confusing or surprising about that. Again, how would it work? What would replace the DLC civ?

Also, banning DLC civs really isn't a valid solution, it would mean that anyone who has any DLC civs can't play with random opponents.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

I obviously realize that a full expansion and a single civ DLC are different in general, but in this particular situation, the problem is exactly the same. You can't load the save game because you're missing "something" required to load it. Whether that's a single civ or an entire system is irrelevant. You can't load a save game without everything in the save game, I really don't understand what's confusing or surprising about that. Again, how would it work? What would replace the DLC civ?

How is adding DLC Civs the same as a new game expansion (i.e. Civ IV WL -> Civ IV BtS)?

The file format of Civ V doesn't change due to DLC Civs additions, whereas there is a huge difference in the file format of for example Civ IV WL -> Civ IV BtS to support the addition of at least two entirely new Game subsystems, Espionage and Corporations. It should be clear that Civ V DLC Civs are simply new codes going into the exact same file format structure. A Civ V Game without DLC Civs can't load DLC Civs simply because it lacks the data to support them.

Thus, in no way is a DLC Civ the same as a game expansion like Civ IV WL -> Civ IV.

In a year or two perhaps, the developers of Civ V will offer a big DLC module that will add new game subsystems and make major changes to existing game subsystems and it will in fact implement a substantially different file format to support these changes. This will be a DLC module that in all respects is the same as a new game expansion like Civ IV WL -> Civ IV. Then and only then will you be right in saying that particular DLC module is effectively the same as new game expansion in the sense of WL -> BtS.

Also, banning DLC civs really isn't a valid solution, it would mean that anyone who has any DLC civs can't play with random opponents.

I don't see this as an issue for at least serious HOF Players, since none of the best players ever use Random Opponents. The strengths of the Opponents just vary too widely for Random Opponent selection to be competitive with purposefully selected Opponents.

However, the HOF module might be able to restrict the allowed Random Civs to those permitted or at least warn the Player on turn 0 that a banned DLC Civ has been selected.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Ozbenno]

However, the HOF module might be able to restrict the allowed Random Civs to those permitted or at least warn the Player on turn 0 that a banned DLC Civ has been selected.

This is probably the best we can do if the save game compatibility doesn't get resolved.

 

[fret]

While I feel your pain, ranting against Steam (or other delivery methods of that nature) is as futile as worrying about the next ice age. It's the future, unfortunately, and nothing will stop it.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

While I feel your pain, ranting against Steam (or other delivery methods of that nature) is as futile as worrying about the next ice age. It's the future, unfortunately, and nothing will stop it.

I actually have no issue with Steam per se. If other people want to use it, I will not stand in their way. I do have an issue with being forced to use Steam to play Civilization V. If the publishers of Civilization V persist in forcing Players to use Steam, I probably will stop playing Civilization V. If they do _not_ provide another option or at least make Steam tolerable to use (which I admit may be possible), I may simply stop playing Civilization V.

While you may be right that Steam or other services like it are unstoppable now, I'm still free to stop playing Civilization V and leave Steam behind forever. Frankly, Civilization IV in its Beyond the Sword incarnation is a much better Game than Civilization V will ever be. Given the sorry state of proprietary game development/publishing I'm afraid this will never change. I really do believe that our only hope of a Game better than "Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword" will come from the open source development community. That is where the BUFFY/BUG module was developed for example. May be time to see how the FreeCiv development community is doing; Firaxis Games/Take 2 seem to have lost their way in making truly innovative Games that deserve the name "Civilization". Civilization V has no staying power; the game balance is way out of wack; there are obvious methods to winning each Victory Condition early. The Domination Victory is trivial to accomplish = you simply need to be the last Civ in control of your original Capital - how lame is that; there is no Conquest Victory and no Religious Victory. No espionage subsystem; Religion has virtually no impact = Monastery building? Others have noted that Civilization V is a dumbed-down Civilization for folks who don't want to achieve that delicate balance between Research/Wealth/Commerce based Culture/Espionage and other Game elements, because Civilization V either removes these Game elements or make them independent of each other - the canonical example is how Research and Wealth (Gold Coins) are no longer balanced by the Player, because Civ V divorces them completely, so they do not directly affect each other = there is no Research or Culture or Espionage sliders in Civ V. There is no concept called Commerce in Civ V at all.

Civilization V is so dumbed-down it is trivial for an exceptional Player to Win at any Victory Condition with a rather early Date, even at the highest Difficulty level. Why did Firaxis Games/Take 2 bother at all to make such a Game? Oh, to be sure they will gain many Players who found Civilization IV and earlier Civilization Games too hard to master. No doubt Civilization V will be a commercial success, especially after all the reviews grossly over-stating what a great game Civilization V is, when in fact it is deeply flawed not simply in the easy parameters that could be quickly tweaked to correct Game balance, but the flaws are the fundamental subsystems of the Game itself. They would have to be ripped out to be fixed and then the Game would no longer even be Civ V. The Game is also unacceptably slow; it actually takes the Game longer to process all the AI turns than the Human Player takes in his own turn (Electrons moving at 2/3 speed of light are slower than the Human Hand in this case).

Before I played Civilization V, I heard many negative reports from fans of the Civilization series. I naively estimated it would take them 1-2 years to fix the Civ V Game balance issues. After actually playing Civ V, I see that the situation is far worse than I suspected. For example, no Research overflow? Civilization IV has it; how could they fail to do this for Civilization V, before the official release? It's not Rocket Science to save the unneeded Base Beakers when finishing a Technology and starting a new one. This frankly should have been done right way back with Civilization I. Some trivial examples of the lack of Game polish include filenames limited to 32 characters (I easily exceed 100 characters in my Civ IV game filenames) and no filename editing = no cut or paste and the cursor always stays where it is, regardless of where in the filename box one clicks. All these issues are trivial to fix, but they never should have existed in a released Game ever. I do expect that the Research overflow will be fixed, if the developers hear enough complaints about it. The filename requester issue really irks me, but I doubt many users will complain about it and it likely will never be fixed, even though it would take only an hour or so to do. These issues are so easy to fix, that it puts to question the competence of the developers and especially the managers who decide to ignore such easily fixed issues. My estimate for fixing Civ V is revised from 1-2 years to 3-4 years and the Game may very well collapse from Game balance issues. The increase is partly due to how deeply ingrained into the design some of the issues/bugs are. The remainder of the increase is for the lack of polish = remaining easy to fix issues/bugs which apparently are a far greater challenge to the developers, testers and the management team than they should be. Makes me wonder how many developers they have who introduce two bugs for every bug they fix? Regression testing must be consuming quite nearly the entire budget!

So, is Civilization V really that good that Steam can be tolerated to run it? Answer: Probably not. Mesix had the right idea when he decided not to join the Civ V HOF community due to Steam. I didn't realize what a pain Steam would be and I haven't even tried to get DLC Civs or other Game DLC yet. That may be when I make a clean break from Civilization V. Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword is better Game by a truly huge margin; I'll likely continue playing BtS rather than invest much time with Civ V. Thank you very much.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[KingMorgan]

Sun, nice essay

I was totally against steam and therefore bought the boxed copy, in hindsight steam is the least of our worries ( you know you can play in an off line mode - no internet connection required). I also felt the DLC / Delux was a money grabbing insult, it pained me to buy the Bablyon leader but it pains me even more playing Nebby as it demonstrates how easy it is to beat the game on the highest levels. Your most probably correct in your thinking, however i'm not sure how much core gameplay can be improved without a major patch AKA expansion pack. There has been some tinkering with small patches but they are unlikely make the game more precise and the AI much improved.

The game is rather buggy as well, some bugs are known yet still unfixed even whilst the devs claim they've sorted the issues behind then - rushed coding and not playtesting properly imo. I've given up reporting bugs otherwise i'd be spending a good hour a day reproducing and posting saves. Recently i've been noticing aggressive AIs running OCCs , i'm sure there are some major flaws in the way the AI handles some aspects of the map / start location, reminds me of how a settler will wait on the edge of the water next to an embarked escort, both will happily sit there for 6000 years before being booted by culture. lots of little things like that point to serious issues under the hood. The biggest issue is that in all my games, all 369 hours worth (thanks steam for logging them all) the AI has never challenged me for a victory at the end of the game. Some games i've been dogpiled early, or usually stabbed in the back by my best AI friend but in all the games i've won the AI has never been close to any kind of a win. Seeing as i play immortal / deity I suggest that we are not going to see the kind of quailty we did with Civ4 / BTS for a very long time.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

I was totally against steam and therefore bought the boxed copy, in hindsight steam is the least of our worries ( you know you can play in an off line mode - no internet connection required). I also felt the DLC / Delux was a money grabbing insult, it pained me to buy the Bablyon leader but it pains me even more playing Nebby as it demonstrates how easy it is to beat the game on the highest levels. Your most probably correct in your thinking, however i'm not sure how much core gameplay can be improved without a major patch AKA expansion pack. There has been some tinkering with small patches but they are unlikely make the game more precise and the AI much improved.

Yes, Steam isn't so bad when it can be relegated to off-line mode and one doesn't feel compelled to purchase the DLC Babylon Civ or download the free DLC Mongols Civ. Steam should automatically add the DLC Mongols Civ, but I'm not sure it does. However, I still resent being forced to use Steam to play Civ V. One should be able to decide to buy a Game (Civ V) without any obligation to use a third party company's software (Steam) regardless of its purpose.

The game is rather buggy as well, some bugs are known yet still unfixed even whilst the devs claim they've sorted the issues behind then - rushed coding and not playtesting properly imo. I've given up reporting bugs otherwise i'd be spending a good hour a day reproducing and posting saves. Recently i've been noticing aggressive AIs running OCCs , i'm sure there are some major flaws in the way the AI handles some aspects of the map / start location, reminds me of how a settler will wait on the edge of the water next to an embarked escort, both will happily sit there for 6000 years before being booted by culture. lots of little things like that point to serious issues under the hood. The biggest issue is that in all my games, all 369 hours worth (thanks steam for logging them all) the AI has never challenged me for a victory at the end of the game. Some games i've been dogpiled early, or usually stabbed in the back by my best AI friend but in all the games i've won the AI has never been close to any kind of a win. Seeing as i play immortal / deity I suggest that we are not going to see the kind of quailty we did with Civ4 / BTS for a very long time.

Yes, you are absolutely right, KingMorgan! Civ V has serious game play issues and obvious bugs that far out-weight the Steam and DLC issues!

Nice to know there are others who share my opinion of Civ V, DLC and Steam.

BTW, how does Steam record time playing Civ V? I'd like to know how to access this data in my next Civ V, if I ever feel motivated to play such an poorly play tested Game again.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[sanabas]

Yes, Steam isn't so bad when it can be relegated to off-line mode and one doesn't feel compelled to purchase the DLC Babylon Civ or download the free DLC Mongols Civ. Steam should automatically add the DLC Mongols Civ, but I'm not sure it does.

It does. Or at least it did for me.

However, I still resent being forced to use Steam to play Civ V. One should be able to decide to buy a Game (Civ V) without any obligation to use a third party company's software (Steam) regardless of its purpose.

Yep, agreed. I decided to buy it anyway, and while I'm certainly not playing it as much as I've played civ in the past, I'm still hopeful it will pick up, still hopeful most or all of the factors making me less likely to play at the moment, i.e. balance, bugs, no proper HOF yet, etc can & will be fixed. We'll see.

What I really want to see is whoever has the licence for SMAC do a sequel, as it is still my favourite game of the civ series.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Steam should automatically add the DLC Mongols Civ, but I'm not sure it does.

It does. Or at least it did for me.

You are right! I just started Civ V and at the bottom of the Leaders list I found Genghis Khan of Mongolia. I'm impressed that Take 2 and Steam did this right (automatic update). I thought they would make you go through hoops to get it, to get you used to DLC and less hesitant to do the same thing again for DLC Babylon Civ with the minor change of charging your credit card.

What I really want to see is whoever has the licence for SMAC do a sequel, as it is still my favourite game of the civ series.

At the risk of appearing ignorant, what does SMAC stand for? And a follow up question: Why is it your favour game of the Civ series?

Thanks,

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[sanabas]

At the risk of appearing ignorant, what does SMAC stand for? And a follow up question: Why is it your favour game of the Civ series?

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. Pretty sure there's a sub forum for it here, and from memory it came between civ 2 and civ 3. I think it introduced having your borders expand, I liked the fact that you could only guide your research, i.e. research a military tech, rather than iron working. Liked the ability to tailor units to your needs, the ability to found cities on water, the factions & their leaders, the 2 alien factions and the very different alien units, etc. Unfortunately don't have a copy anymore, and have been unable to find anywhere to buy a legitimate copy, or even get an illegitimate copy. But I would love to see the core of that game taken and updated to the level of civ 4 or 5.

 

[KingMorgan]

Sid Meiers Alpha Centauri

Edit: Too slow

I'm surpised Sun you;ve not played or heard of SMAC, lots of people comparing Civ5 to it recently. Personally I always loved the settling in the middle of the sea. I'll look around and see if I can find the CD.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

I'm surpised Sun you;ve not played or heard of SMAC, lots of people comparing Civ5 to it recently. Personally I always loved the settling in the middle of the sea. I'll look around and see if I can find the CD.

I have heard of "Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri", but never played it and didn't realize that it was considered part of the Civilization series. I thought of it more as a spin-off of this series, if anything. Yes, I'm quite ignorant of such things. I played a lot of FreeCiv, before I started playing Civilization IV Warlords and Beyond the Sword. I did play a little Civilization I long ago and did play the Intro scenario of Civilization III, but never touched Civilization II, except as implemented in FreeCiv.

Settling on the Sea makes sense; there may actually be Floating Cities in the Future in a few decades. The legality of them may be more troublesome than the Technical or Economic viability of them.

Sun Tzu Wu