xienwolf
Deity
DLCs are typically much smaller pieces, with very few people having the precise same assortment as one another (except those with everything)
Paying for more Content
- Thread starter BobeBrown
- Start date
Its the the pre-order/Day 1 DLC I cant abide with. e.g. Buy with amazon and get an extra german leaderhead but if you buy with play.com you get an extra civilisation. RUBBISH!
All this stuff should be included free and everyone should be entitled to it. Day 1 content is a rip-off too. Whay should I fork out an extra £5 for something that should be released with the final product.
Firaxis/2K - DONT DO IT. I wont be buying any sucky DLC.
All this stuff should be included free and everyone should be entitled to it. Day 1 content is a rip-off too. Whay should I fork out an extra £5 for something that should be released with the final product.
Firaxis/2K - DONT DO IT. I wont be buying any sucky DLC.
Shurdus
Am I Napoleon?
Or they add the civ to every single game. Then you have the xml and the game will not crash in multiplayer. Now the option for me to pick that civ is greyed out. To unlock it I need to purchase a code so the option to pick the civ is decoded and no longer greyed out.
Come on Dale, use your imagination.
@nthony
Chieftain
Completely agree. DLC = milking the cash cow.
I don't think it will be done with CiV though. After promising the most moddable version yet, I don't see how it could possibly work. With the exception of Steam style, official and controlled downloading of expansion packs.
I refuse to pay extra for tiny mods ala the way Total War is going. In fact I shun the games themselves that do it. How can you have confidence in the product being sold if you have to download extras. Would you buy a car and take it back a week later (or a day later with some DLC) for the gear stick, and be expected to pay extra!?
Shurdus
Am I Napoleon?
Agreed, and Creative Assembly from the total war series are indeed a bunch of liars and they are less than trash in my eyes. they even lied to their beta testers and then they booted me from their beta as soon as I made a comment saying I was not happy being played like a fool. I even posted this on the closed parts of the TW boards, but they still put my head on the chopping-block for it.
Never ever again will I buy anything that has the creative assembly logo on it. Nor would I anyone ever advice to look at the total war series. I would stick with Civ IV if I see people complain about DLC. Here is one consumer who has had enough of companies playing us for fools.
Never ever again will I buy anything that has the creative assembly logo on it. Nor would I anyone ever advice to look at the total war series. I would stick with Civ IV if I see people complain about DLC. Here is one consumer who has had enough of companies playing us for fools.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,311
Assuming modability, I doubt we'll have to worry much about petty DLC such as leaderheads, Civs, units, or general graphics mods - those are all items that could likely be done fairly easily by the community just as well, and likely would be after some time. The value in any such DLC would be dubious at best.
What might be interesting is entire scenarios as DLCs. Again there's the issue of the community being able to do the same thing, but Firaxis could likely do so quicker, with their full-time staff, and could potentially make very high quality scenarios (then again, in the past they've been hit-and-miss). The upside of this would be Firaxis-made scenarios coming out earlier than a full expansion; the obvious downside would be if it were tied to Steam or something like that - but a good note there is that CivIII and CivIV are available on several download services, such as Impulse and Direct2Drive, other than Steam, which makes that less likely.
But I still see the expansion route as likely. Not because of modding or even multiplayer - they could code asset-checking only for parts of the game that must not be changed, and not include any potential extra units, for instance, in multiplayer - but because the tendency with both Civ3 and Civ4 has been for new features being added to the game engine with each expansion. I'd be surprised if this changed, as it's a good way to add value to the game that could not be added through modding, and they tend to include scenarios themselves to show off the new capabilities. And these sorts of "engine enhancements" really would cause a problem as DLC - not only do you have to restrict multiplayer to the lowest common denominator, but worse is that you have to ensure that any set of engine enhancements installed will work in the game without crashes/errors/whatnot. Although certainly technically possible, I doubt any company would really want to take on that sort of potential liability when it comes to reliability, making the traditional expansion route more appealing. Add in that civs, units, etc. have traditionally been included in expansions to make them worth buying (and they often take advantage of new abilities introduced in expansions), and DLC doesn't seem all that likely.
Would I buy DLC? Probably not. I've yet to buy any for any other game. Definitely not if it's just an odd civ or graphic mod. Maybe if it's a really good scenario - but I'd want to hear that it was on CFC first. More likely, I'd just not buy any DLC until it's included in an expansion or the Complete verswion.
What might be interesting is entire scenarios as DLCs. Again there's the issue of the community being able to do the same thing, but Firaxis could likely do so quicker, with their full-time staff, and could potentially make very high quality scenarios (then again, in the past they've been hit-and-miss). The upside of this would be Firaxis-made scenarios coming out earlier than a full expansion; the obvious downside would be if it were tied to Steam or something like that - but a good note there is that CivIII and CivIV are available on several download services, such as Impulse and Direct2Drive, other than Steam, which makes that less likely.
But I still see the expansion route as likely. Not because of modding or even multiplayer - they could code asset-checking only for parts of the game that must not be changed, and not include any potential extra units, for instance, in multiplayer - but because the tendency with both Civ3 and Civ4 has been for new features being added to the game engine with each expansion. I'd be surprised if this changed, as it's a good way to add value to the game that could not be added through modding, and they tend to include scenarios themselves to show off the new capabilities. And these sorts of "engine enhancements" really would cause a problem as DLC - not only do you have to restrict multiplayer to the lowest common denominator, but worse is that you have to ensure that any set of engine enhancements installed will work in the game without crashes/errors/whatnot. Although certainly technically possible, I doubt any company would really want to take on that sort of potential liability when it comes to reliability, making the traditional expansion route more appealing. Add in that civs, units, etc. have traditionally been included in expansions to make them worth buying (and they often take advantage of new abilities introduced in expansions), and DLC doesn't seem all that likely.
Would I buy DLC? Probably not. I've yet to buy any for any other game. Definitely not if it's just an odd civ or graphic mod. Maybe if it's a really good scenario - but I'd want to hear that it was on CFC first. More likely, I'd just not buy any DLC until it's included in an expansion or the Complete verswion.
Tarkhan
King
It really depends how it is implemented. Often DLC ends up as simply professionally produced mods (That is, entirely separate from the actual game, and not required to fully enjoy it). In that case, it's fine, something you wouldn't have had to begin with.
Bad DLC, is where a game is designed and some content left out specifically to be added later via DLC. I don't count Collector's Edition stuff here, like in Dragon Age - they were making games with special CE content long before DLC came around.
Where do you draw the line between DLC and an expansion? What if instead of warlords for $30 or whatever, we got vassal states for $5, great generals for $5, some scenarios for $10, and new civs and leaders, and whatever else was there I forgot to add for another $10? Either way, we would pay the same amount for the same content at the end of the day.
I think Fallout 3 probably has one of the better implementations of the DLC model - its a moddable game, and the DLC areas aren't really part of the original game, just more areas to visit.
Bad DLC, is where a game is designed and some content left out specifically to be added later via DLC. I don't count Collector's Edition stuff here, like in Dragon Age - they were making games with special CE content long before DLC came around.
Where do you draw the line between DLC and an expansion? What if instead of warlords for $30 or whatever, we got vassal states for $5, great generals for $5, some scenarios for $10, and new civs and leaders, and whatever else was there I forgot to add for another $10? Either way, we would pay the same amount for the same content at the end of the day.
I think Fallout 3 probably has one of the better implementations of the DLC model - its a moddable game, and the DLC areas aren't really part of the original game, just more areas to visit.
Yeah Sims 3 mods aren't the same as Civ ones. Most of the ones I've seen are simply recolors of items made by the producers. That's not the kind of modding community we want for Civ. I wouldn't believe this unless I heard it straight from Sid's mouth.
The only DLC I wouldn't mind would be scenarios. But then, I think official Civ IV scenarios were less interesting than some of the fan-made mods, so I'd probably not buy anything unless I saw one scenario had enormous praise in the community.
As others have said, it depends how it is implemented. Just because some other companies have did it wrong, doesn't mean every other company which sells DLC has to do it wrong. Bungie sold add-on maps for Halo 3 and it did not destroy MP. If Firaxis sets up the match making correctly and the DLC & game engine is written with foresight, there's no reason the MP experience should suffer in a heterogeneous content having community.
For those that don't know, Bungie offered sets of new maps for a small amount. You weren't required to have the extra maps to keep on playing on XBox-Live, the match making system just payed attention to who had which maps when setting up games. Later on, Bungie just gave the maps away. So in effect the business model is: free DLC was offered, you could pay a fee to get it sooner.
For those that don't know, Bungie offered sets of new maps for a small amount. You weren't required to have the extra maps to keep on playing on XBox-Live, the match making system just payed attention to who had which maps when setting up games. Later on, Bungie just gave the maps away. So in effect the business model is: free DLC was offered, you could pay a fee to get it sooner.
Perfxion
Warlord
Everything I read has said download mods from within the game. Not anything about buying PAID DLC from within the game.
Arkangelus
Prince
Interesting that the Sims and Fallout 3 were mentioned - they're the only games I've had DLC experience with so I can say how I thought they went!
With the Sims, its a complete shambles. They basically have put up what amounts to fairly professional mods for an extortionate price - a dollar per haircut, it works out at, and some of the sets are $20 for some tables and chairs. If Civ went that way then there'd be real trouble.
Fallout though as a pure single player game worked extremely well - the quality of the extra missions with professional voices and art etc was really well done, and while some were better than others it was really more like just buying a small expansion pack.
As a single player game, the only thing that could work with DLC is adding extra leaders and civilizations. That could work - for all the modding community can manage, a fully 3D rendered Ivan the Terrible or Lincoln complete with voice work is likely to be beyond them. In terms of maps or scenarios, the mod community is likely to offer equal or even better stuff for free, so I doubt there'd be any benefit to it.
As has been mention incremental DLCs would ruin multiplayer, especially for games that take literal months or even years to get through. The only way that it could really work would be if it was literally only a graphic swap - Lincoln for Washington with identical traits and bonuses, but the leader just looked different in single play. I wouldnt really see the benefit of that, myself.
I'd think that probably Civ is one of the games that'd be best served by the simple expansion pack model, it'd work far better to introduce a lot of new features at once in a real x-pack rather than quietly bolting them on in the vein of Oblivion and its horse armour/extra houses.
With the Sims, its a complete shambles. They basically have put up what amounts to fairly professional mods for an extortionate price - a dollar per haircut, it works out at, and some of the sets are $20 for some tables and chairs. If Civ went that way then there'd be real trouble.
Fallout though as a pure single player game worked extremely well - the quality of the extra missions with professional voices and art etc was really well done, and while some were better than others it was really more like just buying a small expansion pack.
As a single player game, the only thing that could work with DLC is adding extra leaders and civilizations. That could work - for all the modding community can manage, a fully 3D rendered Ivan the Terrible or Lincoln complete with voice work is likely to be beyond them. In terms of maps or scenarios, the mod community is likely to offer equal or even better stuff for free, so I doubt there'd be any benefit to it.
As has been mention incremental DLCs would ruin multiplayer, especially for games that take literal months or even years to get through. The only way that it could really work would be if it was literally only a graphic swap - Lincoln for Washington with identical traits and bonuses, but the leader just looked different in single play. I wouldnt really see the benefit of that, myself.
I'd think that probably Civ is one of the games that'd be best served by the simple expansion pack model, it'd work far better to introduce a lot of new features at once in a real x-pack rather than quietly bolting them on in the vein of Oblivion and its horse armour/extra houses.
Disgustipated
Deity
the biggest problem I have with DLC's (at least in rpg's which I frequently play) is they are too short, and don't offer a complete story like you would get with a full expansion. Even if you buy several dlc's you are only getting several very brief stories.
A similar problem would exist for civ like games. You'd only get several bits an pieces of "fluff" and no real substance. I'm sure they can design Poland, Netherlands or some other smaller European civ, but how does that improve gameplay at all? I suppose if you live in those countries, you have motivation to buy them, and that could net some profit for them. Personally I prefer more substance with my content. Sure Beyond the Sword had several civilizations you could play, but that's not why I bought it. The expansion also had corporations and other gameplay enhancing features. Not just fluff.
A similar problem would exist for civ like games. You'd only get several bits an pieces of "fluff" and no real substance. I'm sure they can design Poland, Netherlands or some other smaller European civ, but how does that improve gameplay at all? I suppose if you live in those countries, you have motivation to buy them, and that could net some profit for them. Personally I prefer more substance with my content. Sure Beyond the Sword had several civilizations you could play, but that's not why I bought it. The expansion also had corporations and other gameplay enhancing features. Not just fluff.
Gre_Magus
Manet
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 273
I hope they won't do it, but I have a sneaking suspicion that extra leaders for the current civs and new civs (with new leaders, of course) may be released as discrete DLC or in packs (in addition to expansions?). Problems with multiplayer? Well, if multiplayer is better integrated into the game itself (rather than using a 3rd party service) they can just check and disable the choice to play a civ or leader that the other player doesn't have.
If you think about it, it makes sense. With Civ 4, Firaxis couldn't sell new civs or leaders as DLC because they're so easy to mod that they'd be competing with free. As soon as a DLC civ comes out, someone can duplicate it in a free mod and just stick a goofy reskinned leaderhead on it. With these new high-production value leaderheads, you really feel like you're getting something with an official new civ.
I don't like the idea, but they'll probably do something like release a few civs/leaders as DLC and then wrap them all into the expansion pack to catch everybody up for Multiplayer.
If you think about it, it makes sense. With Civ 4, Firaxis couldn't sell new civs or leaders as DLC because they're so easy to mod that they'd be competing with free. As soon as a DLC civ comes out, someone can duplicate it in a free mod and just stick a goofy reskinned leaderhead on it. With these new high-production value leaderheads, you really feel like you're getting something with an official new civ.
I don't like the idea, but they'll probably do something like release a few civs/leaders as DLC and then wrap them all into the expansion pack to catch everybody up for Multiplayer.
Red Adept
Warlord
It's being discussed because it seems to be the wave of the future of gaming. Like subscription services hit you with a monthly charge to play, game companies can make more money (and keep the product viable longer) by adding content.
I would seriously consider purchasing additional leaders/civilizations to play, especially if they bring their own UUs. I would expect these to include fully rendered leaders and backgrounds that you couldn't mod easily. I would expect them to cost $2 at the most and also expect these to be DRMed in some way so that copy was unique to your account.
It doesn't improve gameplay. It is indeed 'fluff', but is it fluff that a reasonable percentage of people playing the game would purchase?
I could then see the expansion pack that carries updates/improvements/additional gameplay to include these as well. Sure, you'll end up paying for them twice, but you got to play them months before everyone else did.
Of course it's all speculation at this point, but it appears to be the new business model.
Take this into consideration.
Civ5 leaders inside diplomacy are full 3d moving models with native language. You think thats going to be easy to mod? I bet civilizations will be made available to buy and will not be made modable. Thats just information we can make a good guess on, Maybe they have more new features that can sell additional content.
Similar threads
- Poll
