Pre order v Non pre order multiplayer via steam

[Simo]

In Civ 5 to play against friend who had a mac they needed to buy the steam version of the game to play against my PC version. We had to have the exact same update/game version.

My question is if I pre order and my regulars do not (looking likely) will we have to wait the 3 months before the same version is available to the non pre order players to play multiplayer games (my assumption here is that the pre orders will have a different game version since they have access to more civs)?

Also I would like to support my local game shop, is it still the same as 5 on the PC where If i buy a disc version it automatically goes into my steam library (only reason I want steam is I need it to play PC v Mac in multiplayer, if that no longer applies I dont have a need for steam)

Thanks for any info

 

[Zaarin]

Can't answer the rest, but yes, Civ6 will still use Steam as DRM (i.e., yes, you will still use Steam to play Civ6, just like Civ5).

 

[Acken]

We dont know yet if the crappy system of dlc for multiplayer is still a thing.

 

[anandus]

You can disable DLC. If you disable the Aztec, you shouldn't have any issues playing with post-release buyers.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The best solution I've seen is - those who own DLC could play as DLC civs, while those who don't own - can't use them. But they still could be in the same game, so if you don't own Aztecs, you can't play as Aztecs in multiplayer, but can play against them.

Other things to think about in this scheme:
- Is it possible to have AI Aztecs? The most logical answer is - depends on whether the game master owns the Aztecs.
- What about unique wonder coming with Aztecs? strongly dislike having wonders in DLC and I don't see any good answer to the question.

Of course, there's a simplest answer - treat DLC as mods and require all players in MP game to have the same set of mods/DLCs enabled.

 

[Siptah]

In Civ 5 to play against friend who had a mac they needed to buy the steam version of the game to play against my PC version.

We have no information about that, but I am pretty sure it is like that again. You'll require the exact same version of the game. The non-Steam Mac version will lack behind with patches, expansions and DLC again probably anyway. So if everyone buys Steam versions, it is safe to assume it works.

 

[Wolle68]

Of course, there's a simplest answer - treat DLC as mods and require all players in MP game to have the same set of mods/DLCs enabled.

The screenshot you uploaded of the start menu suggests exactly that option:

Spoiler :

Note that the Aztecs are referred to as a mod.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Note that the Aztecs are referred to as a mod.

Yes, but this part could be actually temporary.

 

[Ryika]

The best solution I've seen is - those who own DLC could play as DLC civs, while those who don't own - can't use them. But they still could be in the same game, so if you don't own Aztecs, you can't play as Aztecs in multiplayer, but can play against them.

I disagree.

The ideal solution in my book is that in MP everybody has access to all the dlc that is enabled by at least one of the players. I don't even understand why so many games are still so hesitant to make this the default.

 

[anandus]

The best solution I've seen is - those who own DLC could play as DLC civs, while those who don't own - can't use them. But they still could be in the same game, so if you don't own Aztecs, you can't play as Aztecs in multiplayer, but can play against them.

I agree, but this can only work if properly balanced. And it would be difficult to implement when new features are introduced (eg religion in Gods & Kings).

I disagree.

The ideal solution in my book is that in MP everybody has access to all the dlc that is enabled by at least one of the players. I don't even understand why so many games are still so hesitant to make this the default.

Why would they do that? That means only you or one of your friends have to buy the DLC. That's not a sane business model.
I mean, it would be nice, but I don't blame a company for not making that choice.

 

[Ryika]

Why would they do that? That means only you or one of your friends have to buy the DLC. That's not a sane business model.
I mean, it would be nice, but I don't blame a company for not making that choice.

Civ is not a Multiplayer-only game and only few people will ever be "Multiplayer-only players". Being able to play everything in a multiplayer-environment encourages you to buy stuff for your singleplayer-experience while at the same time making the multiplayer feel "fair".

The only reason _not_ to do that is if they think they can actually get more sales from people who feel like they need to "have" certain Civs in Multiplayer than they get people who play a Civ in Multiplayer and then want to use it for Singleplayer. ...which would only happen if those Civs are overpowered as hell in Multiplayer.

 

[Wolle68]

The ideal solution in my book is that in MP everybody has access to all the dlc that is enabled by at least one of the players. I don't even understand why so many games are still so hesitant to make this the default.

Why would they do that? That means only you or one of your friends have to buy the DLC. That's not a sane business model.
I mean, it would be nice, but I don't blame a company for not making that choice.

That's just if you play multiplayer only, which is not a big part of the player base. Some players may even be tempted to get the DLC after they've played a civ in the multiplayer, so it's not obvious that it's a net loss.

EDIT: Ninja'd

 

[anandus]

Maybe I'm biased, as I and my friends play Civ only in multiplayer, indeed, never in singleplayer.
I forgot it's for many people also a singleplayer game

 

[x2Madda]

Maybe I'm biased, as I and my friends play Civ only in multiplayer, indeed, never in singleplayer.
I forgot it's for many people also a singleplayer game

Easy to forget that sometimes.

I am very interested in the new MP offerings, I honestly was not expecting them to care about it at all.

 

[Acken]

Well if they are afraid of losing dlc sales then for civ dlc they could just lock you out of that specific civ. For map dlc if the host has it it should allow you to play the map. For expansion everybody should have it.

Either way locking you out of a game because you dont have a small civ dlc is stupid. And so is expecting players to manipulate their dlc library so that they all match.

Same thing for save games please.