God of Kings
Ruler of all heads of state
It would be great if there were a special discount code for already owning the game on one platform.
[R&F] Rise and Fall General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter bite
- Start date
Re: Continued DLC civs
Remember that post-1st xpac for Civ5 there were no further DLC civs, so it really is a million dollar question.
The obvious "Yes" is that they can make money.
The obvious "No" is because the Deluxe edition, which has been available since pre-order, now includes *all* of the separate DLCs, which means there *already exists* a "Vanilla Complete Edition".
I think they will. They're onto a good thing, and they know it
Remember that post-1st xpac for Civ5 there were no further DLC civs, so it really is a million dollar question.
The obvious "Yes" is that they can make money.
The obvious "No" is because the Deluxe edition, which has been available since pre-order, now includes *all* of the separate DLCs, which means there *already exists* a "Vanilla Complete Edition".
God of Kings
Ruler of all heads of state
I'm willing to bet that there's going to be R&F-exclusive DLCs.
There's no DDE for R&F specifically, which means that R&F owners would spend more for the R&F-exclusive DLCs.
There's no DDE for R&F specifically, which means that R&F owners would spend more for the R&F-exclusive DLCs.
AvianBritish
King
Also not to mention that in the previous Expansions we got 9 Civs(?) and this time we are only getting 8 Civs and 1 Alt-Leader. Because of this I think they will push at least a couple of DLCs in order to get that number up to 10 Civs in the Expansion and post-expansion DLCs.
I'm sure they're thinking about DLC. Post expansion DLC runs into the awkward scenario of not being able to use new features lest they restrict the market to only the percentage of owners who bought R&F. Not that they couldn't technically do it, I just don't see why they would. The DLC so far had a pretty bad reception by Steam metrics (i.e. it got review bombed). A lot of that came down to people feeling "forced" into it because they bought the deluxe edition or just plain wanting an expansion pack instead.
God of Kings
Ruler of all heads of state
The more civs, the merrier, which is why I still believe that there would be R&F-exclusive DLCs.
Also remember two things:
Past behaviour is an indicator of future behaviour, suggesting it's not 100% that they will DLC post xpac.
*AND*
EA's public relations disaster with Battlefront II that will, in all likelihood, seriously impact the monetization of that title has caused a huge backlash. Now, in "our niche" of strategy gaming, we're a special bunch where not only do we accept DLCs and microtransations, but we basically demand them and expect them AND where one of the biggest developer/publishers in our niche (Paradox) has basically made all of their titles MMOs with subscriptions and we're all cool with it.
But Firaxis would probably want to do their thing, but what about Take Two? Is it possible someone in Take Two's marketing might whisper in the wrong ear and suggest that maybe backing off from DLCs might not be a bad idea?
Personally, I love DLC civs. I've mentioned it before and I'll keep mentioning it: I miss Call to Power 2 and their 100 generic civs. Give me a DLC with some cute artwork and a civ name list and I'll buy them by the dozen. But I'm not 100% certain it'll happen.
Past behaviour is an indicator of future behaviour, suggesting it's not 100% that they will DLC post xpac.
*AND*
EA's public relations disaster with Battlefront II that will, in all likelihood, seriously impact the monetization of that title has caused a huge backlash. Now, in "our niche" of strategy gaming, we're a special bunch where not only do we accept DLCs and microtransations, but we basically demand them and expect them AND where one of the biggest developer/publishers in our niche (Paradox) has basically made all of their titles MMOs with subscriptions and we're all cool with it.
But Firaxis would probably want to do their thing, but what about Take Two? Is it possible someone in Take Two's marketing might whisper in the wrong ear and suggest that maybe backing off from DLCs might not be a bad idea?
Personally, I love DLC civs. I've mentioned it before and I'll keep mentioning it: I miss Call to Power 2 and their 100 generic civs. Give me a DLC with some cute artwork and a civ name list and I'll buy them by the dozen. But I'm not 100% certain it'll happen.
Wingednosering
Prince
I just mentioned this on another thread, but I have never seen a game have a DLC that requires another DLC. I imagine you'd end up with a lot of discontent amongst users that tried to buy a civ without having R&F.
One alternative is to do what ended up happening to Spain in V. Do a vanilla and expansion version of each civ. The extra dev time probably wouldn't be worthwhile though.
One alternative is to do what ended up happening to Spain in V. Do a vanilla and expansion version of each civ. The extra dev time probably wouldn't be worthwhile though.
So unless the civ can be merged into BOTH seamlessly, we're back to my point: I'm leaning against post-xpac DLC civs being made.
AvianBritish
King
But isn't there a mechanism on Steam where if you try and by a DLC which requires another DLC to run, it will warn you that it needs the predecessor; so it shouldn't really cause an issue other people's impatience and inability to read warning messages.
EDIT: I might be thinking of a mechanism like that for Mods which require a DLC; however why couldn't this be implemented for DLCs on DLCs? What happens if you try to by Civ5 BNW without Civ5 G+K?
Hi. Welcome to the internet. It's 2017, almost 2018. You must be new here.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 18,949
I believe BNW requires G&K. And technically they are DLC.
God of Kings
Ruler of all heads of state
That would be a great safeguard. The App Store (both of the Mac variety and the iOS variety) could do the same as well.
The Battlefront II has basically turned into an anti-lootbox backlash. If EA goes back to a standard 'you pay this for a DLC' (ala civ/paradox/etc.) instead of the more 'rng'/gambling-esque elements, that'll might be seen as a win at this point.
That's an interesting point - I think that would be an issue to have DLC reliant on the expansion (i.e. BNW simply included all of Gods and Kings base mechanics). They could certainly just do DLC civs that don't use the new mechanics (i.e. Mongolia could have been a vanilla Civ with it's design), but then people who have the expansions would be annoyed at DLC civs that didn't use the new mechanics. It might not be that hard to do a vanilla and expansion version if they were something like the Netherlands though, which you just remove the loyalty boost for trade routes for vanilla (but leave the culture boost), and that's about it.
I think BNW includes all the G&K mechanics. i.e. you just buy BNW and you get the full game mechanics (including religion etc.), just not the G&K civs.
God of Kings
Ruler of all heads of state
Ethiopia is the only G&K civ available for BNW.
nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
And in Civ 4 there was no such thing as DLC; nor was the game on Steam. No point factoring too much into the last release.
I'd agree...and yet we have an expansion coming out 16 months after the release of vanilla.
Personally I think that they have found the reception to DLC to be far more positive than negative, and so they will continue to meet that demand.
I don't think it is that big a hurdle. They just need to make it ultra clear on the Steam DLC page which DLC runs with the whole game, and which only works with Rise and Fall.
There are plenty of toys and games with these kind of disclaimers on shelves in stores. Yeah, some womble will get it wrong (and complain about it), but the vast majority of players are savvy enough to follow this straight forward logic, esp if it is highlighted at point of sale etc.
God of Kings
Ruler of all heads of state
Those who complain about R&F-exclusive DLCs are generally not the target market for DLCs in general and will complain for the sake of complaining.
You have a more optimistic view of Steam users than I do, at least with the number of deluxe edition purchasers who wrote bad reviews because they thought their purchase would include a future expansion(!).
But mostly, I don't think they'd want the PR of being the first gaming company on steam whose DLC requires DLC (as that seems to be the case).
Honestly though, the more I think about it, the more this seems irrelevant. They don't need to create DLC civs that works specifically with the expansion mechanics. They just need to create DLC civs that are interesting to play, and ideally even have new mechanics (see the now-often-used culture bomb, introduced with the Poland DLC) and I think people will be satisfied.
Edit: i.e. I think people can continue to make modded civs that work both with or without the expansion, no?
God of Kings
Ruler of all heads of state
The Steam community has a large contingent of people who are just steaming piles of [unpublishable word] anyways.
No matter what, it's impossible to satisfy everyone.
There will be complaints about DLCs requiring other DLCs no matter what and Firaxis will survive that.
DLCs that don't take advantage of what R&F has to offer would be seen as lacklustre.
Doing nothing would lead to complaints about not having enough Civs.
Thus, complaints are inevitable, especially from toxic communities. The vast majority of Civ players are happy with what they have and the complaints generally don't reflect the community as a whole.
Similar threads
