There will be a third expansion and/or more DLC for Civ5?

[baptismbyfire]

The question is why would 2K or Firaxis even get in the middle of that? Why jeopardize the ability to do any business in China for any reason, not just for Civ? Why take the chance of being unable to either sell or recruit developers there? Having Tibet or Taiwan in the game just doesn't bring enough to the table to demand it. You can have Nepal instead of Tibet and have basically the same gameplay. What would Taiwan's special features be that aren't already covered by the civilization it claims to be part of, China? It's all just so preposterous to even be arguing about it.

 

[baptismbyfire]

I'd never thought of the Great Firewall as having anything to do with China. I don't think it mocks anything. All it is is supposed to represent the attempts many countries are making, including the US, to prevent cybersecurity breaches.

 

[JFD]

He made a case that it would do just the opposite. Any case that China sales would be impacted is supported by "Chinese government doesn't like it". Which is all well and good, but we have data that can be interpreted as showing the Chinese consumer market at the moment pirates more than they buy. Therefore, impact of "Chinese government doesn't like it" is minimal.

My point wasn't about the impact the inclusion of Tibet might have in regards to a Chinese reaction - an impact which would undoubtedly translate into a ban in China, which may or may not result in a substantial loss. My point was the impact that a gaming company taking a political stance might have - or the interpretation of a stance - is another thing that Firaxis surely considers. Sure, Firaxis would be including a historical Tibet and would be taking no position of their own, but there would be the potential for people to miscontrue that - purposefully or not - in the same way that there was the risk that people would miscontrue the intentions of Great Prophet names, which they avoided. It's simply not worth including Tibet in such a high-profile game, regardless of the deservedness of the civ itself.

 

[Carl5872]

My point wasn't about the impact the inclusion of Tibet might have in regards to a Chinese reaction - an impact which would undoubtedly translate into a ban in China, which may or may not result in a substantial loss. My point was the impact that a gaming company taking a political stance might have - or the interpretation of a stance - is another thing that Firaxis surely considers. Sure, Firaxis would be including a historical Tibet and would be taking no position of their own, but there would be the potential for people to miscontrue that - purposefully or not - in the same way that there was the risk that people would miscontrue the intentions of Great Prophet names, which they avoided. It's simply not worth including Tibet in such a high-profile game, regardless of the deservedness of the civ itself.

Moses was in Civ 4. To my knowledge no religions of the Book complained about it. Had they put in Jesus or Muhammad, I think that would have angered people though.

 

[JFD]

Moses was in Civ 4. To my knowledge no religions of the Book complained about it. Had they put in Jesus or Muhammad, I think that would have angered people though.

And so was Stalin. But they made a decision to avoid such things this time round and certainly not for no reason.

 

[whyidie]

My point was the impact that a gaming company taking a political stance might have - or the interpretation of a stance - is another thing that Firaxis surely considers. Sure, Firaxis would be including a historical Tibet and would be taking no position of their own, but there would be the potential for people to miscontrue that - purposefully or not - in the same way that there was the risk that people would miscontrue the intentions of Great Prophet names, which they avoided.

Thats no fun. From a what will they do perspective, or what do they consider perspective, there is no argument.

You made the very good point of "Why risk Tibet when you have Nepal". Thats a great solution to the practical problem of "Chinese govt doesn't like X".

The interesting bit to me is the assumption that the government banning a game will have a significant impact on the games adoption in China, not whether or not the perception of this impact is that it is great.

Short, medium, and long term, what would would be the material impact be on the game if the Chinese govt banned it. What if it were Uighurs vs Tibet vs xyz Civ. Lots of things I would find interesting in that discussion....but this is probably the point where I get reminded that this is not the thread for it.

 

[ptoss1]

And just thought of another thing. I would have to imagine the inclusion of Tibet as a civ would be comparably offensive to China as creating the Golden Shield Project and labeling it the Great Firewall. I honestly don't know the Chinese governments opinion, but I would think the Great Firewall mocks their Golden Shield Project, and position on censorship in general. To my knowledge they haven't made a fuss over it, so it may be they wouldn't make a fuss over including Tibet.

Idk... That Great Firewall is pretty powerful. I think the Chinese would take it as a complement.

 

[Carl5872]

Idk... That Great Firewall is pretty powerful. I think the Chinese would take it as a complement.

I was getting at that the official name is the Golden Shield Project. The angle I took on it was that calling it the Great Firewall was a dig at the censorship that project created.

But to stay with the spirit of this thread, I think there will be more DLC but a small chance of an expansion for Civ 5.

The DLC im fairly certain of, because there is no shortage of civs people want, and it acts as a good way to keep people talking about the Civ series in general while they brainstorm Civ 6.

An additional expansion, I'm not so sure of though. I think the game overhauls that can be made arent as big as adding religion, espionage, trade routes, tourism and ideologies. If they were to add another expansion, I think it would be a patchwork of smaller things such as random events, possibly new resources, techs and units. They always have the option of adding another UU/UB. While I would buy a 3rd expansion without even knowing whats in it, I doubt they will make one.

 

[grandad1982]

I'm going with neither.

Civ6 will be next I guess. Also loads of people got on their high horses and cried about DLC so I'm not really expecting that either.

I felt that the extra nations as DLC was ok. The wonders and maps not so much. If it was paradox then you'd probably get new map types free in a patch when DLC was released!

 

[whyidie]

The question is why would 2K or Firaxis even get in the middle of that? Why jeopardize the ability to do any business in China for any reason, not just for Civ? Why take the chance of being unable to either sell or recruit developers there? Having Tibet or Taiwan in the game just doesn't bring enough to the table to demand it. You can have Nepal instead of Tibet and have basically the same gameplay. What would Taiwan's special features be that aren't already covered by the civilization it claims to be part of, China? It's all just so preposterous to even be arguing about it.

Oops. I credited the wrong person on the point about Nepal instead of Taiwan. Sorry about that, didn't quote properly.

 

[InsanelyApple]

I'm going with neither.

Civ6 will be next I guess. Also loads of people got on their high horses and cried about DLC so I'm not really expecting that either.

I felt that the extra nations as DLC was ok. The wonders and maps not so much. If it was paradox then you'd probably get new map types free in a patch when DLC was released!

If it was Paradox, we'd get alternative leader icons as DLC.

 

[ajok]

why not songstan gampo of nepal (while they made gajah mada of indonesia)??

 

[Hawawaa]

Mini expansion (10-15$) or expansion is good in my book, then move on to Civ 6.

 

[kingchris20]

It definitely seems that patches are all that's left for civ V......which is not a terrible thing, because that means Civ VI is possibly looking at a release in 2015-2016!

 

[ptoss1]

It definitely seems that patches are all that's left for civ V......which is not a terrible thing, because that means Civ VI is possibly looking at a release in 2015-2016!

Unless CiVI is a rehash of CiV Vanilla.

 

[CanaDutch]

If many people here request/demand certain features like vassals, colonies, corporations or simply more civilizations I'm sure the devs will seriously consider it, as they do apparently visit the forum frequently.

 

[ajok]

i think will be 2 dlc to go

 

[ACivFan]

Thats no fun. From a what will they do perspective, or what do they consider perspective, there is no argument.

You made the very good point of "Why risk Tibet when you have Nepal". Thats a great solution to the practical problem of "Chinese govt doesn't like X".

The interesting bit to me is the assumption that the government banning a game will have a significant impact on the games adoption in China, not whether or not the perception of this impact is that it is great.

Short, medium, and long term, what would would be the material impact be on the game if the Chinese govt banned it. What if it were Uighurs vs Tibet vs xyz Civ. Lots of things I would find interesting in that discussion....but this is probably the point where I get reminded that this is not the thread for it.

If the Chinese government banned a game because of sexual content, Chinese netizens would rummage the internet looking for that game. However, if they banned it for the inclusion of Tibet, more likely than not the Chinese gaming market would boycott the game too.

The Chinese internet is quite a pirate infested place, but that doesn't mean you can't make money selling your legitimate products there. Certainly not much with Civ5, but if Firaxis play it well with their future games, they can milk a lot out of this market. Riot Game is making loads of revenue there with their "free" game, LoL.

Think about it, how many people who have never played Civ5 would feel incline to buy Civ5 after learning about the inclusion of Tibet? I believe it has to be in the order of thousands to outweigh the immediate impact of being banning in China. Even so, how about the long term impact? Firaxis isn't Google whose business' constantly collide against the Chinese government's interest; why crossing them if you could avoid them? Firaxis did not cross the Pueblo council, and they will not cross the Chinese government.

 

[BrokenSky]

Hold up. Everyone seems dead set on arguing about this, but really should there even be a Tibet (or maybe Nepal) civ?

I mean yes they have a culture significantly different from others, but surely there are more prerequisites than simply being a notable country or peoples?

What I really mean is does 'Lord X of the Tibetan Empire' or 'Consul X of the Nepalese Empire' sound right to you? Because that's what the game describes every civ as; an Empire, and I think this should be considered when any culture is suggested for inclusion; was this civ ever great, and why.

I'm not giving my opinion about the inclusion of Tibet by the way; I don't know enough about that particular culture to give a judgement, and it may be obvious to anyone who does that yes they obviously should be included if it weren't for the controversy potential, but I don't know this to be the case and I'm suggesting that maybe this ought to be discussed as well as whether this may be unpopular with the Chinese government.

 

[ACivFan]

What I really mean is does 'Lord X of the Tibetan Empire' or 'Consul X of the Nepalese Empire' sound right to you? Because that's what the game describes every civ as; an Empire, and I think this should be considered when any culture is suggested for inclusion; was this civ ever great, and why.

Though I am against Firaxis getting tangled into the Tibet issue and got banned in China, I disagree with your belittlement of Tibet. From about the 6th to the 10th centuries, it was a powerful empire in every sense. It was able to wrest control of Western China and the Chinese segment of the silkroad from Tang China. This must have meant Tibet's military was at least on par with that of China at the time because the Tangs, unlike any other ruling houses of China, were particularly interested and had invested a lot of resources into expanding their realm into Central Asia. When I was reading about Tibet and Tang's struggle to control the area around Dun Huang, the ending excerpt said that Tibet would later achieve a major victory, push to Xian (Chang An at the time), and install a puppet emperor there. China's history recognizes the outcome of the battle but makes no comment about the puppet emperor part.

About Nepal, it was never an empire, and their kings never claim to be emperor. However, if we have the Iroquois "empire", Shoshone "empire", and Zulu "empire", ... Nepal is more than qualify as an empire.