To buy or not to buy the DLC

[jabbawackybacky]

I kind of feel that the DLC is just a way for them to profit off of making the game twice without releasing an expansion.

Not to mention, it makes me feel more and more like the game I bought is somehow "unfinished". For $50 with WoW's Cataclysm expac, they added hours and hours of new content. Mind you, blizzard does its own exploitative DLC garbage (the WoW website sells buyable "special mounts" and "pets" for $), but they don't have a "class" as DLC. Granted, the two companies have different business models, but I kind of feel like now 2K is trying to sell us less content for more money.

Not that I am not down to buy the DLC, but all of it together seems to add up quite fast in terms of price. $7.50 is very pricey for two civs and a scenario (though im sure they put a lot of excellent hard work into it), especially if DLC becomes something common. If you get all the maps, the babylonians and these civs, you're paying like half the cost of the game already! I like Civ, but i want to get what i pay for.

Anyways, im not even a civ 5 hater, while civ 4 is still the best ever civ 5 has its own qualities. But I feel like they're charging an exorbitant amount for new content which could at least be distributed for a lower price.

 

[Tatran]

"To buy or not to buy the DLC"

As soon as this question comes to mind you know the answer.

 

[PawelS]

Not to buy.

 

[marioflag]

That's up to you to choose whether or not its price is adequate to the enjoyment it gives you.

Personally i don't like latest developments in pc games with the widespread use of DLC because it compels you to pay more for less content.
Unfortunately at least for now there is really no way to prevent publishers from doing this, considering that we are just people around the globe with no way to organize efficiently any sort of protest against these developments.

I will personally buy any DLC except the map garbage DLC for Civ5 considering that's my favourite series and game and i would surely buy any extra content for this game.

For other games i have waited until a package was released to buy all DLC together considering that they weren't games as important for me as Civ5.

 

[cf_nz]

I won't be buying either. I quite like the DLC options which allows people to pick and choose, it's just that I don't play scenarios and one Civ is pretty much like another to me, the 19 I've already got are fine.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think the production quality for the leaders has been solid. The biggest disappointment was Genghis Khan (partly because they reused Alexander's horse and partly because the voice actor is a bit higher in pitch than I expected Temujin to be). That being said, Nebuchadnezzar is pretty impressive (he is speaking Akkadian, for starters) and some of the originals were great (Monty is quite impressive and I really enjoy Augustus).

Would I pay for quality artwork and the sense of "officialness" for a Civ? Depends on the Civ, but I'll say yes for these two. My knowledge of Spanish is very similar to my knowledge of Latin (aka, I've studied Italian ), so I'm curious how much of Isabella I can understand. And every time they recreate an obscure or dead language, I want to reward them for it. So I'll definitely get the Inca.

As for future DLC? That depends on my money and the Civ in question.

 

[MoonFlare]

Don't buy any Civ DLC.Greedy 2k really think that they released a good game.Civ5 is not good.It's not finished.Normal publishers would give away those DLC for free in a situation like that.But not 2K - they want more money.

 

[Iranon]

Simple: Take the price of the game itself, then add the price of all DLC you expect to come out until the time when you think an expansion would be due if things were done the old-fashioned way, then add whatever you feel covers the uncertainty or your personal annoyance with this business practice (if you don't mind it, this will naturally be 0).

If this figure sounds like a fair price for a game of the quality you got, buy the DLC. If not, don't buy at all until it does. If it doesn't, completeness matters to you and you sunk some money into the title already, whack yourself over the head with a pillow 10 times and report back.

 

[Kamino]

I love Civ games since the beginning.
I was ready to spend 40€ for the core game + 2x30€ for expansions.

But I won't never never NEVER buy such a DLC.
It's a shame.

2K's greed could end my addiction.

 

[Maniacal]

I don't recommend buying the DLC, not yet anyways. I'd wait until there is maybe a sale on it and a enough DLC has been released that it makes an expansion pack (that is what I did with Empire: Total War's DLC).

 

[Louis XXIV]

Don't buy any Civ DLC.Greedy 2k really think that they released a good game.Civ5 is not good.It's not finished.Normal publishers would give away those DLC for free in a situation like that.But not 2K - they want more money.

They gave away the Mongols for free.

You could look at it as greedy publishers or you could look at it as, if they don't sell DLC, they have lay off their artists. Obviously, one of those ways of looking at it is more pro-DLC, but the point it raises holds true.

 

[Horizons]

Well, rumour has it that they have about 20 civs to release as DLC and each will cost a minimum of $2.50. So you're looking at a minimum of $50 of DLC, plus the original game which also cost $50 = 2KGames want at least $100 out of your pockets for Civ 5 (and if you don't pay up there will be no more patches)

 

[Baleur]

Not to mention that Cataclysm was entirely free.... The only expansion content is the new races and lvl 80-85

Imo 2K should just get started on Civilization 5: Beyond The Sword (adding religion, corporations, diplomacy and international trade beyond just +5 gpt or +5 happiness).
That i will buy, anything else wont help.

 

[marioflag]

Not to mention that Cataclysm was entirely free.... The only expansion content is the new races and lvl 80-85

Imo 2K should just get started on Civilization 5: Beyond The Sword (adding religion, corporations, diplomacy and international trade beyond just +5 gpt or +5 happiness).
That i will buy, anything else wont help.

Cataclysm is not a good comparison because you pay a monthly fee. I'm not defending DLC, but releasing civs in DLC doesn't mean that there will not be expansions. Perhaps there is a good chance expansions will not have new playable civs.

 

[ipris]

If they do in fact patch up the multiplayer save file issue before the DLC drops then yeah, I probably will. If the patch comes out after the DLC then no it'd seem like a slap in the face.
Fix the game first!!

 

[Louis XXIV]

Would you buy the DLC after they release a MP patch or is that like a horse being let out of the barn type thing?

 

[edpovi]

That will be everyone's personal decision.

The "good" of DLC is greater flexibility in what new features to purchase and more frequent "mini-expansions". The "bad" of DLC is that getting "everything" is generally more expensive than older business models of putting out bigger, less frequent expansions.

I'm looking forward to the new DLC and I'm certain to get this "2 Civ" DLC The cost is not problem for me, I actually guessed it would cost $10, so $7.5 is ok in my book. Sure I would prefer "free" or $1 per civ, but I can spend that much for an overpriced Latte.

I can appreciate that some folks will not buy the DLC because its either too much money for the perceived value, or as a protest against the trend of DLC as a business model.

If you want ALL of the DLC, but want to pay less than the "al la carte" price, then wait a few months, they will eventually put out a package that as all of the DLC at a significant discount. The real problem is waiting.

 

[rujikin]

Publius Syrius once said: "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it” so if it is worth it to you then buy it. If not than do not buy it.

 

[Maniacal]

Not to mention that Cataclysm was entirely free.... The only expansion content is the new races and lvl 80-85

Cataclysm isn't free, you have to buy it and add the code to your account to get all current and future Cataclysm content besides what they changed in the previous areas. Plus as mentioned there is still a monthly subscription fee.

Imo 2K should just get started on Civilization 5: Beyond The Sword (adding religion, corporations, diplomacy and international trade beyond just +5 gpt or +5 happiness).
That i will buy, anything else wont help.

Or not. Better diplomacy and trade and other stuff will be good for the expansion, but I don't see the appeal of corporations (never used them, and by the time I could use them they were irrelevant) nor did I like the religion in BTS either.

 

[SuperJay]

So far, nothing that 2K Firaxis has released as Civ 5 DLC has been compelling enough for me to buy. They're not adding anything to the game that will significantly increase my enjoyment of that game.

With any DLC, the question for me is less about cost and more about value. What am I getting in that DLC, and is it worth for the game it expands? Is that game in a state that I find enjoyable currently? Both Civ 5 and Fallout: New Vegas fall into the "No" category for me; there's too much wrong with the base game for me to even think about spending MORE money on it.

On the other hand, you have DLC like the Undead Nightmare pack for Red Dead Redemption. That game was a blast, it ran smoothly and it was a world that I already wanted to spend more time in, so it's already ripe for DLC as far as I'm concerned. I haven't bought it yet, but from what I've heard, the DLC has quite a lot of content for the price, so it's on the list for me to purchase eventually.

Maybe if Civ5 gets fixed and I end up finding it enjoyable again, I'll consider future DLC offerings. But simply adding new civs and map packs isn't going to cut it, for me; the game isn't going to play any differently just by adding more optional bells and whistles.