To buy or not to buy the DLC

[charon2112]

Plus, what is the difference if it exists and you don't buy it or if they simply never make it?

Because it means that they created a certain number of civs and leaders, and then said, "let's hold back four (or more) of them, and then charge more for them later." That's pretty sketchy. It would be totally different if say, two years went by and then they created a few new civs and charged for them.

 

[PawelS]

Because it means that they created a certain number of civs and leaders, and then said, "let's hold back four (or more) of them, and then charge more for them later." That's pretty sketchy. It would be totally different if say, two years went by and then they created a few new civs and charged for them.

Unfortunately it's how the game business works lately (several DLCs for Dragon Age were ready at the same time as the game, for example).

But it's not a problem for me, I don't need more civs, 18 is enough. I even removed Mongolia from my version of the game because I don't like its UUs and UA.

 

[charon2112]

Unfortunately it's how the game business works lately (several DLCs for Dragon Age were ready at the same time as the game, for example).

But it's not a problem for me, I don't need more civs, 18 is enough. I even removed Mongolia from my version of the game because I don't like its UUs and UA.

Oh no! I like Mongolia, actually. Did you find them over or under-powered...?

 

[PawelS]

Oh no! I like Mongolia, actually. Did you find them over or under-powered...?

About the UA, I don't know if it's over- or underpowered, I just don't like it, because I don't like when city states are destroyed too easily. The UUs seem overpowered to me.

 

[snipperrabbit!!]

I paid 55€ for 20 civs ! How must should cost 2 more civs ? If you don't want to pay more, nothing prevents you from playing the game without those civs. The game was released 3 months ago and they gave Mongolia for free because they mostly intended to offer it on release day but cannot.
Stop whinning and get over it, Mongolia is the one and only civ that should have been available on september. I can see the same argument from you in March for the next DLC !

Now it would great if the game finally get fixed !

 

[Kerosene31]

Because it means that they created a certain number of civs and leaders, and then said, "let's hold back four (or more) of them, and then charge more for them later." That's pretty sketchy. It would be totally different if say, two years went by and then they created a few new civs and charged for them.

You knew how many there were before you bought the game. It was well known that DLC was coming as well. There were already extra Civs available for pre-order.

I just don't understand why people would not want the option to add more to their game?

What if no DLC ever came out? Would it change the original game you bought?

If you choose not to buy, that's perfectly fine.

 

[marioflag]

For me, the argument isnt with people buying the DLC. I don't mind them. The argument is with 2K charging a hefty price for it. Now, if this was the only DLC, that would be one thing, but they will probably have more released ... say they add 3 sets of DLC, that's $22.50 (price ~ $7.50) for six civs and three scenarios, assuming it follows the current model.

As a customer, I have a right to demand what I'm paying for. Consumers should be advocates for themselves, otherwise they are liable to spend money unwisely.


Compare this to BTS or Warlords. Yes you paid more money, but you got far more total content for the money you paid. You have new objectives (Apostolic palace victory), new wonders, new civs, scenarios, people, buildings, leaderheads, units, more strategic depths with vassalage, etc. And the game itself already initially came in a more "complete" manner, with all sorts of elements which aren't in the current game, like religion.

DLC will always be far more costly and offer less content than a full game or an expansion.
They are also optional content which you can decide to buy or not.

People should just understand that DLC are going to be normal practice for the release of future games and the only way to influence this process is through your wallet.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I'm going to buy it if I find that the patch makes the game enjoyable.

The politics of DLC don't amount to anything in my eyes, so it really just comes down to this.

 

[Louis XXIV]

To buy or not to buy? That's simple. Look at this in economic terms - every decision entails an opportunity cost. If you buy the DLC, that's $7.50 you could have spent elsewhere. You need to ask yourself whether the enjoyment you will get from the DLC exceeds the enjoyment you would get from anything else that you could have bought with the $7.50 (e.g. a movie, a meal, a book, three bags of chips, 1/5 of another game, whatever).

Well put, although I'll add the caveat that it has to be 1/5 of a specific game (and it's sort of between a fifth and a sixth).

 

[PawelS]

The fact that the DLCs offer less value for money can be justified: they are for the true fans of the game, who are willing to pay much more for "content" than an average player. This is something along the lines of the theory of Price Differentiation.

Edit: I found something in that Wikipedia article that seems to apply to game DLCs (and the so-called "limited editions"):

Price discrimination can also be seen where the requirement that goods be identical is relaxed. For example, so-called "premium products" (including relatively simple products, such as cappuccino compared to regular coffee) have a price differential that is not explained by the cost of production. Some economists have argued that this is a form of price discrimination exercised by providing a means for consumers to reveal their willingness to pay.

 

[lietkynes]

If the next patch is good, I will also buy the DLC, really 5 dollars is nothing, I don't care. Spanish and Inca look very nice.

If the next patch is not good enough, I won't buy any DLC and I will also uninstall the game until Firaxis finally makes Civ5 a decent game.

 

[Yzman]

I plan on buying them. I want the new civs and really that price is nothing.

 

[Catastrophe90]

Might buy them depending on how the game turns out. Besides, 7.50$ is cheaper than going to the movies (its around 10$ here in Canada per ticket), and 3 Civ 5 games (1 as Inca, 1 as Spain and 1 for the scenario) will most likely be much much enjoyable and last much more longer than your run-of-the-mill Hollywood movie.

Edit:
As for the DLC available for multiplayer part, I'm all for it. However, in order for optional content to be available for multiplayer matches, AFAIK Firaxis will have to take a page out of Relic's book: make players download a patch that contains data for the new content. This would mean that every single time a DLC comes out, everybody (including the ones that didn't buy the DLC) will have to download the soundtrack, animations, figureheads, unit graphics and all that stuff that comes with new civs. Depending on the size of those packages, it might be quite annoying (no playing before patch download finishes, remember?). Otherwise, multiplayer lobbies would be a mess. Of course, I'm no game programmer, so there may be another (simpler and more elegant) way to do it. Just food for thought, since I remember some people complaining about slow patch downloads due to Steam server overload.

 

[Mad Hab]

I'm not playing Civ 5 nowadays - for me, the game is too flawed to be enjoyable. So I'll not be spending any money (even if they charged 50 cents) on something I won't use.

Maybe I'll buy the Gold/Complete/Platinum/Whatever Edition when they release it (in 2013, perhaps?). Maybe...

Cheers!

Mad Hab

 

[CivFart]

I will rent it.

 

[AlpsStranger]

make players download a patch that contains data for the new content. This would mean that every single time a DLC comes out, everybody (including the ones that didn't buy the DLC) will have to download the soundtrack, animations, figureheads, unit graphics and all that stuff that comes with new civs.

This is exactly why they don't work in MP.

If Firaxis does the sensible thing and follows this advice I promise you at least a dozen rage threads from people that live in an offshore moon cave and get their downloads via carrier pigeon. Bandwidth is more precious than blood to them they'll claim. It'll just become another anti-DLC bludgeon.

The counter-suggestion that everyone is going to pile in here to make is too sloppy to be good. "Sorry, you have to unselect the Inca because someone without them just joined the game." Way too messy. My prediction is that the DLC-MP method will be exactly what Cata describes above.

 

[Fabien]

I'll buy the DLC, just because I like the two new civs. I'm having a lot of fun with Civ 5 right now and I'm happy to support Firaxis by spending a few dollars. Gaming is really a cheap hobby and the amount of enjoyment I get out of a product like Civ 5 is always worth the money even if it cost double the amount of what we currently pay.

If you really get worked up that much about having to spend another few dollars to have a "complete" game I suggest you never ever look at the spending of your governement. You'll instantly have a heart attack and die on the spot . And It's not like taxes are something you can chose not to pay.

Are the Details of the UU etc already known? I keep checking the threads and some people seem to know but is seems they don't want to tell us .

 

[501st Legion]

make players download a patch that contains data for the new content. This would mean that every single time a DLC comes out, everybody (including the ones that didn't buy the DLC) will have to download the soundtrack, animations, figureheads, unit graphics and all that stuff that comes with new civs

The moment this happens there will most likely be a dozen or so threads with people raging that they can't use all the stuff installed in their game files. And wouldn't this turn DLC into ULC (unlock-able content)?

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Compare this to BTS or Warlords. Yes you paid more money, but you got far more total content for the money you paid. You have new objectives (Apostolic palace victory), new wonders, new civs, scenarios, people, buildings, leaderheads, units, more strategic depths with vassalage, etc. And the game itself already initially came in a more "complete" manner, with all sorts of elements which aren't in the current game, like religion.

Absolutely right. Since i bought Civ4 complete for a reasonably good price (IIRC, 39.95CDN$) all wrapped up in a boxset, DVD, printed manual included... there is good reason to fear being milked out by the new model of distribution by corps such as 2K (EA, and so on).
DLC is just a symptom of a much bigger trend in the gaming industry.
Still, liberty of spending is a decision we either make or juggle with for extended periods of time.
Bargain bins aside, some treasure deals are always near your need anyway.
Steam requirement really puzzled me at first... but i can at least understand why to some extent.

 

[jagdtigerciv]

You've got to admit. The Mongolia scenario was pretty atrocious. It told me: don't buy DLCs for scenarios. If I were to buy them, its simply because i'd want to play as Babylon, Spain or Inca simply for fun.