What do you guys expect/want to see for DLC?

[Auncien]

I'd most like to see things that modify the core gameplay. I want units, civilizations, more city-states, buildings, wonders, map goodies (like new natural wonders). I'd love to see a 'seasons and weather' DLC package with maybe a day / night cycle (yes I am aware of the timescale of the game =)

I'd also like to see full core game expansion content like 'Beyond the Sword' style. Maybe flesh out the city-state / puppet state mechanics a bit, some new tile improvements or entirely new gameplay systems layered onto what's there already (stuff that's not always totally wrapped around warfare, please... other things have happened in history).

As long as it is quality, not too expensive and substantive rather than gimmicky (map packs.... yuck) then I will pay for all of it over the coming years. I really like the fact, actually, that its now like a 'Civilization Set' that you can keep adding onto like a Warhammer tabletop army or something. Keeps you feeling that 'new' feeling throughout the life of the game.

 

[501st Legion]

As others said, the only DLC I want to see are professional scenarios and maps. Perhaps throw in some cosmetic DLC like the The Sims stuff packs since they don't affect gameplay. I don't want to see new units, buildings, resources, wonders, technologies and the like being sold as DLC. As another user said, leave that to expansions. Perhaps Firaxis can do a favor to those who don't have a fast, stable internet connection without a download limit by adding all DLC in an expansion pack?

 

[adamandkate]

For new release games, digital versions will never be cheaper than boxed versions, because the brick&mortar stores would pitch a bloody blue fit over that. It would drive them out of business (justifiably so in my view). So contractually Steam will never be allowed to sell things for cheaper at release time.
The benefit of Steam comes mostly after that period, when they can then start offering super deals on great titles "slightly less than new" and you can pick up fantastic games for $5-$10 during special sales. And this is what makes them so much money, people making impulse-buys when they see stuff on sale for just a few bucks. I myself have bought tons of games I might otherwise never have bought, solely because they were up on one of the great Steam Sales.

to me it sounds like the brick and mortar stores are price fixing, and thats illegal in many countries.

 

[Yosomono]

to me it sounds like the brick and mortar stores are price fixing, and thats illegal in many countries.

I'm not a lawyer but I should think it possible to build a case against the publishers and stores for collusion in price fixing or some such thing.

 

[JtW]

I'd pay for a total conversion DLC, something like alpha centauri or a fantasy mod.

Totally agree. I would buy a Final Frontier remake and a Master of Magic type of mod.

Also Civs: modders won't be able to create 3D models on par with those provided by Firaxis. I also think that Firaxis' made civs will tend to be more balanced.

 

[feelotraveller]

Couldn't the same argument be made for not buying expansion packs?

The thing is with expansion packs there are significant changes and everyone (who buys it) is playing a new game - eg. BtS. There are significant gameplay changes usually as well (e.g. adding espionage).

Trouble with dlc as I understand it's going to work is that there will be heaps of competing versions - someone will have vanilla, someone else v+babylon, someone else v+2 unknown civ's, someone else... This will quickly become a nightmare as the possibilities of combination of these elements play out as 2^n where is n is the number of (relevant) dlc's. Think about it - by the time there are 5 separate dlc's we will have 32 different versions of the game. Are we going to have 32 different forums? Of course not, it'll just be a morass of confusion instead.

 

[Tridus]

For new release games, digital versions will never be cheaper than boxed versions, because the brick&mortar stores would pitch a bloody blue fit over that. It would drive them out of business (justifiably so in my view). So contractually Steam will never be allowed to sell things for cheaper at release time.
The benefit of Steam comes mostly after that period, when they can then start offering super deals on great titles "slightly less than new" and you can pick up fantastic games for $5-$10 during special sales. And this is what makes them so much money, people making impulse-buys when they see stuff on sale for just a few bucks. I myself have bought tons of games I might otherwise never have bought, solely because they were up on one of the great Steam Sales.

Every year, DD becomes a bigger slice of the pie compared to retail. Retail responds by shrinking the PC game section (combined with the lack of used game sales, which is really what a pawnshop like Gamestop is in business for), which drives more sales to DD.

Since developers make more money off DD sales then they do retail ones, there is a tipping point at which the retail stores lose their power and any threats over pricing become meaningless. That day for PC games is closer then people think, only a couple years away. When it happens, prices can be pretty much whatever the publisher wants them to be.

But for a major game, they won't go down. Why would they sell Civ 5 for $40 when people will pay $50? That's a lot of profit to give up.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Every year, DD becomes a bigger slice of the pie compared to retail. Retail responds by shrinking the PC game section (combined with the lack of used game sales, which is really what a pawnshop like Gamestop is in business for), which drives more sales to DD.

Since developers make more money off DD sales then they do retail ones, there is a tipping point at which the retail stores lose their power and any threats over pricing become meaningless. That day for PC games is closer then people think, only a couple years away. When it happens, prices can be pretty much whatever the publisher wants them to be.

But for a major game, they won't go down. Why would they sell Civ 5 for $40 when people will pay $50? That's a lot of profit to give up.

Which is all well and good--I'd just rather not have to listen to this nonsense that it's because of piracy.

 

[Valkrionn]

The thing is with expansion packs there are significant changes and everyone (who buys it) is playing a new game - eg. BtS. There are significant gameplay changes usually as well (e.g. adding espionage).

Trouble with dlc as I understand it's going to work is that there will be heaps of competing versions - someone will have vanilla, someone else v+babylon, someone else v+2 unknown civ's, someone else... This will quickly become a nightmare as the possibilities of combination of these elements play out as 2^n where is n is the number of (relevant) dlc's. Think about it - by the time there are 5 separate dlc's we will have 32 different versions of the game. Are we going to have 32 different forums? Of course not, it'll just be a morass of confusion instead.

The way steam DLC works is everyone has it. It's just locked until you pay for it. Why is that important? It means you have the assets for, say, Babylon already. Meaning you can play multiplayer with someone who has Babylon, with no trouble. Aside from the fact that you can't play that civ, of course, but it should be balanced with the others.

 

[Tridus]

The way steam DLC works is everyone has it. It's just locked until you pay for it. Why is that important? It means you have the assets for, say, Babylon already. Meaning you can play multiplayer with someone who has Babylon, with no trouble. Aside from the fact that you can't play that civ, of course, but it should be balanced with the others.

That works great for something like a new Civ. But the point is that it doesn't work for game systems, like say espionage.

You can't play a game where that guy has espionage, and you don't. It just doesn't work. (Or if he has the espionage DLC, and you have the religion DLC, and another player has the advanced naval combat DLC.)

For that kind of stuff, an expansion pack provides a much more unified way to handle change.

 

[Azazell]

Hmm I want:

- Poland (civilization)
- Zulus (civilization)
- Religions
- More more statistics!

 

[Valkrionn]

That works great for something like a new Civ. But the point is that it doesn't work for game systems, like say espionage.

You can't play a game where that guy has espionage, and you don't. It just doesn't work. (Or if he has the espionage DLC, and you have the religion DLC, and another player has the advanced naval combat DLC.)

For that kind of stuff, an expansion pack provides a much more unified way to handle change.

...I've already said just that. I'm operating on the assumption that it will be civilizations and related items, not new mechanics, as new mechanics break compatibility between those who buy, and those who don't. Bad idea.

Quoting my post for emphasis

As others have said... It is pointless arguing the evils of DLC at this point. The simple fact is it makes money. It makes a LOT of money. Until that stops being the case, DLC will be a fact of life in the vast majority of games, and I don't really blame them for it. I don't like it, but hey. Do what makes money.

Now, what I DO dislike is when companies make crap DLC. I don't think Firaxis will fall into that trap, though.

As for what I think it will be? Civs, Scenarios, and things like Natural Wonders. I doubt there will be any new mechanics, as that violates the plug-n-play nature of DLC; If it's just a civ, you can still have multiplayer between those who have it and those who don't, you just won't be able to play as that civ if you haven't bought it. With new mechanics, and the new DLL that assumes, you no longer have that situation.

I picked out those few items quite specifically. While Civ5 is highly moddable, and will present those mods to players in-game, Firaxis is able to compete because of two factors: Professional Art, and Professional Design.

Any random modder can add Babylon. You can even add pretty much the same mechanics. However, very few will be able to compete with the quality of art that Firaxis will have. And I guarantee you that if you try to take art from their DLC and distribute it in a free mod, you'll have to get in touch with some lawyers. Unless you can make your mod require their DLC, of course, but then you likely wouldn't need the art.

In the same way, anyone can create a scenario. But I think it a safe bet that many would be willing to try a scenario produced by Firaxis; They'll know it will be fairly balanced and well thought-out.

Expansions, on the other hand, must contain new mechanics. Expansions cost more than 3-5 dollars; They cannot sell on the basis of art alone. Furthermore, many players find a few mods that they enjoy, and play them often. Take FfH; If I'd had to choose between FfH and Beyond the Sword, it's no contest, I'd choose FfH. It's simply a more compelling game. As a developer, then, you want the modders themselves to want to upgrade! Entice them with new mechanics, get them to upgrade to the expansion, and you'll convince more of the player-base to purchase it.

Hmm I want:

- Poland (civilization)
- Zulus (civilization)
- Religions
- More more statistics!

Religions would be a new mechanic, and thus not DLC fodder.

 

[Pyrofox]

Denmark(Vikings)
Scotland(Celts)
Carthage
Byzantium
Mongolia

Of course I would only pay for them if the price was right and they had unique features that would make me want to play them.

 

[Kruelgor]

I assume the OP is referring to DLC which cost money.

If that's the case then I would have very little desire to buy a single civilization add-on, unless it was like $3.

I would hope and expect for something equivalent to a traditional expansion pack. That I would pay money for.

 

[Pouakai]

If I were 2K...

I would release three types of DLC

• Civilizations
  This is a already confirmed and I think it is a perfectly reasonable idea (with the obvious proviso that the price is also reasonable)
• Maps and Map scripts
  Maps are already confirmed although I personally wouldn't buy them. Map scripts would be a logical extension to this and I might consider buying one that got good reviews.
• Era-based expansions
  DLC to add tech, units, buildings, wonders and other simple improvements on an era-specific basic. So, for example, those that are interested in the ancient and classical eras can buy DLC packs that enhance just those eras.

I would also plan on releasing expansion packs that include existing DLC but add new features on a broader level, with people that have bought the DLC getting a credit of some percentage of the DLC cost towards the expansion (should be easy with Steam keeping all the records).
This business model would allow 2K to cater to and make money off those that appreciate DLC thus establishing a more regular and consistent cash flow but also sell expansion packs to those who prefer that method without subsequently alienating those that have invested in the DLC. It would probably also improve the takeup of the DLC if the buyer knew it would have some kind of tradeup value.
For example I would probably buy a good ancient or classical era DLC pack for $3-5. When the first expansion came out that included those DLCs I would get a credit of $1-2 towards it because I had bought the DLC.

Things I would not want to see as DLC:

• Anything that significantly changes game mechanics.
  I believe ways can be devised to accomodate mods and MP with changes to most assets, but if the core gameplay DLL is changed by DLC that would be a real problem.
• Individual Units, Techs, Buildings, or Wonders:
  This level of granularity would be a disaster for the cohesion of the Civ community.

^This

But also, city-state fixes. Say for example you download Korea as PART of a Civ DLC. Seoul, their capital, is a cultured city-state. Therefore, this DLC with Korea replaces the Seoul city-state with another, new city-state, the same trait as previous.

For a standard two-civ one scenario DLC I would be more than happy to pay $5. Of course, it's probably going to end up being $10-15 in NZ. In which case, no. 2K, keep the price of DLC standard throughout the world.
For an Era-based expansion DLC, I would pay the $10 price.

Say an expansion comes out, with 8 civs, and some other stuff. 6 of the 8 civs have featured in 3 seperate DLC (1 and 2, 3 and 4, 5 and 6), each at $5. If someone has bought all three DLC, at $5 each, they get the total off the main price of the expansion. So, if the expansion was $30, they would only pay $15

 

[Valkrionn]

That price reduction would never happen.

Mostly because an expansion is not simply a collection of DLC. It would by necessity have new mechanics, in addition to DLC content. A discount? Maybe. But direct discount proportionate to DLC cost? No. You pay extra to get the content early.

 

[zomg]

I'd prefer to see additions to the main game: more leaders, civs, uu, ubs etc. Maybe some new terrain, diplomacy options, rule setups, etc.

Some scenarios with maps focusing on a particular war with setups all appropriate to the situation might be interesting. Usually this has failed for me in the past, as the fun with civ is creating your complete empire from the ground up.

Scenarios I like are complete mods, like an alpha centauri mod --- that I would buy right away.

 

[PieceOfMind]

This from the official manual:

Patches, Updates, DLC
Steam.will.check.for.updates.and.automatically.patch.your.game.if.one.is.found.–.no.more.
hunting.around.on.the.Internet.for.the.latest.update.information!.You.can.also.purchase.offi-
cial.DLC.(Downloadable.Content).from.within.Steam..Make.sure.to.check.back.often.for.the.
latest.information.on.available.maps,.mods,.scenarios,.and.new.leaderhead.downloads..

Sorry for the werid formatting - not sure why that happened.

 

[Varelse]

I don't want to see nothing as dlc.

We bought the game, didn't we?

Or did we just buy a bit of the game (and have to keep paying and paying for the rest)?

I already know that I'm going to get annoyed by people talking about civ's which aren't part of the game (e.g. Babylon). Because if they were part of the game I'd get them when I purchased the game, wouldn't I?

Sorry to rain on your parade, but that's the way I see it.

No no sir you are mistaken, you are not buying the game, you are buying the shell of the game that gives you a platform for utilizing the DLC they expect you to buy in the future. Call it Civ 5 Incomplete, or the Civ 5 Starter Pack.

 

[Maniacal]

Don't know why the hell I'd buy maps I could make myself or downlaod from a modder for free.

I'll buy a new civ as DLC, if its one I will actually use many times (either to play as or against) and isn't more than $2 at the MOST. I am NOT going to pay $5 for a civ, I'd be happy with someone modded it in with no voice acting and no animated leader portrait (but please not a recoloured napoleon) for FREE.