What makes you think CiV would have expansion packs

[paradigmx]

being integrated with steam, I think it would be more likely that new features and civs would be introduced as DLC while everything else would be relegated to patches, it's a much more economical solution overall and has been a very successful formula for most games released in the past couple years. If we do see expansions, I would assume they would have to be completely game-changing in order to be needed.

More likely though, I think at some point down the road we are more likely to see a CiV Gold pack that encompasses all the official DLC with the original game. Look at Fallout 3, the game itself has been expanded upon and there are 5 content packs that can be purchased, each content pack sold better than the last and finally they released a full bundle with all the content packs in stores.

If 2k and Firaxis do decide to release expansions, kudos on them, I just think it's more likely that we will see DLC packs.

 

[Ahriman]

I would be very surprised to not see expansions.

Very large number of Civ players buy the expansions (particularly BtS for Civ4), whereas much lower proportions of people buy DLC.

RPGs are well-suited to small episodic releases.

Strategy games are much less well suited to such small changes or incremental addition of new mechanics.

Can you name significant numbers of other strategy games that have used incremental DLC rather than expansions?

 

[paradigmx]

I would be very surprised to not see expansions.

Very large number of Civ players buy the expansions (particularly BtS for Civ4), whereas much lower proportions of people buy DLC.

RPGs are well-suited to small episodic releases.

Strategy games are much less well suited to such small changes or incremental addition of new mechanics.

Can you name significant numbers of other strategy games that have used incremental DLC rather than expansions?

the Semper Fi "expansion" for Hearts of Iron 3 is more of a Content pack than an expansion, it wasn't released in stores and you could only get it digitally, it's worked out well so far.

Keep in mind that the economy has changed since Civ IV came out, buyers are more ready and able to buy online. As well, the developer makes a lot more money from online purchases than they do from shelf purchases, a boxed copy may net the developer 15% of the income, while a digital purchase may net the developer more like 50-60% of the income because of the lessened overhead.

Just because BTS sold well, doesn't mean it wouldn't have sold well if it was online only, especially if it was released today.

 

[Ahriman]

the Semper Fi "expansion" for Hearts of Iron 3 is more of a Content pack than an expansion,

I haven't played this and so I don't know the details, but if its an expansion, how does that count?

Games like Paradox games are more likely to have online-only expansions because the sales for the main games are so low (and expected sales for expansions) that its not worth the shelf-space for bricks'n'mortar retailers to carry it, or to pay for the distribution costs.

Just because BTS sold well, doesn't mean it wouldn't have sold well if it was online only

Why would a Civ5 expansion have to be online only?

Civ5 isn't online only.

 

[CanuckSoldier]

Personally I think we will see both. We will see small DLC stuff like a civ or UU etc for cheap, and then later on we will see an XP that has a bug/game balance patch incorporated, and and any major code base changes/features.

Now wether this will be digital only or also in boxes is up in the air, as this is not the days of Civ4 for sure.

But it takes alot of time and money to produce XP's and I can't see them just releasing DLC to solve major bugs and add major features. Ofcourse the XP would likely have all the previous DLC included for one price.

CS

 

[paradigmx]

I haven't played this and so I don't know the details, but if its an expansion, how does that count?

I'm just using one example, and I don't consider Semper Fi and expansion because imo it isn't one, it's digital only, it's not a huge content increase, and it only cost $20, that's more DLC territory than expansion territory.

Games like Paradox games are more likely to have online-only expansions because the sales for the main games are so low (and expected sales for expansions) that its not worth the shelf-space for bricks'n'mortar retailers to carry it, or to pay for the distribution costs.

Strategy game in general are a niche market, most gamers prefer straight up FPS games and if they are playing a strategy game, it's a game like Starcraft. Civ isn't exactly a major release for most gamers, it maintains a strong following due to it's roots, not to it's modern appeal.

Why would a Civ5 expansion have to be online only?

Civ5 isn't online only.

I'm just saying, in a hypothetical world, if BTS was released today, and it was online only, I think it would still sell well and would probably make Firaxis more money overall.

 

[Ahriman]

and it only cost $20, that's more DLC territory than expansion territory.

Most DLC I've seen is <=$10, $20 would be very very high. Thats expansion territory.

Civ isn't exactly a major release for most gamers,

Seriously? Everyone I know who has every played a computer game has played civ series, including many people who have never played any other games. Maybe its generational, but it would be weird.

Civ5 is going to be one of the biggest games of recent years.

I'm just saying, in a hypothetical world, if BTS was released today, and it was online only, I think it would still sell well and would probably make Firaxis more money overall.

....in which case, why would they not make an expansion for Civ5?

 

[bestrfcplayer]

Every other civ game has had expansion packs, so why would this be any different? Expansion packs give the compony more money, and more fans.

 

[Mercade]

Not to mention the fact that Expansion Packs have also been used to introduce entirely new gameplay behaviour, like e.g. the introduction of Vassals and the Warlord class unit in Warlords and Corporations, Espionage and Advanced Start in Beyond the Sword. These types of improvements to the core game mechanics cannot be introduced through DLC in the way you can add a new Civ, Wondor, Unit of Scenario.

Furthermore, the advantage of an Expansion Pack is that it's a rounded set of additions creating a richer experience. If sold separately, I can imagine that people would be more interested in Vikings, Zulu, Dutch, Spanish and Korean (even as DLC), but less so in e.g. Ethiopia, Mali, Khmer or Byzantine (no disrespect intended). Now while I wouldn't pay separately for such civs, I do like having them in the expansion packs for variety.

So, my conclusion is there will be expansion packs for Civ5 too.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Interesting question, OP.

I still think it's unlikely we will see no expansion pack. I agree with CanuckSoldier here in that I'm expecting to see both.

The reason I don't believe DLC will completely replace the role of expansions is that expansions typically introduce several or many new game mechanics - things that are not necessarily well suited to low-content DLC. Also, having an expansion means there is a likely shift for a huge number of people to be up to the same level again, content-wise. This is important for forum discussions as well as having a good system for multiplayer. I don't know how many people play vanilla civ4 mp but I would assume that more play bts.