What of we didn't buy the DLC?

I think the only legitimate complaint is that making DLCs uses valuable developer time that should be spent "fixing" (editorialization) the game for free.

Although I doubt this is accurate.

2K is on record stating that the art & scripting teams working on DLC have nothing to do with the engineering teams working on the fixing the game engine. (In fact, those people would have nothing to do at all if they weren't making DLC.)
 
2K is on record stating that the art & scripting teams working on DLC have nothing to do with the engineering teams working on the fixing the game engine. (In fact, those people would have nothing to do at all if they weren't making DLC.)

Yeah, that doesn't surprise me. Furthermore, as I said, I think the existence of the DLC model probably propels them to fix bugs/polish the game/keep customers more than ever before.
 
You must be following the wrong boards. Currently the DLC is rant topic #1, and not the "noobs" are ranting.
I'm a fanatic, and i would not buy any of this stuff, because i think the whole bussiness model will ruin PC gaming. Doesn't make me less a fanatic.

PC gaming has been dying for a long time now. DLC is one of the only things keeping it alive.
 
Yeah, that doesn't surprise me. Furthermore, as I said, I think the existence of the DLC model probably propels them to fix bugs/polish the game/keep customers more than ever before.

It is definitely a lot easier to justify the expenditure of keeping a team actively developing a game which is providing you with ongoing revenue than it is to justify the expense of supporting a game which is not providing you with continuing income.

Though I think they'd have a team fixing Civ V either way, if only to lay the groundwork for good sales numbers on whatever expansion pack they have in the pipe (I assume they're planning to expand it, and if they are they need to already have spun up that team or it'll be a loooooong wait to that first expansion, 3 or more years).
 
Top Bottom