Zero day DLC = disrespecting the customer

[Rub'Rum]

Multiplication of DLC and even expansion packs has sometimes actually stopped me from buying a game I didn't own yet, just because I was too lazy to figure out which "deluxe" "ultimate" or "complete" edition I was supposed to get at the store and which expansions or DLC I still needed after that.

 

[Duuk]

How would it be impossible? Locked content isn't a trait of DLC.

I'll refer you to the "Dawn of War" series by THQ. If you don't have the expansions, you can still play with others that have them. You just can't play AS the expansion races.

So if I'm playing against you, and I have the Deluxe version, I can be Babylon and you can't.

How is this hard to understand?

 

[deanej]

It's not a playing problem (though if it's implemented like civ4 is that will exist too), it's a modding problem. Babylon is going to be a major issue for modders.

 

[Yakk]

Duuk, look at Civ4; it still has strong sales figures, even this far after release. If you make a good game, and support it there is plenty of monetary incentive. Your argument is just a justification for pure greed, it's what's wrong with this country.

No, it is a justification for making more money.

There are reasons to make more money that are not pure greed.

It's also ironic you tote a mod in your sig that would be impossible to implement and use like it is done currently in Civ4 if we end up with locked assets caused by DLC.

And if the DLC somehow causes global thermonuclear war, then the cute kitten will die.

Locked assets != DLC. Given how modular Civ4 is, and how much more modular it got as they revised how it worked, you seem to have some kind of fear that they will make modding in Civ5 somehow far worse?

It is my opinion that withholding content for the expressed purpose of bilking potential customers on release day is shallow.

How dare they develop more than one product at a time! Fie on them?

I mean, when a game studio releases two games, how dare they not sell them for one price! The second game was mostly finished -- why didn't they ship it (or what was done) with the first? Fie on them!

That's my opinion, it's not whining to say so.

It is your opinion that it is not whining to say so.

What is shallow and pathetic is attempting to label your opposition with purely emotional connotations, without logical argument, as you attempt to do so.

Calling someone shallow and pathetic is not labeling someone with purely emotional connotations? I'm trying to keep score.

Well I suppose there is an argument in your above post, but it amounts to "They made it, they can do what they want." Sure, but it's my money, and I can do what I want as well.

Yes. You have a choice -- you can buy the version of civ with 18 civilizations, or burn an extra 10$ and get a 19th civ and some making-off fluff. In both cases, you don't get access to all of the work that every developer at the studio ever did.

And I refuse to celebrate greed just for the sake of celebrating greed; this attitude which has permeated American Society since Reagan's Revolution is why we are where we are today.

I think you have larger issues than Civ5 having an optional 19th civ.

It is really simple: if they can project greater revenue, they can justify hiring more development resources. If the Deluxe edition means greater revenue, then paying for development resources to produce the Deluxe edition makes sense.

They are aiming for people who are price insensitive about the price of a computer game, and giving them a less efficient (in dollars per gameplay) version of the game in exchange for extra money. This allows for more revenue, and quite honestly allows them to spend more money on the game they ship for the price sensitive people.

Now, there is a form of jealousy here -- players who are price sensitive can be jealous of those who are not.

 

[Rusty Edge]

We have no idea how an unknown civ will affect the game, only that it will.

I do not understand the reasoning behind either of these claims. How is the existence of a 19th civ "core game data"?

Please allow me to explain. To my way of thinking the term "core game" is anything that affects gameplay, outcomes and scores AS OPPOSED TO things like sound, graphics, intro, wonder, and victory movies, civilopedia, user interface,tools like worldbuilder, etc. I'd enthusiasticly welcome any premium content that wasn't part of the core game and didn't restrict modding.

How is it "critical to game balance"?

Nobody knows much about Civ V civs at this time, all we have are names and rhetoric. However, we could use Civ IV as an example. Each civ was programed differently. Civs had UUs and UBs. Leaders had trait combinations and taylored diplomacy "personalities" . These things affect gameplay and outcomes. Not all civs were balanced. The Inca are no longer eligible for Hall of Fame submissions, as I understand.

Is the 19th civ inherently better than all the other civs?

We don't know if it's the best or worst for any particcular type of map. A pushover civ would affect game outcomes and scores, too.

Does having the 19th civ change the core mechanics of the game regardless of which civ you are playing?

We only know that if it is somehow unique, that means it behaves by it's own rules. It will affect scores, outcomes and Hall of Fame results by it's presence or absence.

Does combat work differently?

In the case of the Quecha and Moonsinger's Hall of Fame records; there's an apparent advantage in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.

Tile yields?

The Inca get +1 commerce on plots with at least 2 commerce.

The Tech Tree?

Very unlikely unless each civ has it's own.

Will it allow you to mop the floor with any other civ in multi-player?

Maybe on the optimum map the first couple of times they face Babylon.

As far as we know (and can reasonably expect) the answer to all of these rhetorical questions is . . ."No." The only thing you will miss by not having the 19th civ . . . .is the 19th civ.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not envious. The cost of a new release of Civilization is small compared to the new computer( it's really only a tool to play and discuss Civ and the occaisional other game.)which I normally wind up buying to play Civ at max settings and map sizes. The $10 premium is negligible to me.

What I will miss[I/] is a united community, enjoying and discussing and modding the same game. Hall of Fame, succession games, play by e-mail, strategy guides, Polycast, ...all of the spectrum . It's pre-release and we already have two official versions of the core game. If 2K allows Steam to pull a Total War on civ we may be further divided in no time.

 

[Thyrwyn]

None of your answers are in any way unique to the Inca. Other civs have UUs and UBs; The Quecha does not use a different combat system; other leaders are financial; other civs will have advantages on certain maps. The difference in gameplays and outcomes from having 19th civ is what they have payed for - but while those differences exist, they are not inherently better for someone who has the 19th civ - they are just different.

My definition of core game data is that which is included in the "core game". Not mods or expansions. The underlying, universal, basic mechanics of the game. A 19th civ doesn't qualify.

 

[Shurdus]

Dunno if I replied in here already, but a big NO should get my message across nicely.

Having extras is common everywhere in buisness. Want an airco in your car? Pay up! Same tv as the this one but a few inches bigger? Cough it up! Hardcover with that book you like instead of paperback? It's more expensive.

Just because the gaming industry is now growing up and because it is now showing signs that other industries have come up with decades ago does not suddenly mean that the industry is now disrespecting it's clients. This thread is one childish display of what grown ups would look like if they could complain like little kids.

Firaxis offers different products, choose the one you want and stop complaining. It is common everywhere, but when a gaming company starts doing it we suddenly scream murder and rape? Please.

 

[Akka]

And I've pointed it out before, and I'll point it out again:

This forum has around 50,000 registered users.

Civ4 sold 4,000,000 copies. If every... single... person on this forum protested and didn't buy Civ5, it would be a net loss of 1% of total sales.

Oh, sure, because every single person who dislikes said practices is posting on this forum ?


As other said, it's a slippery slope. They push the line a bit further. Then after a time, it's viewed as "normal", and they push it a bit farther. And so on.

And thanks to the dumb sheeps that always find excuses and feel everything is normal (because they want to look cool by showing them "above this all" ?), they will be able to push and push and push.

The damnation of consumers is their own idiocy, and their acceptance of being ripped off time and time again. If everyone drawn a line in the sand and stood by it... You would not see shadowy practices, because they would simply not be worth it in money term.
Buuuut... you have the market drone that will always pay, even when fully aware of being ripped off.

 

[Rusty Edge]

None of your answers are in any way unique to the Inca. Other civs have UUs and UBs; The Quecha does not use a different combat system; other leaders are financial; other civs will have advantages on certain maps. The difference in gameplays and outcomes from having 19th civ is what they have payed for - but while those differences exist, they are not inherently better for someone who has the 19th civ - they are just different.

My definition of core game data is that which is included in the "core game". Not mods or expansions. The underlying, universal, basic mechanics of the game. A 19th civ doesn't qualify.

At least we understand each other better. Hopefully in Civ V everyone will follow our example and explain what they play in their sigline.

In the meantime, how are things in Happy Valley? Have the students left yet?

 

[Chalks]

Oh, sure, because every single person who dislikes said practices is posting on this forum ?


As other said, it's a slippery slope. They push the line a bit further. Then after a time, it's viewed as "normal", and they push it a bit farther. And so on.

And thanks to the dumb sheeps that always find excuses and feel everything is normal (because they want to look cool by showing them "above this all" ?), they will be able to push and push and push.

The damnation of consumers is their own idiocy, and their acceptance of being ripped off time and time again. If everyone drawn a line in the sand and stood by it... You would not see shadowy practices, because they would simply not be worth it in money term.
Buuuut... you have the market drone that will always pay, even when fully aware of being ripped off.

Slippery slope?? There are loads of games that require online activation and you're trying to tell us that this is the start of some sort of trend?

Civilization 5's DRM is absolutely not ground breaking in any respect. Every new game is using modern DRM, if Civ 5 was to "make a stand" and not use it, the rest of the industry would just think "huh, what a weird thing to do" and carry on regardless.

Maybe lots of people here have not bought a game in a long time. They need to wake up and smell reality - it's been a while since I've bought a new game that didn't come with online activation, steam or otherwise.

 

[Akka]

Slippery slope?? There are loads of games that require online activation and you're trying to tell us that this is the start of some sort of trend?

No, it's a slippery slope in progress.
Some years ago, it would have been madness to consider online checking of your solo game.
Now it has become common practice, and some are pushing for a CONSTANT online-checking (Assassin's Creed II for example).

Who can say what will be considered acceptable in some years ?

Maybe lots of people here have not bought a game in a long time. They need to wake up and smell reality - it's been a while since I've bought a new game that didn't come with online activation, steam or otherwise.

Thanks for proving my point, even if you obviously didn't even understood it to begin with.

 

[Chalks]

No, it's a slippery slope in progress.
Some years ago, it would have been madness to consider online checking of your solo game.
Now it has become common practice, and some are pushing for a CONSTANT online-checking (Assassin's Creed II for example).

Who can say what will be considered acceptable in some years ?

Thanks for proving my point, even if you obviously didn't even understood it to begin with.

No, perhaps it's a slippery slope up there somewhere. And perhaps we slid down it at once point.

You're making an argument that would have made sense 4 or 5 years ago when stuff like this started happening. It's a bit late to make a stand now. The horse has bolted.

Constantly online DRM is the slippery slope now - Steam is the reasonable alternative.

 

[Commander Bello]

Now, that we have entered the one-way street in the wrong direction, let's have fund and speed up?

 

[Chalks]

Now, that we have entered the one-way street in the wrong direction, let's have fund and speed up?

No, lets stand still and make sure people who stand still with us get as successful a game as possible so they don't feel the need to continue walking.

Firaxis has gone for the most reasonable modern DRM system. It's this or 1997 CD in drive checks.

 

[snowlyon]

I can't believe how accepting/susceptible folks can be. it is our choice to be sure, but to be so unyielding to the degree I see...just....wow.

nothing can change unless the effort is actually made to make said change.~

 

[Shurdus]

No, lets stand still and make sure people who stand still with us get as successful a game as possible so they don't feel the need to continue walking.

Lol, if the analog of a slippery slope has made sense at one point, then that point is now waaaaay back down there and this analog is taking things completely overboard.

I can't believe how accepting/susceptible folks can be. it is our choice to be sure, but to be so unyielding to the degree I see...just....wow.

nothing can change unless the effort is actually made to make said change.~

What is so surprising? I can see steam being more invasive as a cd-in-drive check, but it is not as invasive as some people claim it to be. People tend to think as if steam 'steals' private info from you while the gathering of the statistics of covered in the user agreement. The info can then not be stolen, you agree to upload statistics. Big difference there. Also afaik you can turn the uploading of user info off and you need not partake in any survey.

All in all people tend to be a bit dramatic about this stuff, while I honestly do not see where the issue is that people have. Something about it requiring the internet that a lot of us have anyway, and something about misunderstanding the user agrement and getting fed with paranoia, that is how I take most discussions here.

 

[snowlyon]

What is so surprising? I can see steam being more invasive as a cd-in-drive check, but it is not as invasive as some people claim it to be. People tend to think as if steam 'steals' private info from you while the gathering of the statistics of covered in the user agreement. The info can then not be stolen, you agree to upload statistics. Big difference there. Also afaik you can turn the uploading of user info off and you need not partake in any survey.

Oh, agreed…some folks are making the invasiveness of steam to be way more than it is. On the reverse though you have people also making out to be nothing at all. Agreed, I highly doubt Steam is "stealing" anyones information and that indeed, they only gather that information as the user has agreed to send. I also know of the ability to turn Steam Online 'on' and 'off'…although Steam itself will continue to run.

Imo, majority of the issue is not so much that it is Steam per say…heck, it could be Billy-Bob's Wonderful Online Webnet Gaming Hub… the 'issue' is the overall lack of choice on the part of the user. That it is a requirement to run a primarily solo based game utilizing a mulitplayer platform/tool. It is that this choice was denied. I would have bet that most of the current threads wouldn’t even exist had this been made optional…but that is not the case. A shame really, imo.

All in all people tend to be a bit dramatic about this stuff, while I honestly do not see where the issue is that people have. Something about it requiring the internet that a lot of us have anyway, and something about misunderstanding the user agrement and getting fed with paranoia, that is how I take most discussions here.

I would say that some folks are being a bit melodramatic about it…and this applies to both sides of the fence.~

 

[Shurdus]

I would say that some folks are being a bit melodramatic about it…and this applies to both sides of the fence.~

haha yes, because pretending it is nothing can actually get some pretty funny responses.

 

[deanej]

Just because online DRM is commonplace doesn't make it right. The only pieces of software I can think of that have DRM like that is Windows and Office.

 

[arstal]

Windows gets away with it due to monopoly. Office will be in trouble in a few years when Openoffice becomes more commonplace.