Zero day DLC = disrespecting the customer

[AfterShafter]

This is becoming a massive screw up. The developer trying to remake Panzer General, removing important features and dumbing down the game will spell the end if this game. For the first time they are disrespecting their market. As I said in another post ...for the first time I will not buy it with DLC or steam. I will waith for the pirated copy to come out here in Hong Kong.

You know, funny thing is, I remember a *very* similar sentiment prior to Civ IV's release. "What - smaller maps? Fewer turns? Fewer units? Cartoony graphics? Dumbing down the game!"

Civ IV turned out to be *spectacular*. I find it's prudent not to pre-judge a Civ game - they sometimes come together in spectacular ways. Civ V? Well, we'll see. Point is, we have yet to see, so a judgement about game mechanics and game play changes is premature.

(the day one DLC is pretty damned cheesy though )

 

[Aramel]

People saying this is taking something out of the game are missing the point. If Firaxis has to choose between making 18 or 19 civs for the game, it is probably not worth it to them to make the 19th civ, because there are very few people who would buy the game if it has 19 civs but won't go near it if it only has 18 (I imagine there's somewhat more who wouldn't buy it if it had less than 18 civs, as that would be seen as a drop-off from Civ 4). However, if they can charge a little more for that civ, then it becomes worth it to them.

The point is that they probably wouldn't have bothered to make a 19th civ if they couldn't use it to lure people into buying the deluxe package. It wouldn't be worth it to them, economically.

 

[Maeztu]

You know, funny thing is, I remember a *very* similar sentiment prior to Civ IV's release. "What - smaller maps? Fewer turns? Fewer units? Cartoony graphics? Dumbing down the game!"

And, after Civ IV's release I am still thinking that smaller maps are bad, fewer units are also bad and changing from 2 figures system (attack and defense) to one figure system is dumbing down the game.

Same goes with the whole "naval units cannot attack coastal cities" problem.

It is a strategy game, I don't care much whether the new units have a better hairdo than in the previous release of the series, I am talking about strategy.

 

[arstal]

Having thought about this a bit more I have come to the conclusion that the zero day DLC, as announced, amounts to disrespect and contempt by the company toward Civ fans. Having zero day DLC that provides a special gun or an armor or something is pretty normal, and well accepted, but this is not what Firaxis is doing here with Babylon. Typical zero day DLC is designed and marketed toward hard core fans and usually provides some type of minor cheating or aesthetic consideration (like the collector gun, and dragon armor in Mass Effect), it makes no effect on the actual gameplay, storyline, or core game. It always looks like something as an afterthought, something that can be tacked onto the base game, after the fact; and is not something a typical user will miss. Something like a nice shiny box, a cool manual; that's totally understandable, and helps satiate the demands of some of the more rabid fans. This is not what we are seeing done here though.

What Firaxis is doing with Babylon is investing the time and energy to create a full new civ, and then intentionally removing it from the base game, merely as a way to bilk customers that already intend on purchasing the main product. This is just downright disrespectful. The Firaxis devs have created this content, but are turning around and intentionally removing it in order to get fans of the series to pay more; doesn't this strike anyone else as being inappropriate? Creating extra content at a later time is understandable, but intentionally removing content is another thing altogether. I also wonder what is next? If they are content to do this, it is likely bug fixes and later essential patches will be released as pay only DLC; afterall if they feel it is good and sound business to remove core content, and demand extra cash for it, bug fixes are not much different.

The whole Steam thing, I can understand, I don't personally like it, but it's sound business. DRM has to be implemented and Steam is known for being unobtrusive, and is quite popular among most gamers. What I do not understand or agree with on any level is intentionally removing core game content in an effort to squeeze loyal fans for more dollars; as I said it's juts plain disrespectful and shallow.

So Firaxis I wag my finger at thee

This is all part of bringing the "superior" console experience to your PC's. Too bad not enough people care for a difference to be made.

The best way to show your disapproval is to take your Civ money and put it towards another game instead that supports those principles (in my case: EWOM is getting it- well they were getting it anyways, but now it's in place of Civ V)

I don't care how great Civ V is, I won't support this business model.

 

[need my speed]

Indeed, consoles and computers should be seperated. Unfortunately, there are more and more different consolses with awesome options and what not, and that is affecting computers...

And Maeztu, I also want much, much bigger maps. And ships able to attack coastal sites. 2 figure or 1 figure system doesn't matter much for me, because now we have things like 50% bonus versus Archers and things like that, which is the same as the 2 figure system but much, much more complex.

 

[The_J]

It is an extra civilisation. It isn't anything core to the game, it is just another civilisation.

Yeah, but what, if they released civ with only 2 civs and would sell all the others?
The difference is here only the mass.

I still don't understand. Why cannot they have a person allocated to doing extra DLC?

Once again, I don't understand. Of course they want money -- that is how they will pay back the loans they took out to pay the developers, and then return a profit to the investors who provided money to pay the developers.

How about enough money?

You can always get more artists, more developers, etc. Those are easy to get. Money is the hard thing to get.

With money, you can get developers and artists. Developers and artists, meanwhile, don't always give you money.

In order to get money, you have to have a plan to make money. Having a plan like "we'll offer a delux pack for people who want to give is more money, and give them an extra civilisation" is a way to convince the people who have money to give you more money to write the game.

This provides additional programmers, developers and artists.

They have enough money for making the whole game, but they do not have enough more for the one extra civ ?

 

[EmpireOfCats]

And, after Civ IV's release I am still thinking that smaller maps are bad, fewer units are also bad and changing from 2 figures system (attack and defense) to one figure system is dumbing down the game.

I think we're going to have to get much larger maps with the new tactical system. If every normal unit moves two hexes at once, well, on the Civ IV Earth 1000AD map, that takes you clear across Ireland in one move. You couldn't even turn around in Japan.

This is why I'd like to see more than the few maps we've been given so far. Or, even better, a video of gameplay in action.

EDIT: I miss the split between attack and defense, too. You are right: That is a clear case of dumbing down the game.

 

[MrHan]

Eh. Until they give us a map with at least 500k tiles (eg a 1024*512 earth map), I'm not gonna be satisfied with the map sizes. We need larger, i mean LARGER maps. We should be given the option to make maps that are obscenely large, so we know we can make maps that are almost, but not quite, obscenely large, and therefore satisfyingly large (as opposed to obscenely large). I'm serious.

And as for the attack and defence thing, someone pointed out having one number for strength and modifiers to modify it depending on the situation (e.g., unit with 2 strength and 50% bonus when defending is the exact same thing as unit with 2 attack and 3 defence) is pretty much the same thing and not much dumbing down. Actually, I think it does the opposite of dumbing down the game, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Rusty Edge]

This isn't DLC -- it is an extra civ.

What the? You appear to be familiar with modding.

An extra civ in civ4 consists of assets. That's it. Not one little bit of additional core programming.

Maybe the traits and advantages in civ5 will require more than just data files (it is surprising if it does), but if so I'd expect it to be modular -- a DLL that codes in the extra traits that stands alone, instead of part of the monolithic DLL, for sanities sake.

I suspect if you "mod" by splatting over the core game Assets directory, problems develop.

I think you and I are using different definitions. To my way of thinking...

DLC- Anything I would pay extra for and download from the internet that I can't buy on a disk from a store.

Core game- Anything that affects gameplay and potential outcomes, scores, etc in a vanilla version of Civilization.

It would not include, graphics, sound, user interface, Intro movies, tutorials, Worldbuilder, wondermovies, leaderheads, palaces, throne rooms, combat animations, or victory animations for examples.


Imagine a chess game. Even if I have handcarved onyx pieces and yours are only cardboard, it would not affect the outcome. However, if all of my Babylonian pawns can attack straight ahead ( and yours still could not ), and I knew how to use that to my advantage , it would change game outcomes, strategy guides & discussions, player rankings, how much fun a game was, it could well fragment the chess community.

I don't care how few or how many civs V ships with, provided everybody's game plays the same, regardless of where they bought it, and that it's available on hardcopy.

I don't care about the price( I would probably pay $190 for 19 civs, and assuming the game was as great as IV, still figure it was my cheapest hourly entetainment), provided it doesn't limit availabillity to students, foreigners, etc, so I think a release with annual expansions is the best approach.

 

[AfterShafter]

And, after Civ IV's release I am still thinking that smaller maps are bad, fewer units are also bad and changing from 2 figures system (attack and defense) to one figure system is dumbing down the game.

Same goes with the whole "naval units cannot attack coastal cities" problem.

It is a strategy game, I don't care much whether the new units have a better hairdo than in the previous release of the series, I am talking about strategy.

Well, to each their own then. I felt Civ IV was a *huge* improvement over Civ III - which to me is the weakest in the series. I attribute this, in part, to those exact changes that they made - streamlining a series that was excellent, but frankly, had some fat that could have been trimmed off.

So yeah, if that's how you felt about Civ IV as well, I won't try and change your mind. Have fun picking it up on the cheap - I'll be a day 1 buyer for this game unless they *really* do something wacky.

 

[Shambler]

I think you and I are using different definitions. To my way of thinking...

DLC- Anything I would pay extra for and download from the internet that I can't buy on a disk from a store.

Core game- Anything that affects gameplay and potential outcomes, scores, etc in a vanilla version of Civilization.

It would not include, graphics, sound, user interface, Intro movies, tutorials, Worldbuilder, wondermovies, leaderheads, palaces, throne rooms, combat animations, or victory animations for examples.


Imagine a chess game. Even if I have handcarved onyx pieces and yours are only cardboard, it would not affect the outcome. However, if all of my Babylonian pawns can attack straight ahead ( and yours still could not ), and I knew how to use that to my advantage , it would change game outcomes, strategy guides & discussions, player rankings, how much fun a game was, it could well fragment the chess community.

Well said and mirrors my own concerns. What leaves a bad taste in my mouth about this is that this is purely a financial reason...it's content that will come with every Civ V game but is locked away until you pay extra. It's not a special edition incentive...I may be old school but those used to be cloth maps, little pewter figurines, artbooks, deluxe manuals...things outside of the game or had no effect on gameplay or just affected a game cosmetically via special decals in game, etc. A whole civilization with different assets, leader traits, unique units, and playstyle affects the actual game.

Add to this that the publisher is 2KGames...the same company that's slapping the X-COM brand on an FPS just to generate buzz and things are looking grim.

I'm glad there are alternatives to get excited about (Elemental, standalone FFH, Frozen Synapse) but it is sad to see a venerable franchise go down in the name of the dollar.

 

[Lone Wolf]

It's not something that causes me to fly into a RAAAAAGE, but it's kinda cheap.

 

[NovaSilisko]

I'm sick of everything being called a DLC nowadays.

Civ V preorder things? DLC! Free map pack for L4D? DLC!

 

[Chalks]

I'm sick of everything being called a DLC nowadays.

Civ V preorder things? DLC! Free map pack for L4D? DLC!

This. Absolutely this.

It's a free bonus you get with the special edition! If there was no download for the special edition and you could only get it with a boxed version, would you still try to class it as something other than a special edition gift?

 

[mechaerik]

The Civ may not be true DLC (still pisses me off though), but the extra map is. "Preorder now to get the Cradle of Civilization Map-pack". I highly doubt they're just going to give it away for free afterwards if they're advertising it so.

 

[Chalks]

The Civ may not be true DLC (still pisses me off though), but the extra map is. "Preorder now to get the Cradle of Civilization Map-pack". I highly doubt they're just going to give it away for free afterwards if they're advertising it so.

And Firaxis has been selling additional content, maps and scenarios via expansion packs since the dawn of time.

I'm sure you'll live.

 

[mechaerik]

But this one map is not an expansion.

Fact of the matter is, most people consider the extra civ (babylon) to be the only worthwhile part of the collector's edition, for $10. 1 Civ for $10 is fairly outrageous, especially considering how much real expansions cost. Really, when I think collector's edition, I picture some cool extras, like a fancy box, fancy manual, an interesting item (say a little statue), not something like 1 extra civ.

 

[civ_king]

But this one map is not an expansion.

Fact of the matter is, most people consider the extra civ (babylon) to be the only worthwhile part of the collector's edition, for $10. 1 Civ for $10 is fairly outrageous, especially considering how much real expansions cost. Really, when I think collector's edition, I picture some cool extras, like a fancy box, fancy manual, an interesting item (say a little statue), not something like 1 extra civ.

personally I want the movie more

EDIT: Too many tanks living in California

 

[Chalks]

But this one map is not an expansion.

Fact of the matter is, most people consider the extra civ (babylon) to be the only worthwhile part of the collector's edition, for $10. 1 Civ for $10 is fairly outrageous, especially considering how much real expansions cost. Really, when I think collector's edition, I picture some cool extras, like a fancy box, fancy manual, an interesting item (say a little statue), not something like 1 extra civ.

No, one map is part of an expansion that you may or may not ever want to use.

So now we have the choice of what parts of an expansion we are going to want to spend money on instead of having to fork out £30 for the whole lot even if you don't want to use half of it.

And it's not $10 for one civ. It's $10 for the collectors edition because people like to get the special edition of things. Have you never heard of a special edition of a game before? This is absolutely standard. You get some crappy sound track and a special box, or a free in game something or other, not because it's value for money, but because people like it.

If you don't, then don't get it.

*edit* and jesus christ you guys, get a different avatar. It's like talking to a clone army in here.

 

[phungus420]

Firaxis is a buisness, and buisness are supposed to maximize profits, removing features from the game makes sense because it generates more profit because customers will pay for it.

This assumes that a standard buisness model is an adversarial relationship. Ie the goal and the primary purpose of the firm is to maximize profits; this supersedes all other considerations. The purpose of the customer is to pay the least amount possible for a good or service, superseding all other considerations. Under such a model the consumer and producer are in direct conflict of interest, with no middle ground possible.

If you truly feel this way, it is simply time to say I fundamentally disagree; and most likely your world view is overly simplified and downright self centered. Firstly, as a consumer I have many options to incur a very slight cost, to the detriment of the firm when it comes to software, so for the firm's self interest this isn't a viable viewpoint to take. More importantly though this supposition boils down to an argument that exists merely to justify greed, and is nearly always put forth by short sighted political conservative thinkers. The real world is more complex then this.