Zero day DLC = disrespecting the customer

[innonimatu]

Civ4 is definetly not the most moddable game. Any open source game is more moddable .

I don't know if you were serious, but open source by itself doesn't make a game more moddable. Changing the source requires skill in programming, and time to understand it. What really matters is how easily moddable a game is for its players, or at least those inclined to try to create mods. And I can believe that Civ4 is more easily moddable that Freeciv, for example.

Oh, and I miss civ2's wonderfuly easy game editor.

 

[Sephi]

I don't know if you were serious, but open source by itself doesn't make a game more moddable. Changing the source requires skill in programming, and time to understand it. What really matters is how easily moddable a game is for its players, or at least those inclined to try to create mods. And I can believe that Civ4 is more easily moddable that Freeciv, for example.

Oh, and I miss civ2's wonderfuly easy game editor.

I don't know if you were serious, but by your definition of moddable Colonization (the original one) was more moddable than Civ4. In fact if you compare both you will see that some things are more easy to mod in Colonization while other things are easier in Civ4. And the same would be true for a comparision between Civ4 and Freeciv. But only one of them you could mod into a Jump and Run game if you wanted to.

If Firaxis had released a wonderfuly easy game editor instead of the Civ4 SDK, would you really consider Civ4 more moddable?

 

[innonimatu]

I don't know if you were serious, but by your definition of moddable Colonization (the original one) was more moddable than Civ4. In fact if you compare both you will see that some things are more easy to mod in Colonization while other things are easier in Civ4. And the same would be true for a comparision between Civ4 and Freeciv. But only one of them you could mod into a Jump and Run game if you wanted to.

If Firaxis had released a wonderfuly easy game editor instead of the Civ4 SDK, would you really consider Civ4 more moddable?

Very well, there are two possible separate meanings for moddable, and yours is more correct. Still, I think that ease of modding is more important for the casual player who wants to get into modding. I wonder how many of the civ4 modders started with civ2.

 

[Impaler[WrG]]

^
The issue at hand is Firaxis removing content to package as day zero DLC. Once a firm goes this route they are de facto stating they are only interested in short term profit; the customer and long term viability be damned. Firaxis can't maintain a vibrant community like it does now with modding, or maintain high sales 5 years post release with such an attitude. I fully expect this DLC bilking to rake in some cash over the short term, but by destroying the modding community (which unstandardizable mini DLC components like Babylon must do in order to not be destroyed by competition from mods) Take 2 and Firaxis are ensuring that Civ5 will not continue on years later as a top seller. Keep in mind mods and the general community (word of mouth etc), help spur on sales of full expansion packs. DLC removes any milestone standard from which to work from, and takes away any community based incentives that spur XP purchases. This move is all about short term profits at the expense of long term potential; it will also wreck havok with modding. Imagine if you will that Civ4 had 20 $5 DLCs, all with major locks on the DLC assets so that modders were forbidden to work with it. In such an environment how would succession games, awesome mods like the BUG mod, or even a coherent strategies and tips forum be viable? The answer is it wol't and that's what we are seeing being done here.

Agreed, DLC of any kind is dangerous first and foremost because it engenders draconian policies towards mods, namely trying to suppress similar mods that might compete with the DLC. We currently have no idea what policy 2K plans, but we can imagine and fear the worst especially given how ominous this initial move is. For myself I can say any such draconian policy on 2K's part would be a deal-breaker for my participation in modding, this is not the only modable game in town and I simply would not operate under that kind of censorship. I suspect many people would feel the same which is why such a policy would be suicidal on the part of 2K.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Removing content? Really? How do you know that the 19th civ was not created specifically as part of the agreement between Firaxis and Steam? How do you know that Firaxis is getting ANY of the extra $10 from the deluxe package?

As for "engender[ing] a draconian policy vs mods": how would the modding community have expected Firaxis to react to a mod for Civ IV that included all of the BtS content? How would the community itself have reacted to the mod? How is this any different?

 

[civ_king]

Removing content? Really? How do you know that the 19th civ was not created specifically as part of the agreement between Firaxis and Steam? How do you know that Firaxis is getting ANY of the extra $10 from the deluxe package?

As for "engender[ing] a draconian policy vs mods": how would the modding community have expected Firaxis to react to a mod for Civ IV that included all of the BtS content? How would the community itself have reacted to the mod? How is this any different?

or it could have been made by idle workers at Firaxis

 

[PieceOfMind]

No one in their right mind would have made a mod the same as BtS. It might not have been possible, and if it was possible it probably would not have been easy.

At least in the case of a Babylonian civ, it's conceivable that someone could mod something as simple as a civ for no financial gain so the question of how DLC affects modding is much more relevant.

With Shafer heading the team, I have some confidence they won't do anything to outrage the modders. However I'm still doubtful that we're going to have the unprecedented modding capabilities they originally marketed to us.

 

[Nuff]

Trying to understand here without seeming like a troll. If you want the civ, buy it, it's $10 more. If you can't justify $10 for an extra civ, which in my mind is "I won't have Subway and a drink tonight, i'll just have some toast and spread at home", which is about $10, bam, there's your upgrade money, then don't.

I'm sure it will be available down the track at some stage, you just have to be patient. If your not patient, buy it, it is literally only $10 more. If you have an ultra tight budget cause you have a family, then sure, I could understand, but my mind can't really come to grip with the outrage thing over....$10.

A lot of the companies now have these sorts of specials, and I usually snap em up. I have an ocd template, so I have to have it. If they release a shiney box with the game as a collectors, i'll get that as well as the ddl.

But in the end, imho, and it is only my opinion, it's $10, take it or leave it. As someone said, vote with your wallet, but if a $10 add-on perk is what is stopping you from buying the game, then wow. I'm trying to honestly see it as an issue but I can't.

 

[Impaler[WrG]]

Their are no 'idle' people at a game company (especially at point in production). The largest time commitment is art wise, we have seen the quality of the Washington and Bismark heads and they look to be at least a hundred hours, add in units, play-testing and programming and your looking at a cost of several grand to 'make' a Civ of 'full' quality.

On the other this Babylon civ might be just some static leaderhead thing with recycled attributes and a re-colored unit which would be something like 1 hour of work, the kind of thing you expect to see in a senario. I haven't seen anything that explicitly says it is 'on par' with the 18 civs that will be in the base game, people seem to just be assuming that. I think 2K is really screwed either way. If they provide a 'full' civ through exclusive DLC they lose respect from non-premium purchasers and if they provide a 'scenario-quality' Civ then the Premium purchasers will be rightly pissed at false advertising.

 

[MarkJohnson]

I'm mostly worried about continuing the trend and releasing new Civs weekly,monthly, etc not mention maps or other related game stuff. or could I create my own Civ. Create the Third Reich and Hitler and sell it for $10 to everyone? lol

I do have a concern with modding and Steam. I'm sure Steam wasn't in the works when they started creating Civ5 and I can see a lot of security issues popping up for Steam and it may be very crippled modding now.

-=Mark=-

 

[PieceOfMind]

Their are no 'idle' people at a game company (especially at point in production). The largest time commitment is art wise, we have seen the quality of the Washington and Bismark heads and they look to be at least a hundred hours, add in units, play-testing and programming and your looking at a cost of several grand to 'make' a Civ of 'full' quality.

On the other this Babylon civ might be just some static leaderhead thing with recycled attributes and a re-colored unit which would be something like 1 hour of work, the kind of thing you expect to see in a senario. I haven't seen anything that explicitly says it is 'on par' with the 18 civs that will be in the base game, people seem to just be assuming that. I think 2K is really screwed either way. If they provide a 'full' civ through exclusive DLC they lose respect from non-premium purchasers and if they provide a 'scenario-quality' Civ then the Premium purchasers will be rightly pissed at false advertising.

Add to that, how many people who play civ actually preorder it? A lot of civvers are getting excluded from the DE content just so Valve/TakeTwo can make some more dosh. That has to generate some negative PR. And if they do eventually release the DE content some other way, there will be negative PR from those who did get the DE by pre-order. I for one, am only considering getting the DE because of the possibility it won't be available again, plus I don't mind paying for what will probably be a good soundtrack.
Of course, no representative from 2K games will tell us now that the DE content will be available at a later date because then most of us would not buy the DE. It's really hard not to be cynical about this situation. As Nuff said, it's only $10 which is why it's not bothering me personally all that much. But it's sure to bother a large proportion of the player base one way or the other.

In the long run, it will pose a bigger problem than the game being Steam exclusive IMO.

 

[Krill]

Their are no 'idle' people at a game company (especially at point in production). The largest time commitment is art wise, we have seen the quality of the Washington and Bismark heads and they look to be at least a hundred hours, add in units, play-testing and programming and your looking at a cost of several grand to 'make' a Civ of 'full' quality.

On the other this Babylon civ might be just some static leaderhead thing with recycled attributes and a re-colored unit which would be something like 1 hour of work, the kind of thing you expect to see in a senario. I haven't seen anything that explicitly says it is 'on par' with the 18 civs that will be in the base game, people seem to just be assuming that. I think 2K is really screwed either way. If they provide a 'full' civ through exclusive DLC they lose respect from non-premium purchasers and if they provide a 'scenario-quality' Civ then the Premium purchasers will be rightly pissed at false advertising.

100% agree. I dont care about art work, so I'm effectively paying £10 for something that I can mod in about an hour, never mind one person can mod and provide for download to everyone else in 2 hours. Why would I pay that?

TBH, I like the idea of Steam, but 2K are proving yet another reason to not be a gamer.

And let's be frank. If 2K are pissing off Firaxis employees you know 2K just made one of the most horrendous mistakes possible.

 

[Mercade]

100% agree. I dont care about art work, so I'm effectively paying £10 for something that I can mod in about an hour, never mind one person can mod and provide for download to everyone else in 2 hours. Why would I pay that?

TBH, I like the idea of Steam, but 2K are proving yet another reason to not be a gamer.

What I find most amusing in this respect is that if you PLAY Babylon, you don't actually get to see your own leaderhead at all. You only get to see if when AI (or MP) plays it.

Having said that, I would fully expect the Deluxe version to come with a complete civ up to par with the other 18 civs in the standard edition (leaderhead, special unit, special building, etc, worked out in details).

Coming back to the OP, if you accept the concept of DLC in terms of incremental improvements of e.g. extra civs or new scenarios, then it shouldn't matter much if it's on day 0, day 30 or month 12.

 

[Rub'Rum]

What I find most amusing in this respect is that if you PLAY Babylon, you don't actually get to see your own leaderhead at all. You only get to see if when AI (or MP) plays it.

That's an interesting point, an aspect of the previous Civ games though, not necessarily Civ 5. Actually, now that you mention it, when I was a noob at the game I always forgot to take my civ and its traits, units and buildings into account. I'd start the game and be aware of them, but eventually, I'd just forget about it. I still do it sometimes honestly.

Maybe we should see our own leader's face more often in various situations in order to remind us "hey, you're this guy, you have these bonuses, use them!".

 

[civ_king]

Their are no 'idle' people at a game company (especially at point in production). The largest time commitment is art wise, we have seen the quality of the Washington and Bismark heads and they look to be at least a hundred hours, add in units, play-testing and programming and your looking at a cost of several grand to 'make' a Civ of 'full' quality.

On the other this Babylon civ might be just some static leaderhead thing with recycled attributes and a re-colored unit which would be something like 1 hour of work, the kind of thing you expect to see in a senario. I haven't seen anything that explicitly says it is 'on par' with the 18 civs that will be in the base game, people seem to just be assuming that. I think 2K is really screwed either way. If they provide a 'full' civ through exclusive DLC they lose respect from non-premium purchasers and if they provide a 'scenario-quality' Civ then the Premium purchasers will be rightly pissed at false advertising.

What I meant by "idle" was that it will be produced between when game is sent to disc makers and release, after all it is a digital release only

 

[Rusty Edge]

What I find most amusing in this respect is that if you PLAY Babylon, you don't actually get to see your own leaderhead at all. You only get to see if when AI (or MP) plays it..

Agreed.

Coming back to the OP, if you accept the concept of DLC in terms of incremental improvements of e.g. extra civs or new scenarios, then it shouldn't matter much if it's on day 0, day 30 or month 12.

There's a fundamental difference between Civ IV with it's biennial expansions, and Civ V premium DLC . Civ IV Expansions are fair game for modding. Premium DLC is normally strictly off limits. With annual or biennial expansions we maintain a more or less official or standard version of the game. With a dribble of premium DLC we do not.

The existing approach has been proven modder freindly.

The new approach is dubious.


Sure, the press releases promise "unprecedented modabillity" and the lead designer has impeccable modding credentials. I don't doubt Jon.

2K has already created and filled a position which will check mods for copyright infringement. Steam has already clashed with modders in other games. So far the actions speak louder than the words.

Until we have something more definitive from 2K, I refuse to accept the DLC and I may not even bother to buy Civ V, even though it says Civ on the package, which has always been reason enough to justify any purchase for me before.

 

[Commander Bello]

There's a fundamental difference between Civ IV with it's biennial expansions, and Civ V premium DLC . Civ IV Expansions are fair game for modding. Premium DLC is normally strictly off limits. With annual or biennial expansions we maintain a more or less official or standard version of the game. With a dribble of premium DLC we do not.

The existing approach has been proven modder freindly.

The new approach is dubious.


Sure, the press releases promise "unprecedented modabillity" and the lead designer has impeccable modding credentials. I don't doubt Jon.

2K has already created and filled a position which will check mods for copyright infringement. Steam has already clashed with modders in other games. So far the actions speak louder than the words.

Until we have something more definitive from 2K, I refuse to accept the DLC and I may not even bother to buy Civ V, even though it says Civ on the package, which has always been reason enough to justify any purchase for me before.

Very well put!

Civ5 for now is not being bought by me.

Steam is going to restrict my rights as an honest buyer of the product, and DLC is going to restrict the legal chances for the modding community.

I have stopped playing unaltered Civ games some 4 weeks after the release. Since then, it has always been some of the fantastic mods which have been provided by the modding community.

 

[Mercade]

There's a fundamental difference between Civ IV with it's biennial expansions, and Civ V premium DLC . Civ IV Expansions are fair game for modding. Premium DLC is normally strictly off limits. With annual or biennial expansions we maintain a more or less official or standard version of the game. With a dribble of premium DLC we do not.

The existing approach has been proven modder freindly. The new approach is dubious. Sure, the press releases promise "unprecedented modabillity" and the lead designer has impeccable modding credentials. I don't doubt Jon.

2K has already created and filled a position which will check mods for copyright infringement. Steam has already clashed with modders in other games. So far the actions speak louder than the words.

That's a fair point, Rusty Edge. If the existence of any (commercial) DLC means that people cannot mod something similar, that would be a restriction to anyone who would want to create a Babylon mod or whatever DLC they intend to publish. And I agree that is a valid concern in contrast to having a baseline vanilla game and baseline expansions.

My point in relation to the OP was more about timing of the DLC as the title clearly speaks of Zero day DLC. If you accept the DLC concept, it shouldn't matter much when such DLC is released.

 

[deanej]

Except that it does. If you buy a game, you expect to be buying the complete game. DLC released on day zero means that something was withheld, and therefore you are not getting the complete game.

 

[Chalks]

My point in relation to the OP was more about timing of the DLC as the title clearly speaks of Zero day DLC. If you accept the DLC concept, it shouldn't matter much when such DLC is released.

I think there is a distinction here. From how I understand it, there is one situation where the developers work on a game, release the game, work on additional content then release additional content - and this is reasonable, even if they charge for the additional content.

On the other hand, there are games where the developers work on the game, then explicitly REMOVE content from it, release the game at full price then try to sell the pieces they removed as DLC on the same day the game is released - essentially reducing the quality of the released game and abusing the concept of DLC for extra money.

Now, obviously that's not what is happening here with Civ 5. There is no announced DLC, there is an extra civ they have explicitly written as a Delux Edition bonus in the same way they would commission a special box for the collectors edition in other games. That's not what DLC is.

Zero-day DLC does not apply here, but there is a valid reason to object to a company that does this.

@others: it is stupid for anyone to read a post that says "Firaxis may restrict what you can do" and then decide they're not going to buy the game because of the POSSIBILITY that they might be restricted. If Firaxis says tomorrow that there will be no restrictions, what are you going to do? Take your hysteria elsewhere and wait for facts please.