Civ 5 - Do we really need DLC, deluxe editions, and other marketing ploys?

[mriguy]

On the record: I ADORE THE CIVILIZATION SERIES !

Do we really need Firaxis Games and 2K Games to regress to old school marketing tactics like DLC and Deluxe editions with exclusive items? Hey guys, you have proven already yourself in the past and already have my money. There is no need to follow the 'software product release formula' that has become so common. I understand that Civ 5 will be heavily moddable so what is with the DLC?

Please, just release the game, make it awesome, make it complete and become rich beyond belief. Please fire whatever marketing company that is encouraging you to break up the game into pieces.

- Your loyal customer

[BoomWav]

Huh? Why not let them create more quality content for money. I think that's a fair deal.

[Wireweasel]

DLC means they feel the I.P isnt involving enough and people lose attention span of the product quickly. Look at how the Steam price has sunk already a whole 25% and thats before release. I dont really care about DLC just so long as the standards are available without hidden extra costs that being factions/races and the tech tree.

[Arquebusierx]

The only way I'd consider purchasing the deluxe edition would be if it the packaged version would have something special. Otherwise, hell no. It's a stupid money ploy.

[Snixtor]

I don't see the problem. It's there for people that want to spend more to get more. If you don't want the extra, then don't buy it.

[rushtodeath]

Personally, I have nothing against DLC as a concept, it's just the price per content ratio is ridiculous. $15 for a map pack?

Plus, I can't help but feel nostalgic for the time when devs just gave stuff like this away as a good will gesture for fans. But those were the halcyon days of PC gaming...

[gringbot]

as a long time civilization fan, i must say this is a serious sharp turn for the civilization series and its distribution, and I'm extremely disappointed with their decision to go this new route. its not a view i have thats unique to civilization 5, i generally dislike most of these new "special editions" because they leave a nice bit of content out to resell on top their game at outrageous prices.

the extra civilization is what, 1 out of 20 civilizations? thats 5%. considering half the game is the world/strategy, and the other half is the civilizations, that leads 2.5% of content for DLC (i wont include the making of vid or the soundtrack, because the soundtrack is already included in the game files, and the making of vid will be free on youtube in a week after release) so 2.5% of $50 is $1.25 worth of content, yet they're asking for $10. also, babylonians are a standard civilization in all their games so far, it sounds like they just removed them intentionally to sell them after for extra.

it's a greedy decision, nothing less.

@ Snixtor

imagine a store selling a chess board without the bishops, and you would need an extra $5 for them. this is basically what they are doing with civ 5.

[Europhoria]

While I was going to buy the CE (hopefully in stores) anyway as a big big fan of the Civ series, this decision not to include one of the civilizations in the regular game is disappointing really. The DLC has to be fairly outstanding for me to bother with them. Maybe I've been spoilt too much by Valve in these recent years but I have been watching the slide by many publishers into pure greed. This is the sort of nonsense I expect from those SoB's who advertise Firefox for <insert monetary amount> with a free Google toolbar...

DLC means they feel the I.P isnt involving enough and people lose attention span of the product quickly. Look at how the Steam price has sunk already a whole 25% and thats before release. I dont really care about DLC just so long as the standards are available without hidden extra costs that being factions/races and the tech tree.

What price has fallen by 25%? The price still looks the same to me.

[MDrm]

My worries is that by employing DLC this may mean that aspects of the game cannot be modded in order to make DLCs and extract money from us.

[remover]

You guys have a weird view of what "DLC" is.
Firstly, yes, sometimes people trying to jump on the bandwagon pump out DLC with no real value added, and take as many of your dollars as possible in the process.

But by and large, the goal of DLC (aside from something they can profit from), is to further expand on the games you already love.

Personally, i'm not a big fan of the "hey, pay us and you can download a new outfit for your virtual cooldude!"
But in cases where there's a game i'm addicted to and love and don't want it to end, and they release actual new CONTENT, IE - new missions, lands to explore, etc... bring it on! A good example would be Fallout 3: I play(ed) it on a console (don't beat me up - I have my reasons!) and they kept releasing new addons for it. You paid a bit of pocket change and got completely new experiences, small game experiences not unlike the main game itself, but different enough that it was truely worth exploring. Almost like "episodes" if you will. If they released brand new content in this manner every week for that game, I would have happily bought them all. If it was, however, a "buy the cool wooden gun pack for 5 bucks!" scenario, it'd have been infinitely less interesting.

Short version of all that:
I have zero problem paying for any and all DLC that actually adds to the game experience, or brings about something that actually engages you. I have a little harder time buying into DLC that just inserts and object without giving you anything new to do.

[Helz]

You guys have a weird view of what "DLC" is.


I have a view of DLC brought about by my experiences with it. 5-10 years back, the closest thing we had to DLC were expansions. These were exactly how you describe optimal DLC. They added significant new content to games in order to extend their life beyond the original campaign.

Often those expansions were a direct result of feedback from their fans, and the developers released them as much as 1-2 years after the original. Not all were worth the money obviously, in fact some were nothing but last ditch efforts to collect on a dying brand. Still they were generally worth the ~$25 and a lot of them were downright fantastic.

Outside of a few cases, DLC is just the opposite. It rarely adds more than 3-5 hours of gameplay, and its becoming more and more common to see DLC released on the same day as the full game. I'm not going to claim that all same-day DLC is content that the developers intentionally removed in order to make you pay for it twice, but you've got to admit that its starting to look downright shady.

I've paid for about 5 different DLCs from several different developers. I've felt like I was a sucker every single time too. Fallout 3 is your example of good DLC, and while I agree that its better than most, it was nowhere near the quality of the original game. Each DLC ran about 5-10 hours max, and was extremely buggy. At least Bethesda tried to add some new experiences though, I agree with you on that.

Most developers don't even bother. My one gripe with Bioware (my all-time favorite) is that their DLC is sh*t and it's become a major focus of their development cycle. 2k games is obviously following suit with same day DLC for Civ5.

I don't buy DLC any more unless its heavily recommended by friends/game critics. So far, that hasn't happened.

Ironically the best DLC I've played in ages was The Passing for L4D2. I'd have actually been glad to pay for that, and it was free.

[Aesir Rising]

The promise of DLC when the concept was being written up by the industry early on was that you'd get smaller but more frequent updates that would roughly equate to a full expansion's content over the course of the same period of time it might take to do a full expansion.

In practice, for the games that offer DLC, I see less content for more money. Oblivion Horse Armor wasn't a fluke. There are exceptions, I suppose. But they are the exceptions. As a rule, DLC hasn't been great for me.

What I really dislike is vendor-specific exclusive content. I ♥♥♥♥ing hate it. Supreme Commander 2 was the latest example where I paid more (through Steam) for no bonus maps. But if I wanted all 6 bonus maps, I'd have had to buy the full game from 3 different vendors in the US. (If I lived in France, I think one vendor had all the bonus maps). Dragon Age did the same thing. I really want vendor-exclusives to go away.

Deluxe and Collector's Editions, that aren't vendor exclusives, don't kill me. But when a Collector's Edition offers something beyond aesthetic appeal, and moves more towards useful/important in-game content used to play the game, then I get irked.

[Snixtor]

I can't imagine the game is going to seem all that "incomplete" without the Mesopatamia map pack and the Babylonians. It's not like you're going to march a settler off into the jungle and go "heyyy, shouldn't the Babylonians already be in here? what a rip off!".

Pretend for a moment that there had been no announcement of additional content. Would you be complaining that the game looks too thin on content? The fact that there is additional content doesn't reduce the core content in any way. If you can't stand the thought of playing the game without every extra add-on that there may be, then that's really your own problem / obsession with the concept of "completeness".

[Sifer2]

I can't imagine the game is going to seem all that "incomplete" without the Mesopatamia map pack and the Babylonians. It's not like you're going to march a settler off into the jungle and go "heyyy, shouldn't the Babylonians already be in here? what a rip off!".

Pretend for a moment that there had been no announcement of additional content. Would you be complaining that the game looks too thin on content? The fact that there is additional content doesn't reduce the core content in any way. If you can't stand the thought of playing the game without every extra add-on that there may be, then that's really your own problem / obsession with the concept of "completeness".


Well most people care about completeness that's why publishers are abusing the bonus's so much these days. An its also why I think Asian style MMO's using a in game store system do worse over here. People prefer just paying the flat monthly fee an feeling like they get everything.

I think people have a point that previous Civ's didn't need map packs to be successful so its obviously a money grab for them to start now. But like I said all the Publishers are doing it now. The DLC Genie is out of the bottle.

[Shemmie]

Like most things, you can see the point that Marketing casts its evil eye over the situation - like when Microsoft start releasing Ultimate Super Duper editions.

DLC is one of those things that your programmers should never explain to marketing. As defined above, 'optimal DLC' should be stuff they wanted to include in the main game, but didn't have time. It would then be collected post-release, and go towards a one (or maybe two)-off expansion pack.

Then Marketing hears about it.

"You're going to put that in the game? No way - break it in two, we'll sell the other part to them as DLC"

"There's too many maps in this game - include them in the game, but encrypted. We'll sell them an unlock code when it ships"

When it's clearly an expansion, I'll buy it. When it's clearly marketing-motivated, stick it. Stripping a civilization that's been in previous games to sell as DLC... have a guess which I see that as.

I should add that this is clearly a case of "We'll release two SKU's: Basic and Normal. We can then charge our new PC price point of £40 for the normal release, that includes DLC that isn't really DLC. People will then be happy they got 'Deluxe' which is more appropriately named 'The complete game as we intended', or 'Normal' which is a lesser release."

[creativerehash]

I can't believe how hyperbolic you all are about something as silly as DLC making it into Civ 5, like somehow it will undermine its own potentially massive modding community or ruin the core game or something ridiculous. Get over it, as game costs go up developers need more ways to make a profit. If they release a worthwhile map pack or a pack of a few well-designed civilizations for 4.99, I'd gladly support the devs and pay that small fee.

An example of an absolute DLC atrocity is Railworks (check the Steam store for that, it's abysmal), compared to that, Civ 5 players have nothing to worry about.

[City Builder]

Like someone else mentioned, I'd have to wonder if some form of modding the game has been left out so that they can sell the stuff in DLC. For example, if they are leaving out the Babs to put them into a DLC pack, then have they also left out the ability for the modders to mod in a new civilization? Why else should the player buy it in the form of DLC if a modder could just as well create the same content?

I am jaded though, I think that DLC is a scourge on the PC gaming market and should have been left to the console market which seems whole heartedly accepted DLC as a great thing. Personally, I am of the mind that I'd rather pay the full fee for the full game up front and then buy any expansion packs (full expansion packs) as they are created. DLC to me seems like it is stuff they simply pull out or don't put in in the full game just so they can sell the "full" game for $59.99 instead of the accepted $49.99

[mriguy]

I can't believe how hyperbolic you all are about something as silly as DLC making it into Civ 5, like somehow it will undermine its own potentially massive modding community or ruin the core game or something ridiculous. Get over it, as game costs go up developers need more ways to make a profit. If they release a worthwhile map pack or a pack of a few well-designed civilizations for 4.99, I'd gladly support the devs and pay that small fee.

You need only to look at the Total War series to see how detrimental these recent marketing ploys have been, especially to the strategy genre. Both Rome and Medieval II Total War were a modders paradise. When Total War: Empire came out with DLC, many were suspicious of the preorder bonuses and deluxe editions. All became clear when SEGA announced that modding was not in their best interest. Modders discovered that many of the previously accessible attributes were now locked.

The micro-expansions released for Sins of the Solar Empire by Stardock/Ironclad is a example of good DLC. These expansions filled in areas that the original lacked and also aided modders by giving them even more tools.

I support the developer by purchasing the game. There is never a reason (expect greed and a concern that a product would not sell after reviews) to separately sell parts of a game that has already been designed. As I said in my original post, I hope they make a lot of money; I just do not feel they need to fragment the game. I also feel that this will force aggressive controls on the modding process.

[Pinkrose]

DLCs are good if they provide something not available already.
I've bought a few. And I've regretted a few of those purchases.

What I don't understand is that the CIV franchise has always been modder-friendly. What will happen to that?
Will a modder be allowed to make a Babylonian Civilization?

And finally, if a piece of a product is done at release, why is it not included in release? Why has some of the time of the developers been used to make a separate product instead of being put into the full release?

Finally, if DLCs are here to stay, why not make every civilization DLC. Just sell the game for $30, and make each civilization $.99 a piece. If I only wanna play with 4 AIs, then the game will cost me less then $35. That's a deal.

[pilnomi]

I definitely won't be spending the extra $10 for the civ5 DLC..

It won't feel quite complete without the Baby faction, but I refuse to pay $10 for a single faction and map I'll probably never use (fractal maps are more fun, imo). Those videos included with it? Yeah those should be free. "making of" videos are typically marketing tools to generate interest in the game, *not* paid-for DLC content.. they really seem to have it backwards..

I would consider buying factions at $.99 per, or even $1.99 if it includes a few customized units/buildings (or any other new artwork).

[Miniver]

Jesus Christ, this is pathetic.

Don't like the price of the deluxe edition at $60 but still want to enjoy its content? Then wait for it to drop to $50, which appears to be the price you all think would be reasonable for the regular edition. Wow, so hard, right?

Get over yourselves.

[runtheplacered]

@ Snixtor

imagine a store selling a chess board without the bishops, and you would need an extra $5 for them. this is basically what they are doing with civ 5.

huh? that's not at all what's going on. You can play Civ V without the Babylonians just fine. You can't play chess without bishops as that would not be chess at all.

[Mikouen]

Indeed, I'm pretty sure the Babylonian civ won't have some unique bonuses that make all of their opponent's efforts futile or anything, so at the end of the day all the backlash is over a name and an icon - neither of which have any effect on actual gameplay.

As far as purchase incentives go, this one's kinda sad. Throwing in a redeemable iTunes code for some Christopher Tin tracks would've gone down way better. Just sayin'. :p

[Technopath]

I wouldn't worry too much guys, if the game is as moddable as they say it is, I'm sure someone will make the map pack and the civ into a mod.

I personally don't mind DLC as long as the price is acessible and it adds what I think I paid for.

On the other hand, charging an extra $10 for game-affecting content that is already made is annoying.

[jobrien2001]

You can't play chess without bishops as that would not be chess at all.

Some people would say... You can't play Civ without Babylons as that would not be Civ at all.

[Mikouen]

Some people would say... You can't play Civ without Babylons as that would not be Civ at all.I'd fail to see whatever point those people were trying to communicate, as the two are entirely different things.

The bishop is integral to the game of chess - even if it's called something else or looks different, removing it outright would completely upset the very dynamic of chess and would render all existing strategies obsolete.

Civs, however, are completely interchangeable. If you went over Civ 4's mod support and renamed the Babylonians "The Smurfs" and put Papa Smurf as their portrait, or simply removed them outright, the game would still play out the same way regardless.

Thus my prior point about this uproar being over a name and a portrait.


Also of note is that this uproar is only over the Babylonians, and not the other cut civs, which adds an implication of it's own.

[Aesir Rising]

Also of note is that this uproar is only over the Babylonians, and not the other cut civs, which adds an implication of it's own.

Wasn't aware of the other cut civs. I'm not alone.

Are they just cut out entirely, or are they planned for release as part of another DLC pack, or are they vendor exclusives?

[xXNorthWeaponXx]

I bought the DLC because:

If I didn't, then i would be left out, cuz a lot of people are buying it.

The Civilization Soundtracks are awesome

Babylonians who doesn't want to experience more civilizations?

[Dagbiker]

I have no problem with dlc, the problem is when comps cut things. the fallout dlc was amazing, and well worth it. the problem is when they cut, things out of the final product, thats not cool.

[ton de mo nai]

I have only once purchased DLC for any game. That game was Beat Hazard, and that DLC was $1 for a feature that should have been included in the game from the start. And honestly, it wasn't worth it. It wasn't worth a dollar.
My new stance on DLC is if I feel like a game is missing something without the DLC, I just won't buy the game at all.
DLC is a marketing gimmick, pure and simple. It should be left to stupid addon features like extra skins, maybe some goof mods. It should never add to core gameplay elements. When a DLC adds core gameplay elements, it literally leaves everyone without the DLC playing a different game.
If companies want to add costumes or reskins of maps for a few extra dollars, I don't mind. I won't buy them, but that's at least a fair addon. But when they add features that they really should have just included to begin with, they have lost not only my money for that content, they've lost my money for that game and they've lost any future money I might have spent on any of their other games.

Ultimately, I guess Civ4 is the last Civ game I'll ever buy.

[Mikouen]

Wasn't aware of the other cut civs. I'm not alone.

Are they just cut out entirely, or are they planned for release as part of another DLC pack, or are they vendor exclusives?Half of the civs from Beyond the Sword are dropped, though I guess that was perhaps to be expected as far as the base game is concerned.

As for if we're going to see them again, in DLC or expansions, I really couldn't say. Doesn't seem like there are any plans for them yet.

But when they add features that they really should have just included to begin with, they have lost not only my money for that content, they've lost my money for that game and they've lost any future money I might have spent on any of their other games.While I don't disagree with that, I also don't agree either.

One thing we need to remember is that game developers are not in control - at the end of the day, the publisher is free to meddle however they like. Publishers can have planned content cut because they won't budge on deadlines, or because they just felt like it. Without DLC and expansion pack releases, we'd never get that content at all.

Of course, there's a lot of DLC out there that is filled with genuine, new content, such as Oblivion's Knights of the Nine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_the_Nine), Borderland's General Knoxx (http://store.steampowered.com/app/50110/), and GTA4's two DLCs.

Then again, there's also complete crap out there like Oblivion's Horse Armor pack ($2.50 just to put armor on a horse and get a pointless 10% HP boost), so it really goes both ways.

No two cases are the same when it comes to DLC, so by making such blanket rules, we're really just limiting our own options.


Besides, so far, planned DLC for Civ 5 are basically just maps and civs, so I really don't see the difference between Civ 5 DLC and - for example - this skinpack for Killing Floor (http://store.steampowered.com/app/1257/). In that respect, it's really not that bad, is it?

That said, I could see myself shelling out $5 on occasion for a pack of, say, 5-10 scenarios, or a remake of the Fantasy Campaign from Civ II. Y'know, substantial stuff.

[ton de mo nai]

Besides, so far, planned DLC for Civ 5 are basically just maps and civs, so I really don't see the difference between Civ 5 DLC and - for example - this skinpack for Killing Floor (http://store.steampowered.com/app/1257/). In that respect, it's really not that bad, is it?

That said, I could see myself shelling out $5 on occasion for a pack of, say, 5-10 scenarios, or a remake of the Fantasy Campaign from Civ II. Y'know, substantial stuff.

Civs are a core-gameplay element.
If people with DLC will be able to play online with those without DLC, that is a problem.
However, if the DLC works similar to how expansions have in the past, then really nothing is changing at all and no big deal.

[SunfighterLC]

DLC is only a problem because lately a lot of companies seem to have gotten the bright idea of releasing a game with 90% of the content they made, then a week later releasing the remaining 10% as a DLC for 5-10 bucks.

People are starting to catch on to that, and are starting to get angry about it.

[BMR]

Hello, Hello--short-time lurker, first-time poster:

DLC doesn't bother me so long as it is substantial for the price, and so long as it is something that could not be released with the core product due to budget, technical, or scheduling problems during core production. In this respect, DLC bascially is an expansion pack that you download instead of buy in the store.

What I often do--but not always--is wait two or three years for a bundle pack of the expansions to come out, and then perhaps wait even longer for a further drop in price. I'm so jaded by gaming these days that I often wait until the price of a single title has dropped to $10 or $20, or $20 or $30 for a bundle or a GOTY edition.

For certain developers and brands though, I trust them enough that I get on the bandwagon early. Fallout: New Vegas is one--preordered that Collector's Edition like nobody's business. Civ 4 was another--I even bought the complete edition despite already owning all the other core titles so I could have them plus Colonialization on one official DVD.

The Civ 5 pre-orders and packs though, I feel they are overpriced for the content they offer at first glance. Maybe that video will turn out to be a full hour featurette of DVD or HD quality instead of a 15-minute web-video job. Maybe they've recorded the digital download of the soundtrack at a higher bit rate and a lossless format compared to the game files. I dunno. I'm inclined to agree with others that you can just burn the music files from the program itself unless they've been encrypted, and the video will be posted online. If the version with the actual CDs and the artbook was knocked down to $70--the same price as the New Vegas CE, then I'd pre-order it (Considering that it doesn't offer an extra civ, being the Amazon unit).

[Mikouen]

Civs are a core-gameplay element.
If people with DLC will be able to play online with those without DLC, that is a problem.Sorry, but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.

The game doesn't play out in a significantly different manner regardless of what civilization is chosen. Civ bonuses, in BtS at any rate, aren't large enough to really make a major difference to gameplay, and the leader personalities likewise have minimal influence. Unique units and buildings are nice buffs, but they're far from being game breakers.

For all intents and purposes, civ choices are only slightly more than cosmetic in Beyond the Sword, so as long as it stays that way - i.e. DLC civs aren't innately overpowered compared to base civs - then why should we let it bother us?

[Xentropy]

Civ bonuses and leader traits don't make a major difference to gameplay?! Did you ever PLAY competitive Civ4 MP? (Hint: The wrong civ and leader choices could end a game before it begins. These decisions are so important that generally Civ4 MP games are played with the setting to decouple leaders from civs and then players get to choose either a leader or a civ in a randomly seeded order and then the other choice in reverse order.)

Now granted, we haven't played Civ5 yet, so maybe the bonuses make less of a difference this time around. But the lists I've seen look pretty meaningful and significant.

Just because the civs aren't as different as races in Starcraft 2 doesn't mean the differences aren't very meaningful to the game. Now, maybe the Babylonians have a terrible bonus and it'll be a moot point, but if they (or any future leader/civ DLC) have an even situationally-powerful bonus (say, one that opens a new strategic avenue to victory), it's perfectly possible that it becomes a metagame requirement to have access to that Civ and/or leader for competitive multiplayer.

If Civs were just leader portraits and unique unit skins without gameplay considerations, this wouldn't be an issue. Sadly, they're more than that.

[protoroc]

DLC is only a problem because lately a lot of companies seem to have gotten the bright idea of releasing a game with 90% of the content they made, then a week later releasing the remaining 10% as a DLC for 5-10 bucks.

People are starting to catch on to that, and are starting to get angry about it.

The problem is more like unfinished games get pushed to the market, if they sell well then it gets fixes or you end up with Alpha Protocols, it didn't sell and most likely never get fixed.

[Mikouen]

Civ bonuses and leader traits don't make a major difference to gameplay?! Did you ever PLAY competitive Civ4 MP?I'm going to ignore the usage of the term "competitive", because for reasons I'm not going to get into here, I believe your usage of that term is an insult to both my intelligence and your own.

However, to answer the question I believe you were trying to ask, yes, I've played online. Yes, against other people. Yes, they did understand the game, and yes, we were all trying to emerge victorious by any means necessary, as swiftly and efficiently as possible.

No, the outcome wasn't determined by civ bonuses. In fact, you might say civ bonuses really had nothing to do with it.

Oh, sure, if you try going head to head against someone in a culture battle, when they have a civ bonus boosting their culture, yeah, they'll probably beat you. But, they didn't win because of their civ bonus - they won because you fought them in a like-for-like scenario where they had the advantage.


Your hint, by the way, is contradictory.

Let's assume that you're entirely correct, and civ bonuses are so major an influence that they predetermine the outcome of the game. So you join a game lobby, you see who has what bonuses. Logically, this is the point where you'd know who was going to win.

How many people do you know, who would spend anywhere from one to twelve hours on a game they already knew they'd lost while they were sitting at the menu?

Everyone would try to get the most powerful bonus combos so that they had the advantage. If they couldn't, they just wouldn't play the game, and would go off to fnd one where they could, because no one likes to be on receiving end of a curb stomp.

These imbalances - and the subsequent side-effects - quickly lead to a stagnant multiplayer community, which is what any savvy developer wants to avoid.


Now, bear in mind I'm not exactly saying that civ bonuses are meaningless.

What I'm saying is that if someone needs to rely on their civ bonuses to win a match of Civ 4, then they probably weren't going to beat an experienced player one way or the other.

[Ansonr]

Are you people mad! Not buying this game due to 1 Civ that was possible already planned to be in the game being taken out and put in to sweeten the deal with the Deluxe Edition. For starters you all act like the deluxe edition is only the Babylon civ. Obviously we all know its not.

Secondly I'm pretty sure if someone has Babylon they can still play with people that don't. They just encrypt the files on anyone who owns the games HDD (and doesn't own the civ) and will still be there so you can play with others.

And finally, if you really think that this is going to be like total war, where they totally ignore modding, you have not watched a single preview. I mean they allow you to access and download mods without leaving the game. The head dev of civ 5 was originally part of the civ IV modding community!

Really I guess you can have your own prerogative, but you just going to miss what is surly to be an awesome installment of civilization. Also a lot of you are acting like from now on every week they will release one civilization which they made months ago and is already in the game and then sell them for $10 a piece and anyone who does not own the correct combination of all these civs will not be able to play together. Madness.

[Xentropy]

Civ bonuses not causing "curb stomps" does not mean they have no meaning to balance whatsoever. You're making black and white comparisons in a world full of shades of gray. There is a place between "civ bonuses completely decide the game" and "civ bonuses make no difference to the game". Your initial supposition was that civ bonuses do not make any major differences to gameplay. My argument to the contrary is not that they decide the entire game on their own (though the WRONG choice in certain game settings CAN be an excessively large penalty which must be overcome...note this is NOT the same as the RIGHT choice being an automatic win, and I never said the latter), but that they ARE meaningful. What the publisher is doing here with the DLC is analogous to making, say, industrious, financial, and creative available for $10 each, while the base game only allows combinations of the other 8 options. To say this doesn't have gameplay and balance repercussions is disingenuous at best.

Sure, Civilization has multiple paths to victory, but if one path ends up so decided by civ bonuses that it is effectively removed from play for people without access to a given civ (and not having seen what bonuses the Babylonians get, much less any future DLC civs, of which there will almost assuredly be at least several, no one knows if this could end up the case), you are limiting the available strategies of people who do not pay extra money. This should NEVER happen. I have no problems with single-player DLC (extra maps/scenarios and the like), and I have no problems with purely cosmetic multiplayer DLC (unit skins and recolors), but I most assuredly have an issue with DLC that has effects on multiplayer gameplay, and I say that as someone who doesn't even have any real plans to play Civ5 multiplayer at the moment (even if there weren't this issue). It just doesn't sit right with me for people to be able to pay for power, even if it's only the metagame power of possibly choosing a civ which allows extra avenues toward victory, even if other players in the game can just seek other avenues.

Maybe the Babylonians will end up with the same civ bonus as an existing civ, and each future DLC civ will just be a second civ with each existing bonus or something. That would be acceptable. You'd just be paying for a different picture of your leader in diplomacy, different unit colors, or what have you. But if there is a unique bonus (of ANY kind), there is something fundamentally wrong with this DLC. It's not about my personal multiplayer habits, it's about the principle of what DLC should and should not be able to be. I have the same issue with cash shops for MMOG's if they sell items which are more than cosmetic. How much RL money you spend shouldn't affect in-game success rates. And whatever you may think, having access to a new potential bonus will result in increased success, whether it be 0.1% or 5%.

[Pinkrose]

And finally, if you really think that this is going to be like total war, where they totally ignore modding, you have not watched a single preview. I mean they allow you to access and download mods without leaving the game. The head dev of civ 5 was originally part of the civ IV modding community!

This is what I don't understand.
Dragon Age isn't moddable. They sell DLCs so you can have more content. I understand that.
Civ5 IS moddable. You will be able to get free content(and very professional looking if Civ4 is any indication). Why sell what can be made and gotten for Free? Is there anything stopping someone from modding their own Babylon Civ and passing it out for free?
They said you can convert Civ4 maps to Civ5. Can't I just import a Civ4 cradle of humanity map?

What I'm asking is what is the benefit of buying the DLC?
Is it only that I have it on day one? (I can wait)
Or is it that I will never get to play the Babylon civ if I don't? (I might want to buy it)

[Pinkrose]

Finally, do we know if the babylon civ will be released as an actual DLC on its own after the release?

[xqyz]

I don't think DLC for Civ will end the modding, the way I see it is, that Leaders in Civ 5 take quite some additional work, which most likely would not be covered by a cheap mod. Full voices for the character, animated 3D model etc. A mod is NOT going to be as integrated in the game as the official stuff and I'm willing to shell out a couple of bucks for some additional content once in a while. So long as it's not totally overpriced.

[Lozzen]

I know I'm slow guys, but to my horror, I realized that 2k is publishing this game, which I have been waiting a good long time for..

As some of you may know, this publisher chose to butcher their new Mafia 2 title by ripping content from the finished product and sending it out for later. Some people digged into the core files of the game and found a lot of missions which was supposed to add to what would have been a wonderful FULL game.

I'm pointing this out now, because I'm afraid that they'll do the same to this game. A shame really, some companies know no dignity anymore and it hurts the developers badly.

[festa_freak]

I got the digital deluxe edition from D2D for 49.99 and it includes the dlc that will be released later in the year. I used the schoolsucks code!

This instance worked well for me. I have never bought dlc though. I absolutely refuse to buy into this crap. It is especially funny when they add DLC to modable games (oblivion I'm looking at you).

I used to always get the expansion packs:

C&C generals Zero hour
SupCom forged alliance
crysis warhead
BC and WotlK (when I played WoW)
shivering isles

heck, even the half life episodes are expansions, and they were super good!

Those are just a few examples of expansions I have purchased that I don't regret. I would now regret buying horse armour or a 3 hour half-hearted extension of a game I love!

[eagleFMJ]

Anyone know why the Deluxe version isn't listed on the store page anymore?

It has disappeared?

[trojanrabbit.gg]

I just got a pop up message about Civ V in the lower right hand corner of my screen. Couldn't catch what it was though. Something about new posted information or something. My guess is that the Pre-purchase of the deluxe is done. You may have to wait until after the release now.

[jake_farrell]

Anyone know why the Deluxe version isn't listed on the store page anymore?

It has disappeared?

i dont know.. WHY :(

i hope it will be fixed very! soon..

[Aesir Rising]

Deluxe is back up. It was a bug. Someone else is downloading some component of the game, suggesting the pre-loading started. I think it's just a bug either way.

[trojanrabbit.gg]

Deluxe is back up. It was a bug. Someone else is downloading some component of the game, suggesting the pre-loading started. I think it's just a bug either way.

Good to know it was just a bug in the system.

[Rocketfu3l]

For all those gamers riding the Bethesda/Fallout Ponyy Express.

Fallout 3 (an RPG) has its level capped at 20!? But ofcourse, thank god for DLC's, because I can actually enjoy a CORE aspect of RPGs by continuing my leveling and gaining of new character skills by only purchasing a DLC. Yet another leap forward in the gaming industry :confused:

For those people that want to pay for the DLCs that genuinely offer new content, its your money, but when the DLC is setup to complete a core element of the genre, for example and I'm not saying they will), but IF they were to add Tech tree elements into the Civ 5 DLCs, it would be similar to a RPG level cap in the RPG genre, and that affects our choice to purchase that DLC.

Its also only a matter of time before the industry wants to charge people to try the demo. :eek: And ofcourse there will be the gamers that would argue, like with Dead Rising 2 on the console, that the 2 hour jaunt into that game is not a demo but indeed worth the 400MS points that they are charging for it before the game's release. Welcome to the age of gaming where white collar executives have got their claws into your purse strings, and greed is limitless.

[runtheplacered]

Its also only a matter of time before the industry wants to charge people to try the demo.

Too late. Look at Playstation Plus.

[dannythefool]

For those people that want to pay for the DLCs that genuinely offer new content, its your money, but when the DLC is setup to complete a core element of the genre, for example and I'm not saying they will), but IF they were to add Tech tree elements into the Civ 5 DLCs, it would be similar to a RPG level cap in the RPG genre, and that affects our choice to purchase that DLC.


I don't know, isn't that essentially the same what they did with CIV and Civ 3 and Civ 2? Taking just CIV as an example, Warlords and BtS both added major elements to the game. CIV with BtS is an entirely different game compared to vanilla (even the space victory takes longer if you are bad enough to get that far). You could argue that CIV+BtS is the finished game and the original CIV was only half of it, without corporations, espionage, generals, etc.

Oh and about Fallout 3 - the raised level cap breaks the game more than it actually improves it. The game becomes much easier. It's nice to have when you actually have more content to play through some months after you finished the original game at level 20, but if I had to restart Fallout 3 and could choose what I wanted as a level cap without all other DLC features, I'd pick 20...

[SalamanderX]

Yea its too much for one civ, I'm not paying $10. I do feel kind of sour toward the fiasco as well, I like the Babylonians, if only because they were a very important early civilization in reality. There are enough that they wont be missed too badly if at all tho.

[Aesir Rising]

I don't know, isn't that essentially the same
You can argue that DLC added content to the game, and an expansion pack added content to the game. You win that argument. Both added content.

DLC and expansion pack are just words now, and I'm not much interested in putting too fine a point on the terminology. That said, when the industry had the typical expansion pack, I could buy an expansion pack and have what the next person had. And both of us knew that we both had "the complete game".

Tell me what to do to get all the pre-order maps and Neb's head in game now? How much does it cost, and even if I were to buy those multiple copies, could I actually have all 5 of those maps and the leader in one game?

It doesn't seem like it is essentially the same at all to me. Seems quite different.

[dkbibi]

Well, for everything that's entertainment you have to think about this : how much hapiness (reference to Civ unintended :P) do I get for my bucks?

I paid 60$ for a game that I know I'll play hundreds, if not thousands of hours. What else could I get (entertainement wise) for this 60 bucks? An average meal with alcohol for two people at the restaurant. 3 DVDs. A board game. Well if you ask me, that 60$ for Civ V totally worth every penny!

Now, apply the same logic for DLCs. If you think you could get better fun elsewhere for the same price tag, well don't buy!

[Lokwassen]

Do we really need Firaxis Games and 2K Games to regress to old school marketing tactics like DLC and Deluxe editions with exclusive items?

I don't mind because you don't HAVE to buy DLC. Let them make it, someone will buy it, and everyone's happy. Personally, I'm sticking with mods, why would I pay for something a modder can make for free. I'm still buying the deluxe edition though. For the soundtrack and Nebuchadnezzar II. Modders make great maps, but the animated leader heads always seem a bit off.

[SerBlack]

I do not mind DLC's for the intent of publishing new content more often than what is possible with a full expansion.

I'm however quite suspicious about 0-day DLC's or Collectors/Deluxe stuff that adds content beyond the pure aesthetic as I can't be certain if the decision to withhold a part of a functioning is a marketing decision, a parallel development with own funding or initial core material that didn't cut a deadline (but got finished after the game went gold).

[Murdats]

I have only once purchased DLC for any game. That game was Beat Hazard, and that DLC was $1 for a feature that should have been included in the game from the start. And honestly, it wasn't worth it. It wasn't worth a dollar.


While I dislike DLC and all the whole reason the beat hazard cost money was because of licensing fees the developer had to cover.

Also this who launch DLC is all about getting some cash from the retailers second hand game sales that the publishers dont get to touch.

they hold ransom $10 of the game that cant be resold with the second hand copy so that when someone buys it second hand, they kinda have to fork over $10 to the publisher to get the rest of it

[dannythefool]

Tell me what to do to get all the pre-order maps and Neb's head in game now? How much does it cost, and even if I were to buy those multiple copies, could I actually have all 5 of those maps and the leader in one game?

It doesn't seem like it is essentially the same at all to me. Seems quite different.

To some extent. You need to make a distinction here.

The extra civ is in a different edition of the game. It's part of the Digital Deluxe edition, but it's not limited to Steam. This is similar to Civ 2 vs. Civ 2 Gold back in the day. It's still annoying, but it's not new. (For Civ 2, the community eventually produced a patch that brought Civ 2 very close to Civ 2 Gold.)

Then there is another 2 civilizations and maps you get if you buy from Direct2Drive. This is just them giving you a free copy of the first DLC and everybody will be able to buy that when it is released.

Then there are the vendor-specific bonus maps. What you say applies to it. I do think it's not a big deal in this case, though. There is a map editor, and you can share maps. You will either see these maps posted online (I'm not going to say anything about the legality of that) or you will see the community come up with better ones if the community thinks fixed maps of Mesopotamia, Italy etc. are actually interesting. From experience, non-random maps don't matter much in Civilization games.

[CptMetropolis]

So what you're saying here is that marketers ruin everything and should be shot out of a cannon into the sun? :)

I absolutely loathe this business model and despair to see it attached like some horrid, pulsating tumor to one of my all-time favorite series. I don't really have anything of much substance to add here other than my hope modding won't be impacted by this route.

Also, this has been a very engaging thread to read!

[dannythefool]

So what you're saying here is that marketers ruin everything and should be shot out of a cannon into the sun? :)


I'd be nice if we could do that :)

Although, realistically, they are just trying to make some money, which is actually in our best interest, since we want them to keep producing games... it's not quite as black and white as you may be led to believe...


I absolutely loathe this business model and despair to see it attached like some horrid, pulsating tumor to one of my all-time favorite series. I don't really have anything of much substance to add here other than my hope modding won't be impacted by this route.


From what has been said so far, the game will be very moddable. They keep telling us that it'll be way more moddable than previous titles in the series.

Also, if I look at my Steam directory, it appears that most of the game data is in XML or lua files. Hard to tell what they contain now, of course, since they're still encrypted, but looks promising...

[CptMetropolis]

Although, realistically, they are just trying to make some money, which is actually in our best interest, since we want them to keep producing games... it's not quite as black and white as you may be led to believe......

Oh absolutely. But there are so many more honourable ways to do so. My biggest gripe beyond the usual (dividing up pieces of an initial release, selling measily features at exhorbitant prices, modding being curtailed - which by your estimate doesn't seem to be happening, thankfully ) with most dlc systems in games I've played is how poorly implemented they tend to be. Either the store system sucks (integration with Steam makes me more hopeful than usual in this case,) its tied to some awful 3rd party login system, it's completely forgotten after one or two or no dlc releases, etc..

I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised in this case, but the initial offering of a single playable civ and a single extra map (I'm afraid I can't consider the videos of any additional value myself - perhaps some disagree) for an extra charge of $10 is... Ominously predictable.

At the very least, I'm sure 2k is not clumsy enough to let the dlc interfere to any degree with multiplayer between the have-dlc's and have-nots. Crossing fingers.

[snake289]

Why do I get a feeling that they'll still release expansion packs but just with less content thanks to this DLC crap?

[dannythefool]

Oh absolutely. But there are so many more honourable ways to do so.

Yeah, the industry hasn't really found them yet though :)

Making games is also much more expensive now than it was fifteen or twenty years ago. It's kind of expected that they'd have to try all they can to get a bigger budget. Right now, they're trying to get more people to buy from them directly instead of second hand copies (or, gasp, piracy). I don't like it as a consumer, since I do buy all my software and this is limiting my options, but from a business point of view I can see where they're going with this. And if we keep buying software under conditions like these, it won't change either.

[Aesir Rising]

Making games is also much more expensive now than it was fifteen or twenty years ago.
I've seen this posted in other topics as well, but it only tells half the story. So, I'll note the other half: Games sell to a much larger audience than 15 or 20 years ago.

As for DLC being the way to make money, this is ironic for this series in particular, as they've been very successful (critically and by all accounts economically) in their prior releases. But either way, I'm not generally satisfied with paying more overall, paying more frequently, and in the end (typically) getting less overall content that what I'd have expected from expansion packs.

[CptMetropolis]

There is that as well.


I mean, in the end, the jokes on me. I'm totally going to shell out for the special edition thingy even while I moan about it. :) Just as long as Firaxis keeps delivering. I think my first game of theirs was Pirates! And I liked the art style they presented in that game - I rather think I see a bit of it in Civ 4.

[Xentropy]

To my mind, there are two rules of DLC, and almost every DLC I've seen breaks one or both of them:
1) Do not sell PvP power. If the game has multiplayer, DLC may not contain benefits to gameplay, only graphical fluff; perhaps maps (that only multiple players with that DLC may play together), unit skins (but not units of unique power!) and the like, but not civs, improvements, buildings, units without a non-DLC analogue, etc.
2) Offer either large DLC packs for a reasonable price (e.g. a "fantasy unit pack" with at least fifteen to twenty unit skins for fantasy-type units for use in mods, costing say $10) or offer tiny individual items for very cheap (e.g. maps or single-unit skins for $1 each).

So far this title is breaking BOTH rules, with civs being DLC (civs having unique units and abilities which offers unique power in multiplayer) *and* one measly civ costing $10 (at least four times what a single civ *should* cost). The idea with DLC should be either to duplicate the past concept of expansion packs and offer a LOT of content for higher prices, or to offer an extremely wide variety of which any individual is likely to want three or four items (out of dozens), basically showing off their individuality and personal preferences.

[dannythefool]

So far this title is breaking BOTH rules, with civs being DLC (civs having unique units and abilities which offers unique power in multiplayer)

That's an interesting point. Actually, I wonder if it will even be possible to play with someone who uses a DLC civ that you don't have. I bought the deluxe edition on Steam (pre-ordered long ago), and now that we can preload, I see no trace of the additional civ anywhere. From which I am guessing that it is handled like DLC and it's possible that no bit of it is available to players who don't have it, not even data required to display e.g. the head in a multiplayer game. (Of course, I can only look at file names at this point.)

*and* one measly civ costing $10 (at least four times what a single civ *should* cost). The idea with DLC should be either to duplicate the past concept of expansion packs and offer a LOT of content for higher prices, or to offer an extremely wide variety of which any individual is likely to want three or four items (out of dozens), basically showing off their individuality and personal preferences.

The $10 (EUR 5 for me) is not just a single civ, it doesn't matter if you think the map, the video feature and the soundtrack aren't worth anything. I doubt that they will sell additional civs for $10. Especially as it seems that we will be able to create our own civs, like we have been in the past.

[Xentropy]

The map pack is actually in the normal edition as well if you preorder. You are correct, however, that you also get the soundtrack and behind the scenes video for that $10. Mea culpa.

The main content in an additional civ that makes it worth quite a bit, at least from Take Two's standpoint, is the animated leader and real-language voicework. The civ ability and unique units/buildings could be modded in more easily. We'll see how it works out and what future DLC costs come out to (when the waters aren't muddied by a soundtrack and video). :)

[darrenecm]

I don't see the problem. It's there for people that want to spend more to get more. If you don't want the extra, then don't buy it.

The problem is that nearly all 'Deluxe', 'Collectors' etc packages do not contain items worth the extra you pay. So the correct phrase would be 'It's there for people that want to spend more to get very little' :)

I don't consider things like printed colour art books, posters, making of DVD etc to be value for money. The printed books and posters might appear decent to the clueless gamers who don't remember that we used to frequently get things like that in the box as part of the game, as well as a manual...remember those? ;)

There's also very little substance to 'Making of...' Bonus DVD type goodies. You can pick up most of that kind of information from magazines and websites like GameSpot that cover the game during development and launch.

Bonus in-game maps or other software-related extras are also rubbish value for money, unless it's something really substantial that took the developers more than a few hours in the game editor to create.

I want a lot more than cheesy items like this before I spend extra on my games.

[duxup]

I certainly don't need any of the deluxe editions and such things. I felt I always got a lot better deal back in the day of a fully polished initial release along with some significant expansions here or there.

Having said that with Civ V I am a part of the problem as that is one of the few games where I will eat all that stuff up. Other games though I just pass it all up.

[Polykleitos]

I think y'all need to just relax a bit. Either pay the extra or don't. Seems simple to me, if you think the DLC is overpriced, don't frakkin' buy it! If you think it's a wonderful deal and you cannot possibly live without the Babylonian civilization then by all means, grab it up.

I do hope that I will be able to multi-player with a Babylonian opponent without the DLC though. If this is not the case, y'all have a case. Otherwise...

What I wish to mention is a comment the original poster made about downloadable content packages and deluxe editions.

Do we really need Firaxis Games and 2K Games to regress to old school marketing tactics like DLC and Deluxe editions with exclusive items?

Since when the frak is DLC considered Old School? You must be pretty new to computer games if you think this is how it was in the good ole days. I never even heard of DLC until a few short years ago. When I think 'Old School marketing [techniques]' I think of things like maps; maps printed on fabric. Or maybe a novella or some sort of reference book to help fill in the story and create more immersion.

Seems like the recent moves towards more and more DLC is mirroring the trends of the late 90s. Release now, patch later: that was the lamentable state of many a game during the golden age of computer gaming. Now it seems like the same sort of ideas are coming back again. Now instead of a buggy game needing patches, we get an incomplete game needing extra content.

Not to say this is the case with Civ V, but Fallout 3 actually required buying DLC to become even close to what it should/could have been. An rpg with a level cap is one thing, but an RPG where I frakkin' die in the finale? The DLC didn't help, mind you, 'cause a bad game is a bad game, and Fallout 3 is one of the worst games to come out in recent years.

This attitude of 'adding' content for extra dollars that should have been there in the first place is a trend which should be discouraged at the least. At least we aren't being asked to pay subscription fees to play the game online like console users...

I pre-ordered Civ V, not the deluxe, by the way.

[FalseLion]

Since when the frak is DLC considered Old School? You must be pretty new to computer games if you think this is how it was in the good ole days. I never even heard of DLC until a few short years ago. When I think 'Old School marketing [techniques]' I think of things like maps; maps printed on fabric. Or maybe a novella or some sort of reference book to help fill in the story and create more immersion.

Man, I remember when they included that "extra" stuff with the plain jane version you could pick up at Babbages, oh how I miss Babbages. Then they started the expansion crap stuff and its all went downhill ever since.

[Polykleitos]

Ye ye, FalseLion knows what's up.

'Extras' weren't always extra.

[NightLight]

Well, the only thing is that like someone said previously, most companies are giving out 90% (or far less) than the actual game content, later repackaged and sold as DLCs. Of course they wont say that and said that it will either re-use some of the stuff already in the full game, or half the team working on it because they are done with the game, or some other crap.

This is the only reason I dont like DLCs, and retailer specific DLCs are the WORST. Just remember that this game is published by 2K. You already know what they have done with games like Bioshock and Mafia 2..Cut contents and being milked to death with paid DLCs. I was about to preorder Civ 5 but this is 2K, so I am going to wait.

There is no way I'm spending money for contents that are supposed to be in the game or purchased the game more than once just for the missing map packs (or even buying the map packs itself). They want more money? Get a proper expansion pack and they better add something new that are NOT previously added in but cut off from the main game.

Sorry, I just had to vent a bit. I'm still frustrated and greatly disappointed by that game called Mafia 2.

[FalseLion]

This is the only reason I dont like DLCs, and retailer specific DLCs are the WORST. Just remember that this game is published by 2K. You already know what they have done with games like Bioshock and Mafia 2..Cut contents and being milked to death with paid DLCs. I was about to preorder Civ 5 but this is 2K, so I am going to wait.

This is why the game industry is killing the game industry. Business is not suppose to be solely about money.

[stethnorun]

I love that people in mass numbers talk about how horrible DLC is, and then in those SAME numbers, buy it anyway. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.

[austinite04]

it really does... This game SHOULD have all that extra crap in it to begin with... I ordered the Base game, I am not gonna get the DLC, I'll be JUST fine with user mods..

[rts_carl]

Are people really still surprised/pissedteed off, about this stuff?? I mean seriously, this is what capitalism does, this is how it works and its really nothing new. Companies are going to keep doing this, because guess what guys, companies are out there to get YOUR money, not to make a great game, not to offer fantastic deals. Both of those things are secondary, and more of a means to making money and being profitable, and the bigger a company gets, and the bigger their audience, the more we will see this type of thing. If you don't like it, either don't buy it, or stop supporting our economic system that just leads to companies doing this sort of stuff. I mean none of this really surprises me, because they are dumbing down the game (I know its only slightly, but it still helps my point), to make it more appealing to a greater audience, so that they can make even more money.

Youre not forced to buy it, but tbh an extra 10 for soundtrack,behind the scenes and a civ/map pack, is a pretty freaking good deal, better than buying the dlc for it later down the road.

[Aesir Rising]

Great first post ever on the Steam forums, Carl!

I would have failed economics if it weren't for you and others being so knowledgeable on the subject.

[Weaver]

I just miss the days of good old expansion packs.
$30 for a huge pack of content was good for me.

This is my main issue with DLC in almost every game; I look at what they put out and look at what $30 would get me in DLC and decide if that $30 dollars would be worth what I would have gotten in an expansion pack in the past.

The conclusion is almost always "no".

[rts_carl]

Great first post ever on the Steam forums, Carl!

I would have failed economics if it weren't for you and others being so knowledgeable on the subject.

Nice troll, I know it was written pretty poorly and probably with a lot of ignorance on my part, but if I'm wrong feel free to attack my post, and not my person :), this way we can actually have a conversation instead of you just being sarcastic and all :P

[Aesir Rising]

Nice troll, I know it was written pretty poorly and probably with a lot of ignorance on my part, but if I'm wrong feel free to attack my post, and not my person :), this way we can actually have a conversation instead of you just being sarcastic and all :P

Alrighty, I'll attack your post. I'll start with your second post and tie it up with your first.

In your second post, you say you want to, "..have a conversation." And because I'm a bad guy, I've prevented that from happening. And here is why...

In your first post, you pooh-pooh the concerns expressed (in the topic title and subsequent posts by others), writing unilaterally dismissive commentary such as, "If you don't like it...don't buy it..." and "..this is how it works.." - and didn't really leave much room for conversation before you got into your expert treatise on (pick one):

* market dynamics
* the profit motive of the developer and publisher
* capitalism

It (your post) just seemed pretty stale to me because it has been said before by others - and usually right after someone just finished explaining why they don't give a rat's ♥♥♥ about profit for the companies involved, when they're too busy being ticked off about paying more and getting less from those companies.

[Kosh800]

For all those gamers riding the Bethesda/Fallout Ponyy Express.

Fallout 3 (an RPG) has its level capped at 20!? But ofcourse, thank god for DLC's, because I can actually enjoy a CORE aspect of RPGs by continuing my leveling and gaining of new character skills by only purchasing a DLC. Yet another leap forward in the gaming industry :confused:

For those people that want to pay for the DLCs that genuinely offer new content, its your money, but when the DLC is setup to complete a core element of the genre, for example and I'm not saying they will), but IF they were to add Tech tree elements into the Civ 5 DLCs, it would be similar to a RPG level cap in the RPG genre, and that affects our choice to purchase that DLC.

Its also only a matter of time before the industry wants to charge people to try the demo. :eek: And ofcourse there will be the gamers that would argue, like with Dead Rising 2 on the console, that the 2 hour jaunt into that game is not a demo but indeed worth the 400MS points that they are charging for it before the game's release. Welcome to the age of gaming where white collar executives have got their claws into your purse strings, and greed is limitless.

And people wonder why pirating is getting so popular. :p

[rts_carl]

Alrighty, I'll attack your post. I'll start with your second post and tie it up with your first.

In your second post, you say you want to, "..have a conversation." And because I'm a bad guy, I've prevented that from happening. And here is why...

In your first post, you pooh-pooh the concerns expressed (in the topic title and subsequent posts by others), writing unilaterally dismissive commentary such as, "If you don't like it...don't buy it..." and "..this is how it works.." - and didn't really leave much room for conversation before you got into your expert treatise on (pick one):

* market dynamics
* the profit motive of the developer and publisher
* capitalism

It (your post) just seemed pretty stale to me because it has been said before by others - and usually right after someone just finished explaining why they don't give a rat's ♥♥♥ about profit for the companies involved, when they're too busy being ticked off about paying more and getting less from those companies.


See now thats more like it, still a little to much arrogant sarcasm for my liking but hey, to each his own.

The main point of my first post, even if it might have gotten lost in my rambling, was that people shouldn't be ticked off, or surprised that companies are doing these sorts of things. They are out there to make money, and will do anything they can to save money off making less content, and charging more for that content. They have been doing these things for years (not just on consoles), and they will keep getting "worse". Nothing new, not surprising, and if your still ticked off, this is what capitalism leads too. And if people don't give a rats ♥♥♥ about profits or the companies involves maybe they should try and change how our economic system works, instead of getting angry at companies that are trying to make the best of it.

And most of the things I've said probably were stale, but this is like the one thousand thread on this subject, so everything has already been beaten to death a thousand times over.

You still really didn't tackle what my main point was, and it seemed like most of your second post here was just to poke fun at me :P

[Aesir Rising]

The main point in your first post was lost, as you suspect.

But if this was it:
The main point of my first post, even if it might have gotten lost in my rambling, was that people shouldn't be ticked off, or surprised that companies are doing these sorts of things and getting less and less from those companies. Then I'll agree on the 'surprise' factor... though I don't think anyone is surprised.

But I disagree on the ticked off part, and fully expect people to be ticked off about some of the things noted in this and other topics.

[rts_carl]

Well I just don't think people should be ticked off at the makers of civilization or 2K games because they are just operating in confines of our economic system that encourages companies to do things like these. People shouldn't be angry with companies, but with the system, and they should either do something about it (Not sure what that would be, or where to start), or accept the fact that this is how our system works. IMO people are being angry at the wrong things, and maybe if they redirected their anger, we might actually see some change instead of our currently broken system.

The creators of civ/2k (whoever calls the shots I guess), are just trying to do whats best for their company, and I see nothing wrong with that, and tho I might not like the way they are doing it (like many others) I choose the place the blame not on them, but on the system. Maybe I'm crazy, idk but I just find it hard to be mad at 2k.

[snake289]

The creators of civ/2k (whoever calls the shots I guess), are just trying to do whats best for their company, and I see nothing wrong with that, and tho I might not like the way they are doing it (like many others) I choose the place the blame not on them, but on the system. Maybe I'm crazy, idk but I just find it hard to be mad at 2k.

Compare the Civ IV expansion packs to the tons of overpriced map packs that should be coming out in the next few months.

Then you'll be mad at 2K.

[FalseLion]

Compare the Civ IV expansion packs to the tons of overpriced map packs that should be coming out in the next few months.

Then you'll be mad at 2K.

well that depends really. We could be forced to wait a year for each expansion pack or get bits and pieces of it released here and there. I think 2k is well aware that the civfans are amongst the most intelligent gamers out there...fact I think there are study's proving though, so I don't see 2k trying to be so money hungry with the civ series....also whose to say its not the game devs themselves trying to milk consumers with the dlc, this game could prove the later to be the case.

[MasterDinadan]

To say that a business shouldn't be concerned with profits is ridiculous. If they weren't seeking profits, they wouldn't be a business and would be a non-profit organization instead.

However, if the business has a lot of profits, it has more money to invest in future products. They can offer a larger variety of products with a higher quality, and that's a good thing for the consumer.

Too many consumers these days adapt an "us vs them" mentality, where the businesses are the enemy and the more profits they make, the more it's costing the consumer. Don't think that way. If you don't like the way the business is being run, don't give them your business. But realize that without business there would be no consumer.

[Polykleitos]

Corporations are the enemy. It is 'us versus them', in every sense of the phrase. Does it not bother/terrify/enrage anyone else that corporations co-opted the laws which were meant to free the blacks (among others) from oppression to become legal persons themselves? That the law meant to free Booker T allows Monsanto to sue farmers for unintentionally growing GMOs which have blown over from nearby fields is a perversion of one of the greatest achievements in American history.

Now that corporations have all the legal rights and status as a person, I have often wondered if it is possible to declare war on a corporation. Alas, one must always remember: "Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned." Perhaps it is the C.E.O.s and other executives whom we should rally against. Perhaps it is not Nike's fault; perhaps Phil Knight is to blame for Nike's terrible record of human rights abuses?

Well Civ V is done loading, so I'll see the world next year.