Well that's changing. DLC is likely to get bigger and more popular and soon games will almost require it, at least if game companies have their way. Look how many games are free to play, but then you need to buy all the extras.
You want an example of a boxed copy? Rise of Flight, the game only comes with two planes, and you have to buy all the rest.
Starcraft 2 has been split into 3 parts.
One of my least favorite civs as well. Won't miss 'em.I never played as Babylon, so I will not miss Babylon. The disappointing thing is that while they consider Babylon to be worth $10, why then does removing a staple civilization from the game not reduce the standard cost by $10?
:hmm:
(of course, no one should answer that question... )
DLC never makes or breaks a game, in my experiences. I've bought some here and there and never did I once think afterwards, "Man I'm so glad I bought that! This game would have sucked without it."
Well, 'break' is relative. Most of the Fallout 3 DLC really did break the game.
It is my understanding this game is a trilogy?
Did you ever hear that the game was planned as a trilogy before Blizzard got bought out? I haven't. It's a money grab by the new owners to break the game into three parts.
Did you ever hear that the game was planned as a trilogy before Blizzard got bought out? I haven't. It's a money grab by the new owners to break the game into three parts.
I think he means Activision, but that was a merger.
Did you ever hear that the game was planned as a trilogy before Blizzard got bought out? I haven't. It's a money grab by the new owners to break the game into three parts.
I am confused. Does Starcraft 2 come bundled with Civ 5?
The two games are so different, I am trying to figure out how the heck this thread became about a different game in a completely different genre.
And now back to our regularly scheduled programming:
http://well-of-souls.com/civ/index.html
New site called Civ V Analyst outlining all the new units, terrain, civs, gameplay, etc forthcoming for the Sept 21 launch.
One thing I'm noticing about the terrain is it blends in so well it's going to be hard to tell a square from a square without a grid
You guys see the tech tree? http://well-of-souls.com/civ/civ5_technologies.html
Wow, that looks very condensed! Not sure if it's a good thing as in speedy game play or a bad thing as in speedy game play. Or maybe a smaller tree means you'll use each tech for longer periods while researching the next will take longer then usual.
You guys see the tech tree? http://well-of-souls.com/civ/civ5_technologies.html
Wow, that looks very condensed! Not sure if it's a good thing as in speedy game play or a bad thing as in speedy game play. Or maybe a smaller tree means you'll use each tech for longer periods while researching the next will take longer then usual.
----
hmm I didn't know this but units can no longer be completely destroyed. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/99021-Civilization-V-Offers-New-Strategic-Combat
"Another big change is the combat system. Units are no longer destroyed if they lose a battle, which means that civs can spend much more resources on maintaining their armies as opposed to cranking out new units. The combat that we saw took place completely outside of a city, and positioning and terrain are much more important. "In the past, combat revolved around stacks [of units], which our fans affectionately call 'stacks of doom,'" Shirk said. "We wanted to pull combat out of the cities, and make every unit important." No two units can occupy the same tile, even friendly ones, so positioning on the battlefield becomes very important. Ranged units, like archers, are used to soften up the front lines from up to two hexes away, but they are vulnerable to attacks from melee units. The result is an emphasis on battlefield tactics instead of most Civ games which favored the civ that was able to crank out the most units."
Doesn't look like they captured it all, the right side is clipped.
From my experience, a shorter Tech tree would bite.
Hrm, the day one DLC only worries me if the actual game is adversely affected. My only question is if the retail game is worth the price you have to pay for it. If it is, I'll buy it. If it isn't, I'll wait for a price reduction. I then separately evaluate DLC to see if that content is worth the price I'd have to pay for it. Sure the game would be a better value with the DLC, the question is if it is enough of a value without it.
From a publishers perspective, day 1 DLC is the best DLC option. It is when the most people are interested in the game and the most likely to purchase new content. An enterprising publisher may start trimming stuff out of the original release to make DLC, but they walk a fine line here. Trim too much and initial sales decline, which then declines the market for your DLC. Of course the fun thing about capitalism is that cutoff point for this is different for everybody. Seems like even the offer of DLC on day one is the cutoff for some, but not for the majority of people.
I do not really see how day 1 DLC will adversely affect CIV. The only way I could see this happening is if there are only 8 civs and greatly trimmed research/unit trees...and the game stops in the industrial revolution and to go further you have to purchase the "modern era" DLC. Seeing the plethora of DLC and pre-order specials that are more than just a vanity item, I will certainly keep an eye out on reviews etc for info on exactly what is included in the basic retail game. Thing is that CIV provides hours, days, OMG IT'S FIVE IN THE MORNING, type of entertainment that is an absolutely amazing value at $50. They would really have to fuck things up for me to not find value in purchasing at launch.