How will the DLC work when playing with people without it?

[Skeletroll]

If I have the Aztec pack from pre-ordering and someone else doesn't, will I be able to use it in a game with them? Also if future DLCs will only add leaders and maps will I be able to use a leader in a game with someone who doesn't have that DLC but they won't be able to use it? Or will it be like Civ V where you have to match the DLC in order to play with someone else?

[Obiwan]

DLC: The ONLY question I would like answered and if it's been asked ...

... I don't really care because there is so much BS and aggression on this forum that you can take the inevitable "L2 Search" and stick up right up your holiest of holies <3

Now to business.

My BIGGEST issue with Civ pretty much since the DLC introduction via 5 has been the fact that for any DLC to be used ALL players have to have it.

Civ is by NO means the first to use this scheme I am not targeting it as the bad guy here BUT THIS YEAR! that mentality is being rectified pretty much across all the big 4x's ... again I am not suggesting this is NEW for the games I am about to mention it is simply to emphasise the point (see how considerate I am to both parties ??? It's like I am almost starving the trolls here)

Stellaris, Endless Legend, Endless Space 2, EU4 ... pretty much take your pick from the last year ALL these titles ONLY require the host to have the DLC and then everyone can use it.

So to cut a long story short ( provided you just read this bit which i deliberately did not TL:DR so that the TL:DR would be harder to find but now that I said TL:DR three times you prolly noticed this bit);

Does Civ 6 still require ALL people to have DLC in order to play it ... judging by the pre-order bonus I am really hoping for a resounding "NO" but I have learned never to assume anything so i am asking you - the informed - the ones who have watched every Lets Play and can recite all 19 launch civs bonuses and unique units -

Has Firaxis ( more so 2K) realised that this is a very stupid thing to do in such an already niche multiplayer community.


Thank you in advance :)

[tulle040657]

Do not know why you are asking this in the civ 6 forum, but yes civ 5 has not changed and all are required to have the DLC

[The Renderer]

He's evidently asking whether it's still the same in Civ6.

I don't know, don't think that info is available yet. I bet it's still this way, though.

[Obiwan]

Originally posted by tulle040657:

Do not know why you are asking this in the civ 6 forum, but yes civ 5 has not changed and all are required to have the DLC

You know when you are a moron and you are so excited about stuff and you are typing and you don't realise the initial mess-up and then you keep going and digging the hole deeper ....

I definitely just did that.

[CrazyVulcan]

Are you asking about the Expansions like Gods and Kings and Brave New World? Or are you referring to DLC like civs and map packs? Because there is a diffrence.

[Obiwan]

Originally posted by CrazyVulcan:

Are you asking about the Expansions like Gods and Kings and Brave New World? Or are you referring to DLC like civs and map packs? Because there is a diffrence.

OOOOOOO ma frack.

No I was frantically fixing my mistake before someone else read it and commented giving me the benefit of the doubt I was not being a total moron ... sadly as much as I love you for being so kind I was indeed being a moron who types too fast.


No Vulc I meant 6. Is there any tangible info to suggest that DLC will not be used as a paywall or means to split the community this time round.

If player 5 has Faction DLC and 1 has it but 2, 3, 4, 6 do not - can they all still play with their DLC or will it be disabled. This is rapidly being noted and removed by other titles in the genre and one would hope since it is making such radical strides to re-assert itself that Civ 6 would not make the same mistake twice. Granted it is not a mistake for the bean counters.

[CrazyVulcan]

Originally posted by Obiwan:

Originally posted by CrazyVulcan:

Are you asking about the Expansions like Gods and Kings and Brave New World? Or are you referring to DLC like civs and map packs? Because there is a diffrence.

OOOOOOO ma frack.

No I was frantically fixing my mistake before someone else read it and commented giving me the benefit of the doubt I was not being a total moron ... sadly as much as I love you for being so kind I was indeed being a moron who types too fast.


No Vulc I meant 6. Is there any tangible info to suggest that DLC will not be used as a paywall or means to split the community this time round.

If player 5 has Faction DLC and 1 has it but 2, 3, 4, 6 do not - can they all still play with their DLC or will it be disabled. This is rapidly being noted and removed by other titles in the genre and one would hope since it is making such radical strides to re-assert itself that Civ 6 would not make the same mistake twice. Granted it is not a mistake for the bean counters.

Oh no, I understood that you were referring to 6. But even though DLC has been kind of a catch all of all add-ons to games; there will be still a difference between "expansions" and DLC. Any DLC that adds things like new civs and new maps I would assume that anyone should be able to play with regardless of who has or does not have it. But if they release an expansion like they did with G&K and BNW those add new mechanics and greatly change how the game functions. So those would require that one also has that expansion.

[SamBC]

I think it would be unreasonable to expect only the host to need it for things that change core gameplay (like G&K/BNW in Civ5), but yeah, it would be nice if this is how it works for civs. We just don't know yet, I'm afraid. Though pre-order people will have Aztecs when others don't when the game comes out, so you should be able to test that.

[Obiwan]

I hear ya Sam. I know games like EL and Stellaris do allow for hosting core stuff but I wasn't really asking that so much as Civ access.

[Fxlei]

Even for DLCs adding new Civilizations, I think it is too much to ask for those civs to be playable in multiplayer while some of the players don't have it, because those who don't have the DLCs would still need access to all of the content of the added civ, including assets and maybe even specific AI programs.
As for maps or map-scripts, this would theoretically be no problem if they don't include any features like new tiles, natural wonders, resources or something like that, since only the host would need to generate the map anyway.
However, since the natural map (without everything man-made) is static, it could be as well only shared to the players through the seed, which again means, other players neede access to the map-scripts.
But since I think hand-made maps should be possible again, saving a map (not by seed) will be possible, and thus the map could be shared with all players, wether they have the map-scripts or not.

[Mansen]

Originally posted by SamBC:

I think it would be unreasonable to expect only the host to need it for things that change core gameplay (like G&K/BNW in Civ5), but yeah, it would be nice if this is how it works for civs. We just don't know yet, I'm afraid. Though pre-order people will have Aztecs when others don't when the game comes out, so you should be able to test that.

Can't say I agree with that notion. Paradox Interactive have been doing that for years now, Blizzard as well. And probably more game devs I can't think off at the top of my head.

Keep in mind this is only for the duration of said game, not a permanent thing. But I suppose we'll just have to wait and see what Firaxis/2K have decided upon.

[Obiwan]

Originally posted by Fxlei:

Even for DLCs adding new Civilizations, I think it is too much to ask for those civs to be playable in multiplayer while some of the players don't have it, because those who don't have the DLCs would still need access to all of the content of the added civ, including assets and maybe even specific AI programs.
As for maps or map-scripts, this would theoretically be no problem if they don't include any features like new tiles, natural wonders, resources or something like that, since only the host would need to generate the map anyway.
However, since the natural map (without everything man-made) is static, it could be as well only shared to the players through the seed, which again means, other players neede access to the map-scripts.
But since I think hand-made maps should be possible again, saving a map (not by seed) will be possible, and thus the map could be shared with all players, wether they have the map-scripts or not.

Well see this right here is the mentality Civ has conditioned you to but whereby EVERY competitor is moving away from.

2016 ... New Civ .... if you own DLC you should be able to play it irrespective of what others have. Unless of course you fancy buying one for everyone person in your game? Or do you like not being able to use content you paid for?

Not sure how people are so complacent about this.

[Fxlei]

Originally posted by Obiwan:

Originally posted by Fxlei:

Even for DLCs adding new Civilizations, I think it is too much to ask for those civs to be playable in multiplayer while some of the players don't have it, because those who don't have the DLCs would still need access to all of the content of the added civ, including assets and maybe even specific AI programs.
As for maps or map-scripts, this would theoretically be no problem if they don't include any features like new tiles, natural wonders, resources or something like that, since only the host would need to generate the map anyway.
However, since the natural map (without everything man-made) is static, it could be as well only shared to the players through the seed, which again means, other players neede access to the map-scripts.
But since I think hand-made maps should be possible again, saving a map (not by seed) will be possible, and thus the map could be shared with all players, wether they have the map-scripts or not.

Well see this right here is the mentality Civ has conditioned you to but whereby EVERY competitor is moving away from.

2016 ... New Civ .... if you own DLC you should be able to play it irrespective of what others have. Unless of course you fancy buying one for everyone person in your game? Or do you like not being able to use content you paid for?

Not sure how people are so complacent about this.

This is not civ or any game that has conditioned me, I have never played a multiplayer game were the other players didn't have the same DLCs. I didn't even know about such a problem before I read this thread.

The problem is that by allowing players to play civs that others don't have access to, the others get partial access to it. While a new civ only adds a new instance of "civilization", and different rulesets would change the meta-information... I think they should be regarded the same here. By allowing one player top choose a civ others are not allowed to play, you add unfairness (minimized thanks to balancing) because, but you also allow the other players to play against that civ, which means they need access to assets they shouldn't have and access to content they didn't buy.

I think Civ is in their right to lock the content that can have an impact on the gameplay (pure graphical content or simple UI changes that don't give any [dis-]advantage should not be locked) in multiplayer that not everyone in a multiplayer game has and that would need to be shared.

Please refrain from saying I was conditioned into saying/thinking this. Competitors moving away form this are doing it for the players, but I don't think that Civ is in the wrong if it doesn't do that.

[Obiwan]

Originally posted by Fxlei:

Originally posted by Obiwan:

Well see this right here is the mentality Civ has conditioned you to but whereby EVERY competitor is moving away from.

2016 ... New Civ .... if you own DLC you should be able to play it irrespective of what others have. Unless of course you fancy buying one for everyone person in your game? Or do you like not being able to use content you paid for?

Not sure how people are so complacent about this.

This is not civ or any game that has conditioned me, I have never played a multiplayer game were the other players didn't have the same DLCs. I didn't even know about such a problem before I read this thread.

The problem is that by allowing players to play civs that others don't have access to, the others get partial access to it. While a new civ only adds a new instance of "civilization", and different rulesets would change the meta-information... I think they should be regarded the same here. By allowing one player top choose a civ others are not allowed to play, you add unfairness (minimized thanks to balancing) because, but you also allow the other players to play against that civ, which means they need access to assets they shouldn't have and access to content they didn't buy.

I think Civ is in their right to lock the content that can have an impact on the gameplay (pure graphical content or simple UI changes that don't give any [dis-]advantage should not be locked) in multiplayer that not everyone in a multiplayer game has and that would need to be shared.

Please refrain from saying I was conditioned into saying/thinking this. Competitors moving away form this are doing it for the players, but I don't think that Civ is in the wrong if it doesn't do that.

I will refrain from saying you are conditioned. BUT! to reinforce your statements claiming you have never seen this practice puts in question just how much material you have to base that comparison on.

Shadow Warrior 2
Killing Floor
Payday 2
Stellaris
EU 4
Endless Legend
Endless Space
Endless Space 2
The Crew
TDU 2
Forza Series

Now these are just off the top of my head but the important part is this.

Civ BE launched and Endless Legend mopped the floor with it. So it is no coincidence that Civ 6 has more than a few things in common with EL. infact 2K owe amplitude some royalties!

Jokes aside. What sense does it make to do all that and then ignore one VERY significant different that makes EL stand out - in EL the host can host ALL DLC. In EL if you have a race and the other does not - YOU GET TO PLAY THAT RACE.

Amp understands that when one buys the DLC it is not then relying on equally rich people to do the same in order to enjoy it in MP.

The volume of DLC you can anticipate for Civ is pre-order content, 4 additional packs likely each with atleast 1 civ ... the concept of deluxe edition MP bein limited to deluxe edition owners is a segregation of community that alot of companies are seeing for what it is - short sighted and silly.

[LordFrosty]

Additional Civs

I can remember the dlcs for last CIV Part i played. When i bought a new CIV, everybody in multiplayer had to buy this race or we could not play together, will this politic continue?

Does someone know more about this topic?