What about putting them on Gamersgate then?

Again, I don't think you understand - I was talking about taking copyrighted material from sold content, and releasing it via mods.  You don't exactly understand what "taken directly from" means, do you? 

I have a feeling that stopping modders from adding civs (again - not copy/pasted directly from copyrighted material) would be a bit extreme...what, are they really going to say "Sorry, your civ is named Babylon and is aggressive and expansionist and starts the game with a settler, just like ours - DENIED!" 

I think it would be more along of the lines of "Sorry, you copy/pasted all the code we had for Babylon, used our all art work as is, and didn't change a thing - DENIED!"  

Do you understand now?  It's really annoying when someone ignores what your position is, and when you point it out to them they sidestep it with a "There's no need to directly copy and post it at all" - when that's what is being talked about!  Especially when they add a "you clealy don't know how mods work do you?"   

Well...you clearly don't know what "copy/pasted directly from" means, do you?        

No need to belittle him Crip

Anyway, I agree with you - 2K are clearly planning on DLC in the future, and obviously mods that replicate - either exactly or closely - what 2K will be releasing won't be granted 'Offical Mod' status.  I think that's fair enough.  It all depends though on their evenhandness.  If they ban any mod that presents similar features as their DLC - Modern Warfare 2 completely stopped all custom maps working with the game so they could sell their Map packs, for example - I think it would be an issue.  Personally, at this point, it doesn't overally fuss me what they do.  I won't be buying Civilisation V, and I wasn't overally excited for it after learning that they were taking their inspiration from the Console version 'Revolutions'.

2K already destroyed the magic of BioShock with their multicrap feature . Now they will destroy the magic of Civilization with the DLCs.

Man, it is like nobody has read the gamer bill of rights!  I too will not be buying Civ V.  A sad day indeed.

The only way the Gamers Bill of Rights matters is if consumers demand them.  The only way they'll hear demands is via sales.

Brad and Co. haven't said they plan on milking everyone out the gate with DLC right?[quote who="bonscott" reply="374" id="2619696"]

Civ has the unique problem of being around for what seems like forever. So if Civ V gets released without a Civ that has been in the series at some point, any of the games really, it won't be too difficult for a modder to have pretty good idea in how to bring that civ into play without overdooing (balance). Problem is 2K could easily do what all the publishers love doign these days, sell Civ 5 as a stripped down barebones game. Then the modders could try and fill in the gaps only to be told nope, sorry, we have a dozen planned DLC coming up to fill that void so... denied.

Still, while some people might think omg these modders are taking copyrigted material and making it available for free, the thing is the core fanbase of Civ seems pretty willing and eager might I add to buy up the expansions. Civ IV really has been the last series where i purchased the game and it's expansions all during release week and it was the one game I took to play while I was in Japan (which, by the way 90% of the time I did not have internet access). I was also able to play with my friend via Direct IP with no lag (fk Steam and this idea that I need some third party hand holder to play with people I know). 90% of my gaming on Civ IV has been with friends, and some of it with some pretty gnarly mods (Fall from Heaven 2).

I expect the same consideration in return.  Why I don't want steam to have to run in the background for store-bought dvd-installed single-player games played offline (SBDISPGPO) is not something I need to justify.  When I became an adult they took the bone out of my head that made me feel the need to justify myself.

Second, I'll answer anyways -- a main reason is that steam collects information.  Their privacy policy is too long to quote here (see [url]http://www.valvesoftware.com/privacy.html[/url]) but here's a part:

"By using Valve's online sites and products, users agree that Valve may collect aggregate information, individual information, and personally identifiable information, as defined below. Valve may share aggregate information and individual information with other parties. Valve shall not share personally identifiable information with other parties, except as described in the policy below." (emphasis mine)

I have steam installed but haven't run it in months.  Last night I fired it up to see what games I have on it, and updating hung at 99%.  I restarted a few times then waited 20 minutes the last time and finally gave up.  Good thing I wasn't needing it to play a game I bought, especially one where steam wasn't necessary (as with a SBDISPGPO).  So that's another reason.

Third -- what's wrong with objecting to yet another program running?  In itself one isn't a big deal, but even after minimizing running programs and services I've still got 40 running now on win7.  I have ~24 on my winXP machines.  That adds up, and they can interact.  Blithely accepting an unnecessary third-party programming running in the background is not prudent.  If anything here is crazy, that's what's crazy.

Fourth -- I wouldn't mind a one-time internet activation, if it was for a DD game.  Having to do it for a store-bought dvd-installed game isn't benefiting me, it's benefiting steam so they can collect info off me, that they profit from (and I don't, heck, it's at my expense as I don't want my info shared with who-knows-who).  They're using this to collect information.  Requiring steam to run in the background even for SBDISPGPO is just a way to keep collecting/updating information (see reply 351 in this thread).

Fifth -- I don't mind decent DRM (no rootkits, etc), as a craftsperson is worth their due.  Civ4s DRM was fine, and I don't think the steam requirement will prove any harder to crack than Civ4s was.  If so, then this change won't be a significant improvement DRM-wise.

Doesn't Impulse do a similar "collect info and share it with advertisers for profit" thing? 

We use an outside ad company to display ads on our site. These ads may contain cookies. While we use cookies in other parts of our Web site, cookies received with banner ads are collected by our ad company, and we do not have access to this information.

Some customer data is shared with the advertising companies (i.e. ONLY what they have access to from setting in your cookies). We do not allow advertisers to see any private information including email addresses, home addresses, phone numbers, or any other private information.

http://www.impulsedriven.com/support/privacy

I've made it clear I don't mind a one-time online activation for DD games (from steam or whoever).

I've made it clear I don't want to be forced to run an unnecessary third-party program in the background with a SBDISPGPO.

Does Impulse require that?

Can't you do a one time online activiation from Steam? 

Offline Mode allows you to play games through Steam without reconnecting to the Steam Network every time you wish to play - this is particularly useful if you do not plan on playing over the internet and would prefer not to download new updates for your single-player games.

Please note that you must connect to the Steam Network and test each of the games you would like to use in Offline Mode at least once to set up your account and configure Offline Mode on your machine.

https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=3160-AGCB-2555

So the only valid reason I can extrapolate from you is that you don't want an additional program running in the background.  It's true - it seems Steam needs to be running, even in offline mode, so you have a point there.  My thinking is - I'll be having much more fun playing the game (Maybe, atleast), rather than watching my Task Manager.  I don't care how efficient it is - I've never said during a game: "OHH, that was so awesome!  Oh but wait, it took up 50 megs of ram...never mind, I'll just uninstall it from my system."  I never would of guessed some people actually thought along those lines..

Steam for Vegetables

Please note that you must connect to the Steam Network and test each of the games you would like to use in Offline Mode at least once to set up your account and configure Offline Mode on your machine.

Never ever ever will I buy a game with this requirement.

Steam can kiss my 

Avoid Steam Games Scam Sites

PCWorld Staff

Mar 2, 2009 2:02 pm

Steam, a digital distribution platform for PC games, does away with the need to keep old installation cd's around. I've used it for a few games myself. But as Christopher Boyd at the SpywareGuide blog points out, if someone lifts your username and password, it's the equivalent of someone walking off with all your game cd's.

Boyd describes a couple of scams that attempt to do just that. The first scam uses a site that looks much like the regular steam site, and uses the lure of a free gift pack of games to draw you into entering your username and password. A classic phishing scam, with some pretty good-sounding bait on the hook.

The second, related scam uses another classic phishing tactic, and this time attempts to scare visitors into believing their account must be verified or be permanently disabled. According to Boyd, the scams are being hyped on YouTube (and also getting a heartening batch of scathing responses).

Games have been a popular target for digital thieves for some time. There's real value, as thieves can make quick money by selling stolen online currency from some games, or stolen accounts chock-full of downloadable games. And it's low risk, because you don't have the same kind of security in place to protect games as for a credit card account, for instance. So if you're a gamer, it's a good idea to be just as careful with your game account logins as your banking credentials. They're just as much of a target.

I don't think so, so you implie a good point. There isn't a conflict of interest if they arn't competing.

No, I totally understand your point.  Yea, if someone actually lifts copyrighted material then they should get the smackdown.

My point is not that.  My point is mods that replicate the "function" of a DLC but don't actually copy anything.  There are tons and tons of these right now for Civ 3 and Civ 4.  ZehDon makes the point perhaps better then I did.  MW2 did this very thing.  "Oh, so sorry, you can't make custom maps anymore for the game because we're going to sell mappacks now."  Very same thing can (and probably will if history teaches us anything) ban mods that they feel are either too close to their overpriced DLC's or might be something they will do in a DLC in the future.  "Sorry Rhye, we're pulling your overhaul mod because it makes changes to the tech tree that we might offer ourselves someday.  Too bad, so sad".

History already tells us this happens with games that allow Steam/Valve to control modding.  And since the whole point of Civ's longevity is modding it's a very valid concern.

Either way it doesn't matter, I'm not buying the game period because I will not be forced to have Steam running to play a single player game.  I don't care if it's not online or not.  Heck, I even bought Dawn of Discovery with it's Tages DRM.  DRM for the most part doesn't scare me if it's just something like one time online activation.  I've got no problem with that.  But DRM isn't my issue with Steam.  It's forcing Steam down my throat for a single player game for "features" that the vast majority of the Civ community could care less about and with the danger of really hurting the mod community.

You must have missed the part where Counter Strike was a mod of Half Life. Keep trying to pretend Activision's decisions are Valve's fault.

Maybe if you actually used Steam you would know there is an entire section of their store hosting free mods for the Source engine, too.

But keep on trying to pretend it was Valve's fault, and not Activision's fault that MW2 didn't have dedicated servers and mods. If 2kgames/Firaxis decides to not allow mods, it's their decision, not Valve's.