I care. Adequate definitions in controversial issues are crucial. If someone calls piracy a theft and basing on this say piracy is morally wrong, her/his argument is invalid and conclusions are unjustified (unproven). It doesn't mean that piracy isn't wrong, it just means that he/she hasn't proven that it's wrong.

If you guys really want to fight with piracy don't give your opponents easy arguments against your point of view.

This conversation is not productive. Pirates are merely presenting excuses to rationalizing their misdeeds. You can argue and debate this for the next six pages and we will get nowhere. It happens all the time on the forums so let's just drop it and talk about the OP.

Looking at the Steam states, the Mayans and the Huns seem to be getting played the most...I'm judging this based off of the achievements you get for beating the game as one of the new civs, and IIRC more people had the achievement for the Mayans and Huns....

I love a good Hun invasion. 

Yes I agree! $45 on Steam for me, a full 50% more. Why is this? The Aussie dollar has been around parity for quite a while now. Not piracy per say, but it stinks as bad. No deal!

Loving it so far and finally I got my favorite mod to work VEM! Though not fully operational yet, give it a week or 2. AI is playing better. You know its weird every map I have played against the Huns are in last place, weird... Maybe they just need the right conditions ie not water maps. 

reply to SZO, because steam is region based. They can charge different prices depending on where you are from.  So your machine says AUS gamer, and steam says, "awesome cash rapage time", and put th price up.   If we got it at the US price, we wuold currently pay pretty much 30 AUD. 

The $45 price was a 10% pre order discounted price.

I bought Civ5. Had I first pirated, I wouldn't have bought it. It was way too expensive for the quality of the end product. I felt cheated.

I pirated the expansion. I've liked it so far, so I bought it. It is overpriced but I feel less cheated when paying too much for a good product. 

I don't feel like the worst scum in the Internet. I feel like I was a smart consumer not to letting them steal from me again.

Still waiting on a Genetic and Diamond Age mod. Those were the best eras and CivIII is still the best Civ. Not sure why they discarded the best parts of that game. Different dev team I guess.

@seanw3. CIV IV is far better than CIV III, you must misremember

I've read the earlier posts and the pedantry and semantics over whether piracy is stealing or not and I'm going to stick with saying it is stealing - people have worked hard to make that game and pirates comes along and take copies without paying thus denying manufacturers a reward for thier labour - that's stealing in my book and I don't care what anyone says to the contrary.

Anyway on to the game, which is the real reason why I wanted to post - I was always going to get this xpac because I'm a long time Civ fan so for me it was a nobrainer. The xpac is pricey but it has done alot to shift the dynamics of the game and it's better for it.

In vanilla, happiness was always a constant barrier for me - I was constantly running up against red faces but now there are more ways to get happy faces so it's much less of a pain unless you go occupying a bunch of rival cities - you don't get so hobbled simply for building new cities.

On the surface, religion can be looked at as something that rewards rapid expansion but it can also be geared to reward tall empires too - I won a one city challenge yesterday and religion definitely helped me get there. I've read critiscism on other sites stating that it's just like another branch of social policies although I find it plays differently and provides a useful toolbox of options.

Espionage is a great leveller too - it's stops science being so dominant because you can steal techs to catch up and it also provides a way to hinder the Mr Moneybags monopoly civs from buying up all the city states. In fact city states have become much more dynamic and engaging - I'm not sure I could go back to civ 4 now as I'd miss this game mechanic too much.

The best part is that I know the modders will make this game even better , they're probably already on the case. The only gripes I have really is that they haven't brought back corporations - I'd happily see a return of these as they provide another another good peacetime minigame, hmmm maybe the modders could take the religion mechanic and use it to create corporations too. I'd also like to see 'share world map' back too

Civ IV had some great mechanics, but Civ III was a step in the right direction and was totally forgotten by Civ IV. The world doesn't end at the modern age. In fact, we are technically in the postmodern age IIRC. Sad to see Icarius get so close to the sun, only to later decide that no height exists above 10ft.

You can save the world map from the save game menu.  Not sure if that buys you what you're looking for or not...

@ Stuie

Thanks for the suggestion but I was referring to the diplo option in Civ4 where you could trade maps with the AI - it helped you to uncover the world without having to send a unit to every corner of the map

I always find this sort of reasoning amusing.  First rule of economics: something is worth precisely what people are willing to pay for it.

Money is a human concept- there is no intrinsic "worth" of something written in some inscrutable corner of the universe.  Worth is entirely determined by the utility rendered- but utility is subjective, and frankly the only quantifiable measure of what something is worth to someone is what they are willing to pay.

So frankly if copies are selling you can't really objectively say "it's overpriced and not worth the cost"- you can say it's not "worth it" subjectively for you.  But frankly as long as copies are selling, it's being sold for what it's worth.

Well that said, I'm all for doing your own research on games(reviews and whatnot) so that a player may make an informed decision about whether it's worth the cost of admission to them specifically.  Sorry if this has been a bit of a rant,  I've always been a bit annoyed by people who claim companies "Charge more then their product is worth because they know people will still pay".

What really confuses me is some people say they are paying for old stuff... your not. New game. Imagine launch of Civ 5 Vanilla with espionage and religion (it would of been Elemental all over again).

Elemental- Impulse and too many big features wrecked it. So you expect GalCiv3 to be Galciv2 with all the expansions and then some, your crazy mr, crazy.   (not joking and yes I wish) Also remember in this age of games (Steam sales and what not you won't have long to wait 4-6 months) glad I waited on the dlc for Civ5 for 1$ steal.

Though the only minor complaint on Gods & Kings feature that could use some love I would say is espionage. Other than that its a pretty good expansion in my book. 

Only thing that bugs me on pricing is dlc since day one on launch and its still the same price like me2 dlc. That stuff bugs me. 

On piracy all I say is this... Extra Credits

Check out Tom Chick's entertaining review at Quartertothree.com.

Can anyone here dispute those reasons?

I'm not familiar with this Tom Chick dude but just by reading his two reviews, it doesn't seem like he actually has much experience playing the game with the recent expansion...I find that the people who bash on Civ V conveniently turn a blind eye to the flaws of Civ IV...really, at its heart, the majority of criticism for Civ V has little to do with it's intrinsic quality, and more to do with the fact that it isn't exactly like Civ IV...and thank god, because Civ IV had fundamental flaws that Civ V rectified...

I'm not going to go into how much better I think Civ V is than its predecessor, because people either out of ignorance or sentiment are set in their opinion one way or the other, and arguing about it isn't going to change anyone's mind...

Admittedely, Civ V has a weak AI and diplomacy, but one must remember that Civ V is also much more complex and difficult...quite simply, it's easier to program an AI to do well in Civ IV than it is in Civ V...

I do however want to contend this baseless bashing of Gods and Kings...it seems that most of its criticism comes from the same people who don't like Civ V and probably have very little experience with the game (and even less experience with the expansion)...for those of you who like Civ V but are on the fence with the expansion, here is a list of many things included that conveniently get overlooked by "critics"...

• InstaHeal promotion now only gives +50% HP instead of bringing a unit up to 100% HP...
• Ranged units (archers, crossbowmen, etc) now completely upgrade into the modern eras with gatling guns and machine guns
• Unit progression is much smoother...for example, there is now a composite bowmen between archer and crossbowmen, and a "Great War" infantry between rifleman and modern infantry
• The re-worked tech tree now prevents some eras (like the Classical) from being "breezed through"...progression through the eras is in general much better...
• The addition/re-work of wonders is more balanced...for example, you no longer have the Hagia Sophia giving you a free great person so early in the game (and at the same time most people get a free GP from completely the liberty policy track)...there are arguably exceptions but I think it is better now than it was in vanilla
• Policy tracks are much better balanced...tradition is a little bit stronger, priming you for a better mid-game...you no longer can get a free settler from liberty with just 1 policy (now need 2)...piety is no longer as OP, primarily because it doesn't give you oodles of happiness (though you can get comparable amounts with the proper selection of religious beliefs)...rationalism and commerce are in general better, with commerce actually being useful and rationalism now being more reasonable in what the earliest policies give you...freedom now comes at the industrial era...there are a bunch of small changes but in general most are for the better...
• The change from a base 10 HP to a base 100 HP reduces the Civ V "ballparking" that made combat so risky as there is now a narrower variability from the predicted battle outcome...additionally, units take more hits to kill, preventing silly stupid circumstances that guarantee losses of units...
• The introduction of melee naval units is definitely a huge improvement to naval warfare...
• Contrary to stated reviews, faith and religion are actually quite useful throughout the entire game...religion can be essential to happiness if you have a bloated empire, and faith can be used to purchase great people (and possible military units)...religion definitely is useful throughout the entire game, it's just more useful early game...this honestly isn't any different from social policies, of which some are most useful early game while others are most useful late game...I would actually argue religion is more relevant to Civ V's late game than it was to Civ IV's late game...
• Because of espionage and new CS missions, gold isn't as crucial to CS alliances as it was before...it's still very important but the situation isn't as bad...
• Espionage prevents a tech leader from breaking away from everyone too easily...this makes lower difficulty levels harder (AI will steal your tech) and higher difficulty levels easier (you can steal tech from the AI)...I personally like this though I can see why some might not so I'd consider it more a change than an improvement...
• New resources were added including citris, crabs, copper, salt, etc...IIRC they are all new luxury resources...
• One thing about religion in Civ V that is actually better than Civ IV is the abilty to deliberately and purposefully remove religions from a city...
• The added civilizations have some very unique advantages...I find that the unique abilties from Civ V are far more interesting than the "Pick 2" trait system of Civ IV...
• A late game building, the recycling center, gives your Civ 2 copies of aluminum (max of 5 recycling centers)...this makes the late game much more fair and much less "whoever has aluminum and uranium wins"...
• You can now pay to "improve" a resource tile owned by a city state...this way you don't have to wait indefinitely for them to connect resources...
• No more culture bombing with armies of great artists...they are also the only great people that can induce golden ages, so they no longer are completely useless in small amounts...

There are probably some things I'm missing, but I point these things out to show that this expansion actually added a lot, mostly for the better...these people who bash Gods and Kings and Civ V in general just have an axe to grind...if you don't like the game, it isn't because it's a bad game, it's because it just doesn't appeal to you....

If you like Civ V, I think you will be very happy with the expansion...

--Edited to add some things I forgot...

I agree with Tom on lots of things and respect his view on Civ5 and G&K. Bit harsh but hey its his opinion. Some people in that comments box need to learn that.

Is Civ5 perfect hell no, but it will get better slowly, find the right mods and you can get ahead. Remember they can't sell a game only for Hardcore folk, they would be out of business. Though I could see kickstarter game change that. Wondering when one will pop up.

Another good channel to watch for Civ5 and learning to play watch MadDjinn

His current LP Dido Diety Series

@Seleuceia

All good points, Civ 5 is much better with the xpac and alot of it is due to the tweaking throughout the game. I dismissed Tom Chick's review out of hand; he had no appreciation for the original game so he clearly wouldn't appreciate how the xpac makes it richer.

He talks about AI weaknesses but there has been a number of updates to the AI since he did his original review of Civ5 and the AI is pretty decent at invasions and defence these days - it's never going to be on par with a human (particularly us strategy game enthusiasts) but it's enough to provide a decent challenge militarily.

In terms of empire management (the soul of the game IMO) the AI is MUCH stronger, particularly when you factor in cheat bonuses on the harder settings - it is especially hard on larger maps (standard or above) because you will struggle to rush em all as happiness will always bite you in the ass. It may be more doable now as happiness is easier to come by, but it will still require some careful empire management.

I don't feel cheated in any way for buying this xpac and I'm keen to see where they go for the next xpac - the business model seems to follow 1 game + 2 xpacs so there should be another at some point - I can think of a bunch of things they could do for the next xpac

This is the biggest problem with reviews these days...updates and patches can so fundamentally change the quality of a game, that initial reviews (even if 100% accurate at the time) are essentially useless...

Sadly, many reviewers don't go back after a few updates and redo their review....

Tom tends to focus very heavily on gameplay mechanics and their effects when writing up his reviews, even more so with expansions.  It's what separates him from the rest of the mass out there IMO.  Not so much into the details except for filler but entire systems getting into the nuts and bolts of what worked, what didn't, and why or why not with the occasional suggestion offered from time to time.

Due to all the genres like FPS, such reviews on a game's mechanics are often unnecessary because a genre tends to make them all way too similar.  Other reviews cater to this through reliance of focusing on details and its snazzy presentation.  The zero to one hundred range score system doesn't help much either.

Point is he explained G&Ks includes more tech trees, namely Religion, on top of the first two (culture & technology).  Maybe some people want more tech trees because two isn't enough while some feel three is overkill.  It's all based on your own personal preferences.

I didn't like Civ V (well, I wanted to like it, but got bored really fast) and hoped this expansion would fix it. That worked out poorly.

Based on everything I've read and my own experience, I think you can summarize this one easily. If you like Civ V without it, then you'll still like it. If you didn't like Civ V for any reason whatsoever, there is NOTHING here that will change your mind.

Also think this expansion is overpriced. Fundamentally it's yet another building type that generates yet another type of points that you spend on yet another tech tree. Yay? Espionage is incredibly limited in what it lets you do and looks like it was implemented on the cheap, since the whole thing takes place in a single menu.

Maybe they'll get it right in Civ VI, but I don't think this one is fixable for my tastes without some really fundamental changes that Firaxis isn't willing to make.

I'm going to take that you haven't actually played the expansion....I'd like to point out that a whole host of improvements were made completely independent of Espionage and Religion...while those were the marketed selling points, I think the host of smaller improvements and additions are far more important and easily overlooked by Civ V haters and reviewers...

I'm not saying you will like Gods & Kings...but the expansion adds a lot more (both content and balance) than just espionage and religion, and I think it is unfair to debase the expansion based on only two elements that represent a small portion of the total changes...

I have played it. I saw the smaller stuff, and it got a big meh. The stuff that needed fixing to make it something I'd like wasn't fixed, and the new big stuff got boring real fast.

I *wish* I hadn't played it, because I want that $30 back. Buying it was a mistake that I should have known better then making, but a friend was getting it and wanted to play together. (Turns out he didn't like it either. Oh well.)