View Full Version : The Spanish Ripoff


thadian
Apr 16, 2012, 04:41 PM
By giving away spain, half of a DLC - Two pack, they are ripping off every person who paid for it - also, what happens to players who buy G+K - will they also get inca free, or do they have to pay full DLC price for half content?

They are just trying to gorge the wallet to death, this is not about "making money" it is about "choke the chicken for one more egg" and im sick of it. i wish civilization didn't turn out this way - half the best mods have different DLC requirements and g+k will be no different.

Instead of worrying about being compatible with 18 different DLC items, you have to worry about this expansion + 18 more DLC items - i wouldn't be surprised if they release a second expansion where all the DLC civ's are the "new civs".

tofofnts
Apr 16, 2012, 04:45 PM
meh... you got spain early by paying, plus the rerelease of spain doesn't make the fun you had with that dlc any worse

chazzycat
Apr 16, 2012, 04:45 PM
seriously...it's like $3 and you got to play as Spain for months (years?) before the expansion came out. They are only including it because of the medieval scenario with religious war theme....it would be stupid not to include them in that.

thadian
Apr 16, 2012, 04:49 PM
why should people have to pay for something they already have, will players who own spain get a discount?

the "i love you bug" virus stole pennies from billions of bank accounts, so no crime was done since nobody lost more than a couple pennies, right?

the point is, they are making people pay two times for spain - inca. If you don't own spain - inca, then you buy G + K, you still have to pay the cost of 2 DLC Civ's to get one civ!

The_J
Apr 16, 2012, 04:52 PM
As preemptive warning, this thread is already under observation. Please stay civil.

janboruta
Apr 16, 2012, 04:52 PM
A dollar (for single Spain) is hardly a ripoff, IMO, even in a country where dollar is more expensive than native currency (such as Poland). And for that dollar I had plenty of fun for more than a year.

BobDole
Apr 16, 2012, 04:55 PM
why should people have to pay for something they already have, will players who own spain get a discount?

the "i love you bug" virus stole pennies from billions of bank accounts, so no crime was done since nobody lost more than a couple pennies, right?

the point is, they are making people pay two times for spain - inca. If you don't own spain - inca, then you buy G + K, you still have to pay the cost of 2 DLC Civ's to get one civ!
You can think of it as "oh, I'm paying for Spain as part of the expac, I'm being ripped off!" but others can see it as "oh, I'm getting Spain thrown in for free!" My guess is most people are thinking in the latter way, as opposed to the former. Otherwise, this forum would be in an uproar (I mean, really, look how many debates there were about Steam, DLC in general, etc.)
I don't expect a discount on G&K, it's already a great value (IMO) and I still got Spain for ~a year and a half. Even if I did agree with you, I'm not getting upset over $2.50.

Simplicity4
Apr 16, 2012, 04:56 PM
They're not even advertising the inclusion of Spain as a new civ. Do you get this upset when Civ 5 goes on sale for $7 on steam? Or when your phone suddenly goes on sale for less than you purchased it for? Getting something years ahead of time commands a premium. You can play some great games for next to nothing if you're willing to wait a few years.

Wait a couple of years before you buy G+K. It'll cost like 5 bucks.

Radu_Magus
Apr 16, 2012, 04:58 PM
How cheap, lol. This is like saying "I paid $49 for the game and 6 months later it's $39! I want my $10 refund!".

thadian
Apr 16, 2012, 04:59 PM
again - the point is that after paying money for spain, i am told that something i paid for is "included" in the next product. why?

and what about the duo-pack? doesn't g+k devalue the idea of it? the pack is advertised as giving spain + inca, but if you get g+k and you already have spain, you are paying full price for half the content.

This would be very different IF they released Inca as a standalone DLC at a reduced cost, or something similar. This feels more like a punishment to people who got spain/inca duo pack DLC, and now pay full price for g+k to get -1 civ.

Raneman
Apr 16, 2012, 05:02 PM
I paid $60 dollars for Civ at launch, and at sales it's gone down to $10.

WHERE IS MY $50 SID I'M GOING TO TELL MY MOM

wandmdave
Apr 16, 2012, 05:04 PM
Do we know how Spain is included? Can you only play them in the scenario or do you get to play with them in a normal game without having purchased the DLC?

If you can only play them in the scenario then I see no problem. If you can then it is slightly annoying that the releases weren't planned a bit better (and it has to be bad planning in my mind, no game company sets out to give people a reason to wait on purchasing their products). Still, in the end it was a dollar or two so it isn't that big of a deal.

thadian
Apr 16, 2012, 05:06 PM
yes it is a big deal - if i steal a candy bar from wal-mart, nobody will say "let him go, it was just a dollar or two".

And i am posting this because (it seems) that spain will be a normal civ in g+k, meaning i had to pay for that civ 2 times.

under the model of selling a chess set without bishops or knights, and selling those pieces separately.

they have sold "2 knights" as separate DLC. king bishop as a dlc. then one year later, queen bishop + king knight as a DLC.

don't you see under this comparison how everyone who bought the "2 knights" loses something by buying the "queen bishop + king knight" pack?

DeathFace
Apr 16, 2012, 05:20 PM
I was somewhat angry when I heard that Spain was being included in the expansion but then I realized that it's $2.50 and since Spain has been available for a while it's not a huge deal. I can understand if you had just bought Spain and the next day it was announced that it's free in the expansion that you could have the right to be upset.

wandmdave
Apr 16, 2012, 05:20 PM
yes it is a big deal - if i steal a candy bar from wal-mart, nobody will say "let him go, it was just a dollar or two".
But this metaphor is flawed. In the case of the candy bar Wal-Mart gets nothing because you stole it. In the DLC case you got to play Spain for months before anyone else did so there was still and exchange and thus no stealing. You may not like the exchange but 2K isn't stealing from you.

There is a gray area about disclosure where you may have an argument. Many people may have made a different purchasing decision had they known they'd get Spain in an expansion they were going to buy anyway. I'm not sure what the rules are on disclosure of such things though.

Still that assumes 2K was planning to put Spain in G+K all along and it assumes Spain can be played in more than just the scenario. This argument is probably better left for after the release.

TheKingOfBigOz
Apr 16, 2012, 05:23 PM
My only issue is when the production on expansion began and when the Spain/Inca was released. I really wish they changed Spain to Portugal for the DLC. why not?

I agree, I'm not too fond of it, but what you gonna do? I'm still going to buy the expansion pack regardless..

And Dennis Shark confirmed that Spain is a full 10th civ available with God and Kings.

tofofnts
Apr 16, 2012, 05:24 PM
If a store gave out free lolipops would you complain that you had to pay for your lolipop, or accept it as an act of kindness?

MisterSaturnine
Apr 16, 2012, 05:25 PM
First-world problems, dude.

Besides the fact that being "ripped off" a dollar doesn't take away the fun you had before, consider that Spain's abilities might be altered somewhat due to the religious themes of the expansion.

Gintoki89
Apr 16, 2012, 05:26 PM
Also, part of this argument assumes that the Inca/Spain will remain a full priced double pack after release, something I highly doubt. I'm sure that there will be a single Inca option that will be released closer to the expansion release, and they'll probably keep the double pack up for people who don't want the expansion as well.

thadian
Apr 16, 2012, 05:26 PM
Many people may have made a different purchasing decision had they known they'd get Spain in an expansion they were going to buy anyway.

^^

Im sure many people, me included - i hate paying for the same product 2 times. This is no different than buying a candy bar from the store, 2 for 1 discount. then one week later, when i go back to buy another candy bar, they tell me its time to pay for the free one from last week. Had inca been sold seperately in its own DLC, then i wouldn't be complaining as much.

tofofnts
Apr 16, 2012, 05:29 PM
yes it is a big deal - if i steal a candy bar from wal-mart, nobody will say "let him go, it was just a dollar or two".
:confused:
They aren't taking spain from you, they are giving other people it for free about 30$. Imagine it this way, what if they decided to release a huge dlc with all the dlc civs for 30$. Would you complain because other people are getting it for cheaper than you?

Scam
Apr 16, 2012, 05:29 PM
LOL at this thread. I understand the argument, but it is hardly a big deal. I CHOSE to buy the spain/inca pack, so spain is included... I could care less. Honestly I think the real issue is that you may need a raise...

The only part of the argument that is valid is the fact that spain + inca are in the same pack and it costs more I believe. So yeah.. I guess they could make it so you can buy only the Inca alone so you don't pay the extra cost for spain if you bought G and K first.

Also, think of it this way: I have friends who I play civ with who have not bothered to buy any of the DLC, i wish they would get it for free so we could include those add-ons in our games... I chose to purchase the dlcs right away to enrich my playing experience.. a while ago.

leif erikson
Apr 16, 2012, 05:33 PM
Think you could also look at it as you can play Spain with vanilla, people who didn't purchase the dlc can only play Spain in G&K. In a way, you have gotten added value.

Gintoki89
Apr 16, 2012, 05:33 PM
This isn't anything new in any industry. Old things are often bundled or given away for free. If you buy a movie that's part of a series, do you complain when the series is released as a bundle later on at a lower total price or demand a discount on the bundle? Maybe I should have asked for a discount on the Shadow of the Colossus/ICO collection since I bought SotC beforehand...

Vlade Divac
Apr 16, 2012, 05:35 PM
Meh...life isn't fair. :shrug:

thadian
Apr 16, 2012, 05:36 PM
the difference is you have the option of giving away one of your 2 copies to a friend or selling it - do i have the choice to gift my "spain" to someone else?

no, i just have a product i can not use. you can watch either copy of your movie - or give your other copy of your game to a friend or sell it to a store, which i am unable to do with this model.

tofofnts
Apr 16, 2012, 05:37 PM
This isn't anything new in any industry. Old things are often bundled or given away for free. If you buy a movie that's part of a series, do you complain when the series is released as a bundle later on at a lower total price or demand a discount on the bundle? Maybe I should have asked for a discount on the Shadow of the Colossus/ICO collection since I bought SotC beforehand...

Exactly, a computer that costed 4000$ 15 years ago can probably be found at garage sales for 1.99$. Do people who bought it for 4000$ complain, call it a ripoff and demand a refund?

Dark_Jedi06
Apr 16, 2012, 05:39 PM
Let's see...$5 DLC, of which Spain is only half...so you're getting ripped off for $2.50.

A paltry sum not worth getting in a tizzy over. Not to mention you still have the exclusivity of the other half of the DLC, namely the Inca and the scenarios.

thadian
Apr 16, 2012, 05:41 PM
again, if the $4000 computer from 15 years ago were being included with a software purchase you have options about parting the computer out or giving it to a friend. this is not a computer released 15 years ago. In this instance, i am unable to "give a friend my extra spain".

this is creating a 2-pack bundle, charging me money for it, then giving half of it away on the next purchase, thus devaluing the 2-pack bundle.

Gintoki89
Apr 16, 2012, 05:42 PM
If that's the complaint then it's just a complaint against digital media and not Civ. Not being able to resell is an inherent fact that applies to any digital release of games, movies, shows, music or anything else. Perhaps a more apt comparison is when games are bundles for cheap on Steam or other services. There have been indie game bundles I've bought where I already owned 1 or 2 of the games, but the price is the same for me. Games in series released digitally are often released bundled at a lower price with no discount to early adopters, because the higher price was for the benefit of having a game early.

tofofnts
Apr 16, 2012, 05:43 PM
the difference is you have the option of giving away one of your 2 copies to a friend or selling it - do i have the choice to gift my "spain" to someone else?

no, i just have a product i can not use. you can watch either copy of your movie - or give your other copy of your game to a friend or sell it to a store, which i am unable to do with this model.
So it's only ok that they release bundles at lower price since you can give it away to your friends? I've bought bundles after buying a single unit and didn't give any away or sell it, I'm not complaining.

CivCube
Apr 16, 2012, 05:44 PM
I'm thinking most people bought the 2-pack DLC on a Steam sale. I didn't but I did for everything else. :D

And look at it this way, too: any DLC bought on day 1 helps to support Firaxis with further development of patches. This strategy has already helped us get Civ V to a better patched state than Civ 4 vanilla, as well as a first expansion that's nearly as stacked as BtS.

Gucumatz
Apr 16, 2012, 05:46 PM
I'm thinking most people bought the 2-pack DLC on a Steam sale.

I know I did. Can't say I am feeling ripped off by losing 62.5 cents.

Eagle Pursuit
Apr 16, 2012, 05:47 PM
Considering that the G&K Spain will probably be a bit different than vanilla Spain, I will be buying a different Spain.

chazzycat
Apr 16, 2012, 05:49 PM
yes it is a big deal - if i steal a candy bar from wal-mart, nobody will say "let him go, it was just a dollar or two".?

no actually it's not like that at all, because there is no theft here.

And i am posting this because (it seems) that spain will be a normal civ in g+k, meaning i had to pay for that civ 2 times.

they are just including Spain for the medieval scenario, basically for free to make the scenario better. you really think if they didn't include Spain they would lower the cost by $3? no you are not paying for it 2 times.

under the model of selling a chess set without bishops or knights, and selling those pieces separately. they have sold "2 knights" as separate DLC. king bishop as a dlc. then one year later, queen bishop + king knight as a DLC.

don't you see under this comparison how everyone who bought the "2 knights" loses something by buying the "queen bishop + king knight" pack?

apples to oranges. Obviously no one would buy chess in that case, since you need those pieces to play. You don't NEED Spain or any DLC civ at all to play civ. They are bonus.

thadian
Apr 16, 2012, 05:50 PM
so i will have 2 spain's in my game? solved, close thread.

unless of course, i will only have one product i paid for twice, the war rages on.

tofofnts
Apr 16, 2012, 05:50 PM
35 replies in 1 hour :lol:

Gucumatz
Apr 16, 2012, 05:51 PM
so i will have 2 spain's in my game? solved, close thread.

unless of course, i will only have one product i paid for twice, the war rages on.

In fact you shall.

Just load up Civ 5 Vanilla and you will have Spain Pre changes to UA.

Load up Gods and Kings and you will have Spain after faith changes.

(Via steam of course)

tofofnts
Apr 16, 2012, 05:54 PM
In fact you shall.

Just load up Civ 5 Vanilla and you will have Spain Pre changes to UA.

Load up Gods and Kings and you will have Spain after faith changes.

(Via steam of course)

Out of curiosity, has Spain's new UA changes been confirmed or is it just speculation. Also why haven't you answered any of my points, theadian I feel lonely :cry:

MisterSaturnine
Apr 16, 2012, 05:55 PM
so i will have 2 spain's in my game? solved, close thread.

unless of course, i will only have one product i paid for twice, the war rages on.

Indeed, the war over $2.50 rages on.

thadian
Apr 16, 2012, 05:55 PM
no - your fallacy is that g+k is a standalone game, what i am saying is after g+k, when i load the game, i will have money missing from a product that i paid for 2x but have one playable/usable instance of.

G+K is an expansion, meaning i have only one spain that is playable that i had to pay for 2x to get one function out of in the most recent form of the product, which is defined as vanilla+expansion.

Toto - if i could "gift" my "extra spain" to a friend then i wouldn't be so upset. That would mean "after buying g+k" i could give my "useless wasteful overflow" to someone else who does not have it, and they could benefit from it, thus eliminating the waste. of course it would be worthless because everyone will have it anyway and nobody will "need" it or benefit from receiving it.

Gintoki89
Apr 16, 2012, 05:56 PM
Question - would you actually drop the issue if you only had to pay $27 for G+K instead of $30?

Gucumatz
Apr 16, 2012, 05:56 PM
Out of curiosity, has Spain's new UA changes been confirmed or is it just speculation. Also why haven't you answered any of my points, theadian I feel lonely :cry:

No speculation at this point; but if it is the DLL should be different depending on which you load up (Gand K) or vanilla

Gucumatz
Apr 16, 2012, 05:58 PM
no - your fallacy is that g+k is a standalone game, what i am saying is after g+k, when i load the game, i will have money missing from a product that i paid for 2x but have one playable/usable instance of.

G+K is an expansion, meaning i have only one spain that is playable that i had to pay for 2x to get one function out of in the most recent form of the product, which is defined as vanilla+expansion.

Both are playable; They do become stand alone games according to web defs and Steam. So... At this point I think you are being nitpicky.

tofofnts
Apr 16, 2012, 05:59 PM
Do you also complain whenever a game you bought goes on sale?

thadian
Apr 16, 2012, 06:00 PM
im being nitpicky about paying 2 times for a product that is only usable once - sure i could go back and play "vanilla" but you are just trying to make a mockery of my point.

i think you are trying to defray the topic, by making it look as though i am just being an idiot for wanting to not pay 2x for the SAME THING.

about buying games on sale: that is different, because i am getting a product at a reduced price.

in this "sale" i am getting products at an increased price.

Buccaneer
Apr 16, 2012, 06:01 PM
Many people may have made a different purchasing decision had they known they'd get Spain in an expansion they were going to buy anyway.



I call BS. Not one of you would have waited 7(?) months for Spain to come out while the rest of thoroughly enjoyed playing with and against an interesting civ that we got for....wait for it....$3. Give me a break. :rolleyes:

thadian
Apr 16, 2012, 06:02 PM
Question - would you actually drop the issue if you only had to pay $27 for G+K instead of $30?

spot on. if customers who bought the spain/inca DLC were given this discount, then i would stop complaining because i would feel i "paid to have it early" instead of "paying twice to have one civilization".

Gucumatz
Apr 16, 2012, 06:03 PM
im being nitpicky about paying 2 times for a product that is only usable once - sure i could go back and play "vanilla" but you are just trying to make a mockery of my point.

i think you are trying to defray the topic, by making it look as though i am just being an idiot for wanting to not pay 2x for the SAME THING.

about buying games on sale: that is different, because i am getting a product at a reduced price.

in this "sale" i am getting products at an increased price.

I guess Mark-Ups are a new concept. But ok, I will just refrain so I don't derail your "topic". Not telling you how to pick your battles, but not sure if this one is worth fighting...

Gucumatz
Apr 16, 2012, 06:04 PM
I call BS. Not one of you would have waited 7(?) months for Spain to come out while the rest of thoroughly enjoyed playing with and against an interesting civ that we got for....wait for it....$3. Give me a break. :rolleyes:

Well actually I bought Spain + Inca at the latest Sale before the Expansion was announced.

I was expecting some DLCs to be in the expansion, so thought I would wait. The sale price and the doomsdayers talking about no expansion drew me in. Otherwise I would have waited as well :lol:

Buccaneer
Apr 16, 2012, 06:04 PM
And then I read your signature lines and figured it would be someone with your views complaining about not getting things for free.

Personal attack not necessary, constitutes trolling. Apology below appreciated.

Gintoki89
Apr 16, 2012, 06:05 PM
Actually, Spain was released Dec 2010, so it would have been 18 months. So, he wants a discount equal to the $3 he spent a year and a half ago? Considering inflation and stuff, I'm not sure you'd be entitled to any discount at all.

thadian
Apr 16, 2012, 06:06 PM
this wasn't advertised as a "mark up", it was advertised as "here it is" and it became a markup after the fact. however, i would have waited for g+k had i known up front, then i would have instead made a thread called "release inca without spain!"

btw, under the notion of 2-product rule do i have to buy all of the civ 5 vanilla DLC for g+k?

will i be able to use these DLC with it? I paid for these civ's not to "have them early" but to "have them at all" and to "use them in each version".

Had i been told up front that this was paying to have it early, i would have waited.

Gucumatz
Apr 16, 2012, 06:07 PM
And then I read your signature lines and figured it would be someone with your views complaining about not getting things for free.

Hey now... lets not go here. That is neither there nor here, nor relevant.

Buccaneer
Apr 16, 2012, 06:07 PM
You're right, Gintoki89, I had forgotten it was 2010.

Buccaneer
Apr 16, 2012, 06:08 PM
Hey now... lets not go here. That is neither there nor here, nor relevant.

Yeah I know, sorry.

Peng Qi
Apr 16, 2012, 06:11 PM
They should just completely change Spain, then release a DLC of Portugal that is the same as current-Spain and give it to the Spain-havers for free.

KillingMeSoftly
Apr 16, 2012, 06:14 PM
I own Spain and have no issues. If anything it'll let me play Spain in MP with people who haven't bought the DLC. Which is a plus for me, since I love playing Spain.

Also they may have included the price of Spain in the expansion itself. Otherwise it may cost $33 instead of $30!

Gucumatz
Apr 16, 2012, 06:15 PM
I own Spain and have no issues. If anything it'll let me play Spain in MP with people who haven't bought the DLC. Which is a plus for me, since I love playing Spain.

Also they may have included the price of Spain in the expansion itself. Otherwise it may cost $33 instead of $30!

I got to say that is the biggest advantage for me. More people in the pool to play multiplayer with.

thadian
Apr 16, 2012, 06:16 PM
They should just completely change Spain, then release a DLC of Portugal that is the same as current-Spain and give it to the Spain-havers for free.

This and i stop complaining.

CleverFool
Apr 16, 2012, 06:30 PM
As many others have said, I have no issues paying an "extra" $2.50 for a year and a half of being able to play this civ (frightening to think that time slips by so fast).

Ultimately is worrying over $2.50 worth the stress?

thadian
Apr 16, 2012, 06:35 PM
its not worrying about 2.50 so much as worrying about the principle. one person said i DO have 2 functional spains because of a two-product rule, so now the gate is open for every vanilla DLC to not work in G+K to have all of them re-sold as the new DLC content.

This is worrying about the principle that the company is charging people multiple times for the same product with a minor tweak then calling it different.

it is the principle of giving everyone else for free what i paid extra to have.

It is the principle of deceitful marketing - had i been told this was an "early up" promotion from G+K then i wouldn't be upset if they had said "Inca is a new civilization, and Spain is a preview of the upcoming expansion, Gods + Kings." I would have been happy and this post would have never been made, instead i would have posted to release standalone versions.

chazzycat
Apr 16, 2012, 06:37 PM
you keep ignoring the fact that you paid for it months ago. Time = money.

BobDole
Apr 16, 2012, 06:37 PM
Actually, Spain was released Dec 2010, so it would have been 18 months. So, he wants a discount equal to the $3 he spent a year and a half ago? Considering inflation and stuff, I'm not sure you'd be entitled to any discount at all.

Yeah, really. It's been 18 months (aka: A looong time). And Civ V and its stuff is on sale aaallll the time on Steam anyway (seriously, it's on sale like every month or two) so that $2.50 could be even less if you got it on sale.
I think you (Thadian) are taking this way too personally, seeing it as Firaxis purposely trying to rip people off and exploit them for every cent they're worth. Here's a guess.....Firaxis had NO IDEA what their expansion was going to be about when they released the Spain and Inca DLC. Now that G&K is coming around the corner, and Ed Beach wanted to do a Religious Renaissance scenario or whatever it is (not to mention, religion is a key part of the Expac), they figured they would try to do something nice and include it. Apparently they should just not be nice and take it out.....but oh wait, then people would complain anyway.
Oh, and companies do this all the time in similar ways, whether it's making DLC free after a certain time, GoTY compilations, etc.

DeathFace
Apr 16, 2012, 06:39 PM
I keep hearing "paying twice for one product". Now did the expansions price change after they announced Spain? No? Then you aren't paying for it twice.

Gucumatz
Apr 16, 2012, 06:39 PM
its not worrying about 2.50 so much as worrying about the principle. one person said i DO have 2 functional spains because of a two-product rule, so now the gate is open for every vanilla DLC to not work in G+K to have all of them re-sold as the new DLC content.

This is worrying about the principle that the company is charging people multiple times for the same product with a minor tweak then calling it different.

it is the principle of giving everyone else for free what i paid extra to have.

It is the principle of deceitful marketing - had i been told this was an "early up" promotion from G+K then i wouldn't be upset if they had said "Inca is a new civilization, and Spain is a preview of the upcoming expansion, Gods + Kings." I would have been happy and this post would have never been made, instead i would have posted to release standalone versions.

Well to be fair, they originally didn't plan to have Spain in. But they needed them for scenarios and the Developers used the mentality for "In for a penny, in for a pound" to include them.

Its not really deceitful if they didn't expect to add any DLC into the expansion in the first place.

thadian
Apr 16, 2012, 06:42 PM
I think you (Thadian) are taking this way too personally, seeing it as Firaxis purposely trying to rip people off and exploit them for every cent they're worth.

someone gets it. I would also not feel this way, if, when i bought Civ5 all civilizations were DLC, and the vanilla game had "18 civs" to choose. release 26 civ's, and people have freedom and choice on what civ's they choose to own.

the DLC model does not have to be a ripoff - but is used as one, and making people pay early for a product they will have anyway for free later on feeds that idea.

Rupe
Apr 16, 2012, 06:44 PM
It's DLC. I think it should be understood that its just a gimmick to get more cash out of the player base.

Sure they didn't ever say that you are only paying for early access for Spain, but they also didn't say that DLC will only be available as DLC. Its their product they can repackage and resell it anyway they want. You got what you paid for so there should not be an issue.

I am ok with it since I don't ever buy DLC. I think its a bad thing and accordingly don't participate.

Gintoki89
Apr 16, 2012, 06:50 PM
Another point worth making - no one is going to make you buy the expansion. If you think it's not worth the price because you already paid for part of it, don't buy it or wait until it's dropped to a lower price. Basic rule of consumerism.

chazzycat
Apr 16, 2012, 06:53 PM
someone gets it. I would also not feel this way, if, when i bought Civ5 all civilizations were DLC, and the vanilla game had "18 civs" to choose. release 26 civ's, and people have freedom and choice on what civ's they choose to own.

the DLC model does not have to be a ripoff - but is used as one, and making people pay early for a product they will have anyway for free later on feeds that idea.

lol i really hope you're a troll at this point. The poster was not agreeing with you he was just summarizing your position...

Calling another member a troll is not okay. It's considered trolling.

If you believe someone is trolling, you should report them, not take it upon yourself to try and call it out.

Glassmage
Apr 16, 2012, 06:53 PM
I bought all the DLC's when they came out so I didn't wait for any discount. It would be nice if we get $1 or $2 off if we already have Spain but honestly I had fun with Spain for a long time now and it doesn't really matter..... Also, originally they didn't plan to have Spain in this expansion but the lead guy felt strongly about it because of his scenario.

TheKingOfBigOz
Apr 16, 2012, 07:18 PM
I bought all the DLC's when they came out so I didn't wait for any discount. It would be nice if we get $1 or $2 off if we already have Spain but honestly I had fun with Spain for a long time now and it doesn't really matter..... Also, originally they didn't plan to have Spain in this expansion but the lead guy felt strongly about it because of his scenario.

I agree, I understand Ed wanted Spain, Spain was the only reason why I gave in to buying the DLCs in first place, had I known that Spain would be in the expansion pack, I would've never purchased it/wanted it.

I wonder how people would react if instead of Spain they included Sejong/Polynesia/Harald, a single Civ pack for free, then people would get annoyed, I'm sure of it. I also don't get "oh, you got to play it in Vanilla instead of others" not eniterly, we bought it because we nver KNEW it was going to be an expansion pack.

I just think people who have Spain already should get something off or a 1-time discount at another DLC. I'm sorry, but I'm materialistic, can't help it. I feel slightly ripped off by it.

Nyanko
Apr 16, 2012, 07:45 PM
Personally I dont feel its a ripoff. I managed to get 18 months exclusive play out of Spain. For 2.50. Bargain, eh? Thats like complaining that you paid 18$ at release for a blu-ray disk of Avatar when they show it on free to air Television 18 months later.

Roltel
Apr 16, 2012, 08:16 PM
Okay, sorry to keep this going but for my two cents worth …

Personally, the more civilizations the merrier for me when it comes to civ. I like the variety of having as many to choose from as I can when I set up a game. It helps keep it fresh and me interested. It's never occurred to me NOT to buy any DLC when it comes out – it doesn't break my bank (they're cheap) and already given me extra hours of enjoyment and gaming when otherwise I would have got bored earlier and ignored the game for months. Even if, when each DLC was announced, I was told that some way down the track, in a year or so, all the DLC would be available for free as part of an expansion, I still would not have hesitated to buy them so I have something fresh to add to my game play while I wait for that expansion.

Personally, I would have been more pissed off if I held off from buying them on the expectation that I would get them all included in an expansion anyway, and then found out when G&K was announced that they WEREN'T part of it. I really would be disappointed if after all that wait, I found I could play G&K but I didn't have the option to play it with Denmark/the Vikings, the Incas, Korea etc. Sure, I could probably get them cheaper now, but I'd be more angry at all the opportunity for play with new civs I'd missed in the meantime.

Okay, maybe some could be annoyed that they bought the Spain/Inca pack and now Spain's coming in for free. But they've still had the Incas, and a New World scenario, that is still not available to people who didn't purchase the DLC.

It's not every one's cup of tea, but digital content to me has been a great development in how I consume media from music to movies to TV shows to games – I'm no longer having to wait, often inordinately long times, for new material I'm otherwise impatient to get, I sure don't mind paying a premium to get my hands on things faster.

Buccaneer
Apr 16, 2012, 08:49 PM
It's not every one's cup of tea, but digital content to me has been a great development in how I consume media from music to movies to TV shows to games I'm no longer having to wait, often inordinately long times, for new material I'm otherwise impatient to get, I sure don't mind paying a premium to get my hands on things faster.

I agree with you. Not only has downloadable content been a boon for gamers (esp. for PC gamers, which has kept the niche alive and financially viable) but music, movies, tv shows, etc. as you mentioned. My god, going to Steam and seeing all of those choices (i.e., that no one is forcing you to buy) is like going to the iTunes store and seeing a lot of good stuff there. What the critics are forgetting is the enormous cost to maintain a one-stop shop like Steam and iTunes - only to have content delivered to you cheaply and quickly. It is ludicrous think that paying $30 to get Spain for "free" in June 2012 is somehow better than paying $3 to get Spain in Dec 2010. Or having to wait 18 months for an expansion pack to have gotten any new civs or gameplay content.

Human Crouton
Apr 16, 2012, 09:24 PM
I love this game, and I'd hate to see the developers cripple it going forward because the world's angriest person will be upset about $3. If they feel that putting Spain in makes the expansion that much better, then I'm all for it.

Louis XXIV
Apr 16, 2012, 09:33 PM
Let's see. Spain was released about 500 days ago. That means you paid less than a penny a day for Spain. You also get the Inca and a scenario. I don't think I would permanently give up the Inca and the scenario just on the principle of getting Spain a year and a half later for free.

HardRocker
Apr 16, 2012, 09:33 PM
I assume he's a troll. Otherwise this post was very pointless. If he is a troll, I applaud him on being able to keep it going so long on flawed logic.

Calling someone a troll constitutes trolling. If you believe someone is trolling, report them.

mjs0
Apr 16, 2012, 11:52 PM
thadian,
Someone further up asked if you would feel better if you only had to pay $27 for GAK. The better question would be "Would you feel better if a seperate version of GAK were available that cost $30 but did not include Spain?" for that is the true alternative.

I firmly believe there is nothing wrong with what 2K/Firaxis are doing.
Why?
...because the expansion pack would have cost (and been worth) $30 with or without Spain.

You are not paying twice for Spain everyone is getting an 18month old DLC thrown-in for free.

Let me repeat...
You are not paying twice...you (and I, and many others who have the Spain/Inca DLC) are simply not benefiting from the free-DLC giveaway.

This tactic is no different than the frequent marketing tactic of including a giveaway of an older version of a game when selling the newest edition. For example, I got Civ III thrown in when I bought Civ5...Should I have complained because I was paying twice for CivIII...of course not that would be ridiculous!

I believe your argument has no merit.

Roltel
Apr 17, 2012, 12:02 AM
thadian,

You are not paying twice...you (and I, and many others who have the Spain/Inca DLC) are simply not benefiting from the free-DLC giveaway.



Exactly. And on top of that, they're NOT giving away the Spain/Inca DLC for free. G&K purchasers will be getting a part , about a third, of that DLC as a free giveaway, while those of us who have the DLC still have a scenario and a who extra civ (Incas) not available (yet) outside the DLC realm - you've still got content for $2.50 not available in G&K.

Rob (R8XFT)
Apr 17, 2012, 12:03 AM
This is an age-old complaint that has gone on since Civ III (when Conquests was released, it included the civs from Play the World); personally, I bought Spain on the day of release and would do so again even if I knew it would be available 18 months later as part of G&K. I don't feel like I've been ripped off; I've had that civ to use all that time, as well as the Inca and the New world scenario which isn't included in G&K.

Drill IV
Apr 17, 2012, 12:05 AM
the DLC model does not have to be a ripoff - but is used as one, and making people pay early for a product they will have anyway for free later on feeds that idea.

Indeed the marketing model for Spain in this case is a psychologically dangerous one. On the one hand, the publisher potentially attracts many more buyers for the expansion, offering something "for free".

On the other hand, *everyone* wants to have a "free" advantage very much (opposed to some advantage costing 1 cent), and thus many people who bought Spain might feel cheated now.

A possible solution would be for the publisher to throw something else into the deal that is marketed as a "for free" addition, and somehow overshadows the "free" Spain DLC, or to give a small discount for those who already bought Spain beforehand. Even 1 cent might suffice.

Trik
Apr 17, 2012, 12:32 AM
This guy is right we're all getting ripped off. We should write to 2k/Firaxis and demand they remove this content from the G+K expansion.

sumodaz
Apr 17, 2012, 12:39 AM
As a Civ fan I almost feel its my 'duty' now to support the series. Seeing as the game has given me so much pleasure over the years I really don't mind a few to make it worth while for them to keep the series going. Either that or i'm a real sucker for DLC.

oliver
Apr 17, 2012, 01:09 AM
You all seem to be looking it as a cup half empty and not a cup half full cus we still get a full 9 civs and some people get one extra.
I do understand that if you just bought Spain+Inca you might be angry but just think some lucky people get 1 extra and you lose nothing, anyway it just cost 3.50 a civ for it so your not losing a lot of money.

Camikaze
Apr 17, 2012, 02:11 AM
You're paying for Spain a second time just as much as you're paying for cities, or Giant Death Robots, or the Iron resource, or any single thing that is already in the game. I, for one, am not put out by the fact that Firaxis are including cities in the expansion, despite having already paid for them.

Additionally, how do we know that the original price was going to be $33, and has been reduced to the quite reasonable $30 because Spain is included? It's impossible to sustain the 'paying for it twice' argument when the expansion is most likely priced entirely independently of whether or not Spain is included. I find it very unlikely that the marginal cost of Spain in the expansion is anything other than $0.

That leaves the only possible argument being that it's not good that people some people are essentially getting Spain for free, whereas others paid for them. And that argument certainly doesn't seem possible to maintain, either.

tofofnts
Apr 17, 2012, 03:57 AM
Additionally, how do we know that the original price was going to be $33, and has been reduced to the quite reasonable $30 because Spain is included? It's impossible to sustain the 'paying for it twice' argument when the expansion is most likely priced entirely independently of whether or not Spain is included. I find it very unlikely that the marginal cost of Spain in the expansion is anything other than $0.

I completely agree, I think it would be priced exactly the same whether or not Spain was included. Why? Because companies always sell games and Xpacks for round prices. And look at all the things the're adding
a lot of civs (10)
religion (5)
espionage (3)
revamped diplomacy (2)
More resources (1)
More units (2)
Expanded tech tree(2)
New combat system (2)
More scenarios (3)
If we use the numbers in brackets beside the things to see how many civs each is worth we see that spain is worth 1$, not the 5$ needed to change the price

SalmonSoil
Apr 17, 2012, 04:11 AM
And I don't believe Firaxis knew they would need Spain for this expansion when they released the DLC.

AbsintheRed
Apr 17, 2012, 04:58 AM
You got to be kidding me
This whole thread is a joke, right? :mischief:
Spanish Ripoff... LOL, give me a brake :p

so i will have 2 spain's in my game? solved, close thread.

unless of course, i will only have one product i paid for twice, the war rages on.

You don't pay for your "second" Spain, you pay for GK, with the 9 new civs and every other new content
Spain is just a bonus, now for free. You bought that bonus earlier, in order to play it during the last 1.5 years

It's totally the same thing that game get's cheaper after a few months/years
You buy it on release - 60 dollars, you buy it 2 years later - 10 dollars
You bought Spain+Inca for 4 dollars, 1.5 years later Spain is added to the expansion as a bonus for free
No difference at all

AbsintheRed
Apr 17, 2012, 05:09 AM
Personally I dont feel its a ripoff. I managed to get 18 months exclusive play out of Spain. For 2.50. Bargain, eh? Thats like complaining that you paid 18$ at release for a blu-ray disk of Avatar when they show it on free to air Television 18 months later.

This

thadian,
Someone further up asked if you would feel better if you only had to pay $27 for GAK. The better question would be "Would you feel better if a seperate version of GAK were available that cost $30 but did not include Spain?" for that is the true alternative.

I firmly believe there is nothing wrong with what 2K/Firaxis are doing.
Why?
...because the expansion pack would have cost (and been worth) $30 with or without Spain.

You are not paying twice for Spain everyone is getting an 18month old DLC thrown-in for free.

Let me repeat...
You are not paying twice...you (and I, and many others who have the Spain/Inca DLC) are simply not benefiting from the free-DLC giveaway.

This tactic is no different than the frequent marketing tactic of including a giveaway of an older version of a game when selling the newest edition. For example, I got Civ III thrown in when I bought Civ5...Should I have complained because I was paying twice for CivIII...of course not that would be ridiculous!

I believe your argument has no merit.

Absolutely agreed, this also greatly sums it up
Noone pays twice for Spain - which is Thadian's main problem

On the other hand, there are some people who don't pay for Spain at all
But you have to live with it, it's just the time-money tradeoff
You got it early, you paid for it. You pay for that 1.5 years when you were able to use it, while the others were not

What if they release a Civ V ultimate version 10 years from now, with all expansions and all DLCs merged together for 10 dollars?
And what if they add it as a free bonus if you buy the newly released Civ VII?
You will also be complaining?

Realyn
Apr 17, 2012, 05:21 AM
35 replies in 1 hour :lol:

30 by the opening poster I guess.

headcase
Apr 17, 2012, 05:41 AM
In a few years Civ 5 + 2 XPs (if made) + all DLC will cost $10 :)

Drill IV
Apr 17, 2012, 07:23 AM
I completely agree, I think it would be priced exactly the same whether or not Spain was included. Why? Because companies always sell games and Xpacks for round prices. And look at all the things the're adding
a lot of civs (10)
religion (5)
espionage (3)
revamped diplomacy (2)
More resources (1)
More units (2)
Expanded tech tree(2)
New combat system (2)
More scenarios (3)
If we use the numbers in brackets beside the things to see how many civs each is worth we see that spain is worth 1$, not the 5$ needed to change the price

By that thinking, it should be beneficial to throw in all the existing civs for free. Why do they not do that? Because they know it would put some people off.

Louis XXIV
Apr 17, 2012, 07:34 AM
Well, that's what they did in previous games. You bought Warlords or Play the World? It's free in Beyond the Sword and Conquests. The fact that they aren't doing this for all the civs is the new thing.

Grubnessul
Apr 17, 2012, 07:35 AM
They wanted the Spaniards in the new scenario, that's why they threw in the Spaniards. Also, I suspect they got a major overhaul in their UA as it was very silly and quite pointless before (since it required randomly placed tiles, so removing a lot of strategy)

AbsintheRed
Apr 17, 2012, 07:39 AM
Well, that's what they did in previous games. You bought Warlords or Play the World? It's free in Beyond the Sword and Conquests. The fact that they aren't doing this for all the civs is the new thing.

Indeed
They still hope for additional (and bigger) income from the separate DLCs, that's the only reason they didn't add all the other DLC civs as a free bonus
Otherwise they would be all shipped with GK, for further increasing the expansion's value in the eyes of the costumers
The price would stay 30 dollars, no matter how many DLC civs are added as a bonus
Same case as currently: it would have been 30 dollars without Spain too, it's a FREE addition

drubell
Apr 17, 2012, 08:51 AM
This complaint doesn't make any sense at all. The only situation in which you are "ripped off" is if you DON'T have the Spain/Inca pack and plan to buy it after G&K.

Situation 1: You bought the Spain/Inca pack. Spain is now available for free. The value of your pack is less, but you still have Inca and (imo) the one of the best scenarios available out there. You have unique content that you paid for already.

Situation 2: You don't have the Spain/Inca pack and don't plan to buy it. You will get Spain for free. You won't have the Incans or the scenario but that's your choice.

Situation 3: You don't have the Spain/Inca pack and do plan to buy it. You will be paying for the Incans, the scenario, and Spain. Since Spain is free, some of the money that you spent on the pack won't matter since one of the civs is already in the game.

Situation 3 is really the only one where anyone should feel "ripped off" because you're paying for free content if you want want the pack.

Now there may be a time later in which they announce a cheaper pack with just Incans and the scenario. That situation would rightly make those who bought Spain earlier feel "ripped off."

seasnake
Apr 17, 2012, 09:13 AM
They wanted the Spaniards in the new scenario, that's why they threw in the Spaniards. Also, I suspect they got a major overhaul in their UA as it was very silly and quite pointless before (since it required randomly placed tiles, so removing a lot of strategy)

actually it was my favorite UA. The strategy was in finding those tiles by investing in scouts/optics and then how to use any gold, and prioritizing getting those tiles under your control. I've fought many a war so i could wrest El Dorado or Grand Mesa from some city state who was putting on airs and happened to be settled by it.

bite
Apr 17, 2012, 09:24 AM
This complaint doesn't make any sense at all. The only situation in which you are "ripped off" is if you DON'T have the Spain/Inca pack and plan to buy it after G&K.

Situation 1: You bought the Spain/Inca pack. Spain is now available for free. The value of your pack is less, but you still have Inca and (imo) the one of the best scenarios available out there. You have unique content that you paid for already.

Situation 2: You don't have the Spain/Inca pack and don't plan to buy it. You will get Spain for free. You won't have the Incans or the scenario but that's your choice.

Situation 3: You don't have the Spain/Inca pack and do plan to buy it. You will be paying for the Incans, the scenario, and Spain. Since Spain is free, some of the money that you spent on the pack won't matter since one of the civs is already in the game.

Situation 3 is really the only one where anyone should feel "ripped off" because you're paying for free content if you want want the pack.

Now there may be a time later in which they announce a cheaper pack with just Incans and the scenario. That situation would rightly make those who bought Spain earlier feel "ripped off."


I completely agree with all this, they will probably either just have Inca as a stand alone dlc, or maybe they will just add the whole dlc pack to the new expansion (the later would be the easier option)

The_Quasar
Apr 17, 2012, 09:48 AM
I bought the Spain/Inca DLC on release day... I've played the Scenario to death, played Spain and the Incas several times, and got far more than my money's worth. Like most of the Civ V DLCs, it was very good value for money.

That Spain will be included in G & K makes no difference to me, as I've got it anyway... I'm going to pay the same amount whether it's there or not, and I'm paying, imho, an excellent, low price for the rest of the content, civs, etc.

To beef about one Civ out of 10, in a huge amount of extra content, that has been included because it's in a new scenario, and is such a tiny tiny piece of the rather generously large G & K jigsaw puzzle, is so petty that it defies belief!

turingmachine
Apr 17, 2012, 09:51 AM
The Double Pack isn't less of value as you still get Inca, the scenario, and the ability to play Spain in Vanilla games (which is essentially what you payed for initially; the G&K Spain almost definitly won't be playable in Vanilla games). The fact the the other DLC is compatible with G&K is an addition to the original product, not something originally advertised. With that said, they will probably lower the price of the Double Pack to be about the same as a standard Civ +Scenario DLC.

Txurce
Apr 17, 2012, 10:09 AM
I have to admit to some disappointment as well as relief that thadian hasn't responded in the last day or so. Of course the longer this thread went, the more he confirmed to 2K that they can safely ignore complaints like his.

Louis XXIV
Apr 17, 2012, 10:12 AM
The Double Pack isn't less of value as you still get Inca, the scenario, and the ability to play Spain in Vanilla games (which is essentially what you payed for initially; the G&K Spain almost definitly won't be playable in Vanilla games). The fact the the other DLC is compatible with G&K is an addition to the original product, not something originally advertised. With that said, they will probably lower the price of the Double Pack to be about the same as a standard Civ +Scenario DLC.

Well, you were also paying to get it quicker, rather than having to wait until G&K was released. You can't really do that if you buy just the Inca later. I think a G&K DLC of the Inca plus the scenario makes a lot of sense so you can pay normal DLC price and not doublepack price.

TheKingOfBigOz
Apr 17, 2012, 10:14 AM
Few months ago I voiced my opinion on these and it did not end up well.

So all I know is there's no point in aruging, because nobody will be able to change anybody's view. I wish people who already have Spain would get something else. But I know we won't ,and to be honest, at this point, I don't even care.

Nobody can change this and to be honest I don't even care. All I know is that this will never end, just let it be, and let people have their respective opinions, if you don't find it unfair, that's fine. If you find it unfair, that's fine. can you change it? No. At this stage the game is nearly completed the developers are VERY unlikely to remove Spain if people had a .... those... thign with signatures to change stuff..

Eagle Pursuit
Apr 17, 2012, 10:36 AM
If it really bothers you that G&K has an additional civ that you already paid for separately, just wait till the expansion goes on sale for $4 cheaper than the initial offering.

Dark_Jedi06
Apr 17, 2012, 10:37 AM
[...] if people had a .... those... thign with signatures to change stuff..

Petition? ;)

SammyKhalifa
Apr 17, 2012, 10:39 AM
Few months ago I voiced my opinion on these and it did not end up well.

So all I know is there's no point in aruging, because nobody will be able to change anybody's view. I wish people who already have Spain would get something else. But I know we won't ,and to be honest, at this point, I don't even care.

Nobody can change this and to be honest I don't even care. All I know is that this will never end, just let it be, and let people have their respective opinions, if you don't find it unfair, that's fine. If you find it unfair, that's fine. can you change it? No. At this stage the game is nearly completed the developers are VERY unlikely to remove Spain if people had a .... those... thign with signatures to change stuff..

Or just set up your game to play two different Spanish opponents. ;)

bonafide11
Apr 17, 2012, 11:29 AM
I just go back to Warlords and Beyond the Sword for Civ IV. If you bought Warlords for $30, you got several new civs. A year later, when Beyond the Sword was released, all of the civs from Warlords were included. But nobody complained about it from what I remember. Clearly there is enough in the expansion pack to justify paying $30 for it that one civ that you already purchased for $3 is not that big of a deal.

Alexastor
Apr 17, 2012, 11:57 AM
tl;dr

I bought the DLC when it was released and meanwhile it was 50% (or even 60% IIRC), now did they rip me off?

TheKingOfBigOz
Apr 17, 2012, 02:34 PM
Who would've bought the DLC if they knew prior to the release of Spain that the Expansion pack had Spain in it?

I actually don't find myself being more "ripped off" just that it's bit unfair.

lolno
Apr 17, 2012, 02:43 PM
The time spent posting here would have translated to at least 3 DLC civs working at minimum wage, after tax

Gintoki89
Apr 17, 2012, 02:48 PM
Who would've bought the DLC if they knew prior to the release of Spain that the Expansion pack had Spain in it?.

Me, cause I got to play with Spain for a year before the expansion pack came out, and Spain's cost is not that much.

Louis XXIV
Apr 17, 2012, 03:47 PM
Who would've bought the DLC if they knew prior to the release of Spain that the Expansion pack had Spain in it?

I actually don't find myself being more "ripped off" just that it's bit unfair.

I absolutely would have. I probably wouldn't have bought it last week, but I would have bought it a year and a half ago.

SomethingCronic
Apr 17, 2012, 04:00 PM
Who would've bought the DLC if they knew prior to the release of Spain that the Expansion pack had Spain in it?

I actually don't find myself being more "ripped off" just that it's bit unfair.

I would have and did. Inca >>Spain anyway, worth the cost just for them... And all you new Spain-gainers are missing out on the gem of the pack!

Would I have bought just Spain o. It's own a year ago? Yes again, if only because I'm a huge Civ fan more than any other game in fact, and for such a low price it brings it's value ten times over. Everyone who gets Spain now are fortunate - good for them, I don't feel cheated at all.

I must have wasted 3 quid on much worse endeavours than a civ dlc over the last year, in fact I'm sure a lot more.

bonafide11
Apr 17, 2012, 06:26 PM
I definitely would have still bought the DLC a year and a half ago if I knew one of the civs would be included in an expansion. I only paid $5 for it and I got to play with them for a long time before other people got them for free. I was well aware that there was a good chance that it would happen anyway since it happened with Warlords -> Beyond the Sword.

Roltel
Apr 17, 2012, 06:30 PM
Who would've bought the DLC if they knew prior to the release of Spain that the Expansion pack had Spain in it?


Definitely yes!

Louis XXIV
Apr 17, 2012, 06:50 PM
I think the only question is if I would have avoided Korea if everything would be included. I've really enjoyed the Wonder Pack and I'd probably have bought Korea just for the value even if I wouldn't get as much use out of them. Even if it were the case, I think I'd have gotten my money's worth by now (the last DLC release was well before Christmas, iirc).

Mango Elephant
Apr 17, 2012, 06:55 PM
I definitely would have still bought the DLC a year and a half ago if I knew one of the civs would be included in an expansion. I only paid $5 for it and I got to play with them for a long time before other people got them for free. I was well aware that there was a good chance that it would happen anyway since it happened with Warlords -> Beyond the Sword.

I wasn't really around that much back then, but how much of an unholy fuss did people throw when BtS came out for the same reason as right now?

Louis XXIV
Apr 17, 2012, 07:07 PM
I don't really remember. They might have accepted it because it was the same thing as Civ3: Conquests. I suppose, at the time, people accepted it because it allowed for uniform multiplayer games, though, so it might not be a full apples to apples comparison.

TheKingOfBigOz
Apr 17, 2012, 07:33 PM
At this stage I stopped caring that Spain is in, I don't know why I find it unfair, all I know I just feel that way, and all I know that nobody is gonna manage to change anybody's opinion, so arguing is pretty much useless since it's not gonna get anybody anywhere.

It's also VERY ironic that I don't find it fair and yet have picture of Isabella as my avatar xD

Also, sicne people are refering to the idea of "Spain being released early" to the same view as it being a demo, would you purchase a 3 euro demo of Civ 5? Before Civ 5 was released?

Louis XXIV
Apr 17, 2012, 07:36 PM
I don't view it as the equivalent of a demo because the demo was limited to 100 turns. I view it as the privilege of getting to play the feature earlier at a more expensive price ($3 more). If I had a choice between getting the game for the full price or waiting many months for it to be on sale, I chose to pay full price. That's what I view this as.

TheKingOfBigOz
Apr 17, 2012, 07:39 PM
But we don't get "full Spain" we only get the art of it and UUs, since they are changing their ability? so that's 50% demo :P isn't?

bonafide11
Apr 17, 2012, 07:47 PM
I wasn't really around that much back then, but how much of an unholy fuss did people throw when BtS came out for the same reason as right now?

I was around a lot back then, and I don't remember there being any sort of fuss when BtS was released, which is why I was surprised by the fuss for the release of G+K.

I don't view it as the equivalent of a demo because the demo was limited to 100 turns. I view it as the privilege of getting to play the feature earlier at a more expensive price ($3 more). If I had a choice between getting the game for the full price or waiting many months for it to be on sale, I chose to pay full price. That's what I view this as.

I completely agree with this.

But we don't get "full Spain" we only get the art of it and UUs, since they are changing their ability? so that's 50% demo :P isn't?

Is this confirmed? I don't remember seeing anywhere that Spain is confirmed to have a UA change. Either way, if they do change it, then look at it like you got a different version of Spain that people who don't have the DLC won't get to have.

Louis XXIV
Apr 17, 2012, 07:47 PM
We have absolutely no evidence that they're changing the ability. We "know" they're changing their ability in the same way we "knew" the Huns could not build their own cities and had to conquer the cities of others - i.e., complete speculation.

TheKingOfBigOz
Apr 17, 2012, 07:54 PM
I think the only reason there's fuss is that (I have a very strong DejaVu :| ) this is something you individually bought (DLC). and I think it would be way worse if Spain was an individual DLC instead of merged with Inca.

Txurce
Apr 17, 2012, 10:46 PM
I think the only reason there's fuss is that (I have a very strong DejaVu :| ) this is something you individually bought (DLC). and I think it would be way worse if Spain was an individual DLC instead of merged with Inca.

There is no fuss. There is you and, as of 48 hours ago, thadian complaining, and a staggering amount of people like me who disagree.

SomethingCronic
Apr 17, 2012, 11:22 PM
There is no fuss. There is you and, as of 48 hours ago, thadian complaining, and a staggering amount of people like me who disagree.

Basically we have a forum of people waiting for new news on gods and kings,and in the absence of any news people will find something to say.

thadian
Apr 18, 2012, 04:13 AM
no, this is because i have learned, as with all before me to complain about the scam DLC model, and the implementation of it, to be silenced by the system - any time anyone complains about it, they are cited infractions while everyone who tosses out insults at us are basically encouraged. in a level field, we are all allowed to state our views, but in this field, my views are taken away from me.

i say no more.

edit: i remember having MANY good discussion against the DLC model, and sad indeed that i am not allowed to discuss it.
You're not allowed to discuss moderator actions, but discussions of the DLC are sure allowed.

AbsintheRed
Apr 18, 2012, 04:29 AM
no, this is because i have learned, as with all before me to complain about the scam DLC model, and the implementation of it, to be silenced by the system - any time anyone complains about it, they are cited infractions while everyone who tosses out insults at us are basically encouraged. in a level field, we are all allowed to state our views, but in this field, my views are taken away from me.

I don't feel this is true at all
I'm for example, is absolutely against the DLC model
Just hate it, along with Steam...

On the other hand, I absolutely don't agree with your views on Spain
That has nothing to do with the fact that DLC systems just want to get as much money out from people as possible
Spain is a free bonus, noone buys it twice. GK is 30 dollars with Spain, and it would have been the same without it...
Read the comments on the last few pages, there were quite a few good posts about this
thadian,
Someone further up asked if you would feel better if you only had to pay $27 for GAK. The better question would be "Would you feel better if a seperate version of GAK were available that cost $30 but did not include Spain?" for that is the true alternative.

I firmly believe there is nothing wrong with what 2K/Firaxis are doing.
Why?
...because the expansion pack would have cost (and been worth) $30 with or without Spain.

You are not paying twice for Spain everyone is getting an 18month old DLC thrown-in for free.

Let me repeat...
You are not paying twice...you (and I, and many others who have the Spain/Inca DLC) are simply not benefiting from the free-DLC giveaway.

This tactic is no different than the frequent marketing tactic of including a giveaway of an older version of a game when selling the newest edition. For example, I got Civ III thrown in when I bought Civ5...Should I have complained because I was paying twice for CivIII...of course not that would be ridiculous!

I believe your argument has no merit.

Absolutely agreed, this also greatly sums it up
Noone pays twice for Spain - which is Thadian's main problem

On the other hand, there are some people who don't pay for Spain at all
But you have to live with it, it's just the time-money tradeoff
You got it early, you paid for it. You pay for that 1.5 years when you were able to use it, while the others were not

What if they release a Civ V ultimate version 10 years from now, with all expansions and all DLCs merged together for 10 dollars?
And what if they add it as a free bonus if you buy the newly released Civ VII?
You will also be complaining?

SomethingCronic
Apr 18, 2012, 04:37 AM
no, this is because i have learned, as with all before me to complain about the scam DLC model, and the implementation of it, to be silenced by the system - any time anyone complains about it, they are cited infractions while everyone who tosses out insults at us are basically encouraged. in a level field, we are all allowed to state our views, but in this field, my views are taken away from me.

i say no more.

edit: i remember having MANY good discussion against the DLC model, and sad indeed that i am not allowed to discuss it.
You're not allowed to discuss moderator actions, but discussions of the DLC are sure allowed.

"Silenced by the system"? "Tossing insults at us?" - I think some perspective is needed here lol. It's a couple of quid DLC not a Tibetan protest.:) When/if they start charging ridiculous amount of money for these people will stop buying them.

Some lucky people will get Spain in Gods and Kings. If someone buys CivV GOTY edition for the marked down price (I think it's 20 now) they also get some of the DLC.

Why does no one get angry about that? Civ V cost me 30 when I bought it but now some lucky bugger can get it for 10 cheaper + some of the DLC!!! How is that acceptable? I support the franchise since release and now they are selling it to people who don't care about it as much as me because they didn't buy it in the first place - yet they get the benefit!

If there's anything the rile about with Civ - it's the fact they released such a buggy game initially! (but that's a different subject)

Zhahz
Apr 18, 2012, 10:25 AM
I think DLC generally sucks but objectively when you buy DLC in the form of civs for a game like civ you have to realize you're taking the chance that the civ could later be bundled in an xpac. Thinking otherwise is folly.

tofofnts
Apr 18, 2012, 12:44 PM
no, this is because i have learned, as with all before me to complain about the scam DLC model, and the implementation of it, to be silenced by the system - any time anyone complains about it, they are cited infractions while everyone who tosses out insults at us are basically encouraged. in a level field, we are all allowed to state our views, but in this field, my views are taken away from me.

i say no more.

edit: i remember having MANY good discussion against the DLC model, and sad indeed that i am not allowed to discuss it.

Yup the evil shadow government is stopping people from posting complaints. Watch out, if they find out you know to much about there evil plot to invoke sharia law on the world, they'll use there army of resurrected Hitlers to kill you.

Mocking a poster like this constitutes trolling; please restrict yourself to addressing the arguments of others.

dfer
Apr 18, 2012, 12:54 PM
Can't believe someone could get this fired up over $2. Plus, as many point out, $2 is basically a premium to have access to it months earlier.

If you are so angered by the DLC model, stop purchasing. It's a simple way to get back at the company.

leif erikson
Apr 18, 2012, 03:39 PM
This thread has gotten way to sarcastic and trollish.

Closed.