CiV is cheaper than Civ 4

TW_Honorius · May 7, 2011

With the most recent DLC, I thought I would look at the cost of CiV compared to Civ 4 based on number of civilizations available since that is what the DLC gives us. Currency is rounded US dollars

Civilization 4: $50
Warlords: $30
Beyond the Sword: $30
Total Investment: $110
Total Civs: 34
Avg Price Per Civ $3.24

CiV: $50
All DLC: $23
Total Investment: $73
Total Civs: 24
Avg Price Per Civ $3.04

By those numbers alone, Civ 4 is cheaper, but since the DLC civs cost $5 bucks, 10 more civs to match Civ4 numbers would raise the investment to $123 for a total of $3.61.

So there is a 13 dollar difference that makes CiV more expensive, but you dont have to buy the DLC as a group, unlike Civ 4 you had 2 expansions.

So to everyone who thinks there getting nickled and dimed, just wait until the DLCs go on sale and it will be cheaper to own than Civ 4. Your wallet will thank you. :goodjob:

krasny · May 7, 2011

Civ 4 isn't $50. Not even close.

Amazon UK has it at £5.98.

Also a lot of people object to DLC on grounds other than price.

Revoran · May 7, 2011

He means that it is cheaper than CIV was when you compared the value for money of both.

Of course CIV is cheaper than CiV now due to it being like 5 years old.

bite · May 7, 2011

isn't now, i believe the poster was referring to when it first came out

Revoran · May 7, 2011

Also the DLCs will eventually be packaged together really cheap too in the distant future or even there could be good sales on them before an expansion or whatever (if there is one).

AlpsStranger · May 7, 2011

Fair enough, but what about the fact that you cannot make significant art edits to Civilization 5. Must be a coincidence :rolleyes:

joyous_gard · May 7, 2011

CIV and CiV are bad abbreviations.

ori · May 7, 2011

you forgot to price the additional features added by warlords and bts though - unless you want to claim they are worth nothing, your calculations aren't exactly fair.

Edit: also if you just want to compare civs why list warlords at all? Bts includes all the Warlords civs.

Revoran · May 7, 2011

True, my guess is that Firaxis would choose to introduce major features in an expansion though. Or less likely through free patches (they wanna make money so yeah).

Having major new features or major feature changes was DLC would complicate things way too much for multiplayer.

ori · May 7, 2011

Revoran said:
True, my guess is that Firaxis would choose to introduce major features in an expansion though. Or less likely through free patches (they wanna make money so yeah).

Having major new features or major feature changes was DLC would complicate things way too much for multiplayer.

I agree, but that doesn't mean in any way that the OPs calculations are fair evaluations, since DLC offer Civs and some maps/scenarios, while the expansions for Civ4 introduced additional features at the same time.

Camikaze · May 7, 2011

ori said:
also if you just want to compare civs why list warlords at all? Bts includes all the Warlords civs.

I think it's fair to include both under the assumption that DLC will eventually be bundled together in a similar manner. I'm not entirely sure how accurate a comparison is given what else was added with those expansions, but I think it's fair in that regard.

ori · May 7, 2011

Camikaze said:
I think it's fair to include both under the assumption that DLC will eventually be bundled together in a similar manner. I'm not entirely sure how accurate a comparison is given what else was added with those expansions, but I think it's fair in that regard.

I agree, thought about that afterwards

Aristos · May 7, 2011

yes, and a Mac is cheaper than a Lobster tail...

TW_Honorius · May 7, 2011

Yes, I was compariing when the games came out, and only comparing Civilizations as people complain on this forum that 5 bucks for a Civ is expensive, and they arent talking about the other content.

Varelse · May 7, 2011

You are using an "at release" price for Civ4 procucts, but assuming a future sale or discounted bundle pack for Civ5 products. Also you are basing your price analogy exclusively on a cost per civ basis. There is more to the game than just how many civs you can play with.

Varelse · May 7, 2011

Camikaze said:
I think it's fair to include both under the assumption that DLC will eventually be bundled together in a similar manner. I'm not entirely sure how accurate a comparison is given what else was added with those expansions, but I think it's fair in that regard.

If you can assume a future, presumably discounted, Civ5 bundle pack, then why can't you figure in the current discounted prices of Civ4? If the comparison is of "at release" pricing, it should be the case for both Civ4 and Civ5.

Kerosene31 · May 7, 2011

Throw in a 40% off sale on DLC and it is definitely cheaper. The old Civ 4 expansion packs did not go on sale until many years later.

Buccaneer · May 7, 2011

joyous_gard said:
CIV and CiV are bad abbreviations.

+10000

I wish posters would stop doing this, it's really annoying. Simply use a 4 or a 5 instead. My .01.

OrsonM · May 7, 2011

Buccaneer said:
+10000

I wish posters would stop doing this, it's really annoying. Simply use a 4 or a 5 instead. My .01.

But CiVI will be an awesome abreviation (it's Civi!, Civilization's little helping hammer, it looks like you are trying to invade there, would you like some help with that?).

Save_Ferris · May 7, 2011

Buccaneer said:
+10000

I wish posters would stop doing this, it's really annoying. Simply use a 4 or a 5 instead. My .01.

Are GDR, DoF, RA, DoW, UA, UU, UB, SoD, and 1upt okay?

CiV is cheaper than Civ 4

Warlord

Prince

Prince

Unofficial Civilization Cartographer

Prince

Jump jump on the tiger!

Prince

Repair Guy

Prince

Repair Guy

Moderator

Repair Guy

Lightseeker

Warlord

Rabble Rouser

Rabble Rouser

Prince

Deity

Our man

Admiring Myself

Similar threads