DLC Model Discussion

I don't know where everyone got the $30.00 CIV expansions, but it certainly wasn't at that price here and you had to look around stores or pre-order. If memory serves it was retailing at 49.99 here, but either way as a model it flopped because most people I know did something else to get the game.
I find it interesting that people chose to compare content to BTS instead of Warlords because Warlords wasn't quite as interesting and it's likely that they intentionally tried to put more in BTS since the expansion model doesn't work very well after the first expansion (sale wise), but anyways I'm sorta diverging from the point I want to make.


To me DLC is a Donut.
Expansions are buying an entire box. (Assume stuff doesn't spoil)

To take out the first argument against DLC I'll throw it out there right now. YES the box will no doubt always be cheaper/better value for your dollar. So Point 1 for expansions, however let's look at this from a consumer/dev point of view.

Consumer:
-There might be stuff in the box you don't want.
-There might be too much stuff that you are willing to buy or pay for at the time. eg: If you only looking for something to play 2-3 weekends, what's the real point to buying a dozen Civs?
-If there's just one or two things in the box I want, I can buy that with DLC.

Dev:
- Boxes are harder to sell, people need more convincing or want to try it out first which leads more people to do "something" Hint: Yarr!
-More recurring customer base means they can just keep working on what they feel sales best.
-Easier for them to justify keeping employees on staff, which means they can keep patching the game for free.
-They cut costs of publishing the boxes internationally. Which lowers the bar for "success" to the investors so it's for them to justify having people work on the next DLC. It's also not doom and gloom if most people just decide to wait until it's a bargain sale.

So yes I know some people still want full expansions. I'd probably buy one... but I'm perfectly happy just buying a donu... I mean DLC every now and again. The DLC + the patches have kept this game fairly fresh to me and on a list of games I go back to when I have free time, and I know it works out better for the devs. I'm just sad so many people have taken up arms against change seeing how on the PC the model has worked fairly well for a number of games which would likely have never gotten any expansion.

Derrick CB said:

No duh they are only releasing DLC for money.

Allow me to reiterate. The reason I am against DLC is because it allows Firaxis to get away with selling amounts of content for high prices. The principle behind this is that when there is a small supply of new content for civilization V, the developers are able to charge $5 for a leaderhead. Whereas, if they followed the expansion model, they would not be able to maximize prices so effectively.

Click to expand...

Have you ever stopped to think that, released separately and spread over time, the DLCs might be worth more (in terms of satisfaction and enjoyment) to the consumers, than if they were released in bulk?

Consumers get a certain amount of enjoyment and satisfaction every time they get something new. This enjoyment is worth something. Yes, a bunch of civilizations released together would not be able to be sold for $5 per civ. The buyers also would be able to get the same amount of enjoyment from getting all the civs at the same time in bulk, as they would have buying them separately over the course of a year.


TL;DR Human psychology is not as linear as you suppose in your "expansions are cheaper than DLC" argument.

They should make them cheaper.

1 dlc = $3
2 dlc = $5
3 dlc = $6
4 dlc = $7 etc.

And Trias you are wrong. You could buy an expansion and only try out new civs at the same pace they are releasing DLCs. And even if you were right, it'd be at most 1.5 times the value, not 4 times the value.

They are taking advantage of us. We are more price sensitive when things have a high price. But they roll the DLCs out slowly one at a time, so many people don't notice that it adds up.

Companies should inspire loyalty by giving us low prices.

Here's how to calculate what would be a fair price.

Let's take the price for the main game. $50. It comes with 18 civs. So at most the value of a civ is $50/18=$2.78. So at most, they should charge about $3 for DLCs. But wait...

Besides the civs, the game comes with its core elements and maps etc. So really the value of each civ is ($50-(value of core game+maps))/18. Let's conservatively put that value as $25. Then the value of each civ is $25/18 or $1.39. So really at most, they should charge about $1.75 for DLCs (since it also comes with scenario)

I voted I like it. Here is my reasoning:

- more often content updates. A new civ every couple months is exciting and helps the game stay fresh.

- reasonable price for the quality. $5 for a new civ that will provide countless hours of enjoyment, is not a terrible burden IMO. The quality has been there.

- time is money. Getting the content much sooner that waiting for an expansion is worth an extra dollar or two to me.

civ7:

They are maximizing profit. I don't know that many people don't notice that the DLC is priced the way it is, because, well, it's not like it's a secret or anything. Lower pricing for small sized content spreads out how much of what you pay over a greater span of time, making it more affordable for many. This is also less advantageous for the seller because he doesn't get his money upfront.

Moreover, selling items piecemeal also has the advantage to the buyer of allowing him or her to buy only the stuff he or she wants. I did not play all of the Civs in BTS, and I did not take play any of the mods or scenarios. I could not have paid less because it was in a bundle.

It goes without saying that products sold in bundles can be sold cheaper because of mass market economics, and because of the bundled effect wherein all buyers are forced to buy all the content, instead of just the content they want.

I'm not sure how much of the market in general is being looked at in this context, but prices for things sold separately and in piecemeal amounts are generally orders of magnitude higher than what you get for bulk purchases. Given this reality, DLC for Civ V is downright cheap. At this time frame for Civ 4, we had Warlords new, sold at the new prices, and without recourse to piecemeal purchasing. It is an inferior model by any reasonable intelligent accounting, both for the buyer and for the seller.

A lot of my perception could potentially be enhanced if they release a reasonably priced expansion that contains new stuff. Let's say 20$ for 2 new civs (none of the old ones) and a lot of gameplay improvements and additions. Or 30$ for the expansion that includes that plus all the old ones. That would kind of make the game as it is be the equivalent to expansion packs as they should be.

However, the recent addition of DLC that includes gameplay changes (wonders...) is starting to make everything look a little bleak.

Also it's not super fun to pick and choose DLC when you go online and strategy guides will contain stuff that relates to wonders you don't have. Or try to exchange savegame files with people who use different DLC. It's making a mess of a game. There are few more irritating things than typing the name of a game in Steam to buy it, and see 10-20 different products you can buy with DLC and Expansions and Vanilla base game and whatnot. Really fun to do 2 hours of research before buying stuff.

SimonL said:

A lot of my perception could potentially be enhanced if they release a reasonably priced expansion that contains new stuff. Let's say 20$ for 2 new civs (none of the old ones) and a lot of gameplay improvements and additions. Or 30$ for the expansion that includes that plus all the old ones. That would kind of make the game as it is be the equivalent to expansion packs as they should be.

However, the recent addition of DLC that includes gameplay changes (wonders...) is starting to make everything look a little bleak.

Also it's not super fun to pick and choose DLC when you go online and strategy guides will contain stuff that relates to wonders you don't have. Or try to exchange savegame files with people who use different DLC. It's making a mess of a game. There are few more irritating things than typing the name of a game in Steam to buy it, and see 10-20 different products you can buy with DLC and Expansions and Vanilla base game and whatnot. Really fun to do 2 hours of research before buying stuff.

Click to expand...

I love the ability to pick and choose personally. The good DLCs I consider getting sooner, the "iffy" ones or if I don't have time to play at the moment I just put off till I either find time or it goes on sale.

I hate what it does to save game files, I will agree with you on that point, I'm even wondering a little what it will do to things like HOF, GOTM and Succession games. The current HOF is really heavy on the : NO DLC! (I haven't submitted anything, but I do try it out sometimes for fun) So will the game need an option to turn off the 3 wonders even if they somehow turn out to be great additions to the game? (Is this already an option in game?)

SimonL:

There have already been a lot of gameplay changes and additions. For free. Certainly, nothing of that scope was done to modify Civ 4 between release and Warlords.

I did not like either Steam nor the DLC model of doing business at first, and I was very vocal about that in here (a while back). But, I've made a complete turnaround in that opinion, and now I like the whole deal. It's convienent, easy, and I don't have to buy an entire expansion pack full of stuff I don't need, I can just buy what I want. As to the DLCs, I've bought all the ones with civs, but not all the ones that were just map packs. These last two I bought because I wanted the civ and the wonders. Since I gave up caring about all my steam achievments I really don't care about the scenerios anymore.

civ7 said:

They should make them cheaper.

1 dlc = $3
2 dlc = $5
3 dlc = $6
4 dlc = $7 etc.

And Trias you are wrong. You could buy an expansion and only try out new civs at the same pace they are releasing DLCs. And even if you were right, it'd be at most 1.5 times the value, not 4 times the value.

Click to expand...

You are contradicting yourself. You yourself just stated that you think 4 dlcs together are only worth 2.33 times as much as 1 dlc.

Also, there is a ton of posts in this topic alone of people expressing that they think individually released civs are more valuable.

jtb1127 said:

If prices have changed then why is that I paid about the same for civ v as I did civ iv? And the average xbox game has remained $60 since then too.

Click to expand...

That's it exactly!

People actually freaked out at the increase to $60 for console games.

Why haven't games gone up in price? How much would any of us have really paid for Civ 4 gold (with all expansions and patches)? How many hundreds if not thousands of hours did people put in that game?

The thing is the cost of making games has gone up significantly. Other than the massively popular titles (call of duty, etc) game companies are not making great money. They can't raise the prices of games initially because people will just pirate them or avoid them completely. Instead, they release the game at a traditional price and if it does well, people will actually buy DLC.

This is why the model works quite well. Not everyone is into Civ V. Some bought it and won't play it. They simply don't buy DLC. On the other hand those of us playing the game regularly have the option to buy more content.

DLC is a "stealth" price increase in games for sure. However it forces devs to support and improve their game rather than just releasing garbage and hoping it sells (like so many overpriced console games).

Kerosene31 said:

That's it exactly!

People actually freaked out at the increase to $60 for console games.

Why haven't games gone up in price? How much would any of us have really paid for Civ 4 gold (with all expansions and patches)? How many hundreds if not thousands of hours did people put in that game?

The thing is the cost of making games has gone up significantly. Other than the massively popular titles (call of duty, etc) game companies are not making great money. They can't raise the prices of games initially because people will just pirate them or avoid them completely. Instead, they release the game at a traditional price and if it does well, people will actually buy DLC.

This is why the model works quite well. Not everyone is into Civ V. Some bought it and won't play it. They simply don't buy DLC. On the other hand those of us playing the game regularly have the option to buy more content.

DLC is a "stealth" price increase in games for sure. However it forces devs to support and improve their game rather than just releasing garbage and hoping it sells (like so many overpriced console games).

Click to expand...

It's not like anything has changed. Civilization has never been an extremely popular title and the video game market has only expanded. Civ V still made some people rich.

I invested thousands of hours into civ4 (civ3 also), bought all the expansion immediately on release, and feel like Civ4 by the end of the BtS expansion is one of the greatest games of all time.

I bought Civ5 also, and got used to the changes and started to really like the game. Then the DLC started to be released...

I got Babylon/Inca/Spain (and Mongols of course) for free from a D2D pre-order bonus. Each time I enjoyed playing as one of the new civs for a complete game, but I found that once that game was over, it was not enough to keep me interested in the game. The Civ5 dlc not only rips off customers, but it lacks the indepth game changes to keep the game fresh! In this model Firaxis can add 1 civ- tons of people will buy it, grow tired of it quickly - then spend another 5$ for the next dlc ripoff - while no interesting changes (like some sort of gameplay system religion/corporations) ever occur!

...once Firaxis continued to increase the amount of single civ dlc's with no word of a proper expansion in the works, I completely erased Civ5 and Steam from my PC. I will not re-download until this dlc model stops.

Snoopaloop said:

I invested thousands of hours into civ4 (civ3 also), bought all the expansion immediately on release, and feel like Civ4 by the end of the BtS expansion is one of the greatest games of all time.

I bought Civ5 also, and got used to the changes and started to really like the game. Then the DLC started to be released...

I got Babylon/Inca/Spain (and Mongols of course) for free from a D2D pre-order bonus. Each time I enjoyed playing as one of the new civs for a complete game, but I found that once that game was over, it was not enough to keep me interested in the game. The Civ5 dlc not only rips off customers, but it lacks the indepth game changes to keep the game fresh! In this model Firaxis can add 1 civ- tons of people will buy it, grow tired of it quickly - then spend another 5$ for the next dlc ripoff - while no interesting changes (like some sort of gameplay system religion/corporations) ever occur!

...once Firaxis continued to increase the amount of single civ dlc's with no word of a proper expansion in the works, I completely erased Civ5 and Steam from my PC. I will not re-download until this dlc model stops.

Click to expand...

You're wrong. DLC adds content but doesn't add any new mechanics. People will only buy DLC as long as they're not getting bored or frustrated with the game. The frustated part they are trying to fix through patches (and they did alot I must say) while a new expansion will keep people playing the game.

It'd be a very bad choice not to release an expansion as people will eventually stop playing and thus stop paying for DLC.

CYZ said:

You're wrong. DLC adds content but doesn't add any new mechanics. People will only buy DLC as long as they're not getting bored or frustrated with the game. The frustated part they are trying to fix through patches (and they did alot I must say) while a new expansion will keep people playing the game.

It'd be a very bad choice not to release an expansion as people will eventually stop playing and thus stop paying for DLC.

Click to expand...

You basically just agreed with the majority of what I had just said. Are you saying your opinion is wrong also?

current dlc = temporary content bonus, but not enough of a change to keep the game from becoming lackluster. A full expansion is needed for this.

We just disagree in the idea that people will ONLY buy the dlc if they are not tired of the game. I think many people will continue to buy it if they are bored/frustrated, which can be seen indirectly in the thread poll: "I have purchased DLC for Civ5, but I dislike the current model." We do not know each individuals reasons here, but I would believe some of these people continue to pay for each dlc civ just for the little amount of new gameplay.

oh, and just saying "you are wrong" to someone for their opinion makes you sound like a douchebag.

Moderator Action: Last line is considered trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

They simply couldn't win. If they release an expansion that fixed the game, they'd get blasted for "charging for patches". The people that blast them for not doing this would be first in line to bash them if they did.

To put it in car terms, that would be like putting a turbo on an engine that wasn't firing on all cylinders.

DLC civs are what they are, and don't have much impact on that.

I have not bought any DLCs and voted against the model - I've been happy with the models of the past and would be happy to continue that way. I'm a reasonably patient person and I can wait 18 months or more until the expansion pack comes out.

So for me, it comes down to cost. Currently, the DLC model costs too much for my tastes. If each DLC cost $2 or less, I'd have probably been in the Bought DLC, voted for model camp. I'm used to paying $20-30 for my expansions and that's all I'm willing to pay.

If the current model and prices are accepted by the community at large, then I'm out of luck and will probably go without. After all, it's hard to ask for DLCs as birthday or Christmas gifts. So it's massive sale or bust for me.

I honestly don't know which method earns Firaxis more money. Expansion would certainly get them $30 from me, but if they get $50 from two others via DLCs and $0 from me, they're coming out ahead. From my own standpoint, I certainly want people refrain from buying the DLCs in the hope that they revert to the Expansion method (or drop the prices of the DLCs.) But there's no wrong or right to it. This isn't food, medicine or energy; it's one small form of entertainment. I can't condemn either side in moral terms.

HB

HappyBuilder:

You'll be overjoyed to know that when you wait for Steam sales, you can actually get DLC for Civ V at less than $2 a pop. Glad to have you in the DLC camp.

Kerosene31 said:

They simply couldn't win. If they release an expansion that fixed the game, they'd get blasted for "charging for patches". The people that blast them for not doing this would be first in line to bash them if they did.

To put it in car terms, that would be like putting a turbo on an engine that wasn't firing on all cylinders.

DLC civs are what they are, and don't have much impact on that.

Click to expand...

No, they would be praised for finally releasing game improving mechanics along with new content. Patches can never have the capacity to improve a game very much at one time.