DLC Model Discussion

Menzies said:

Nice irrelevant points there. The look over there strategy isn't particularly useful though. Now, I'm going to get some sleep in a moment, so I'll deal with whatever avoidance tactics you come up with some time tomorrow (maybe), but for now I'll say the following:

Click to expand...

It is funny that you say all my posts are irrelevant when damn near three quarters of your arguments are claiming mine to be irrelevant!

Menzies said:

Firstly, argumentum ad populum is irrelevant in this case as we're talking of business and not universal morality. If the majority of people are willing to pay for something at that price it is worth that price. If you think otherwise I suggest you go study economics.

Click to expand...

Rather than give an honest response and admit that popular opinion is unimportant you will tell me to go study economics...
The only one who has studying to catch up on is you.

Menzies said:

That's great that you still enjoy playing Civ IV, however it has little to nothing to do with anything here. The fact that you don't need a steady stream of context (official or not) to keep your self interested doesn't change the fact that other may need one...

Click to expand...

It has everything to do with this topic. I am explaining that the quality of the video game is what should keep people interested in it, not the stream of new content flowing constantly down as the bored gamers use their fish nets to pick up everything they can get.

Menzies said:

I don't spend any money on gas, at all. I live within walking distance of the university I work in and as such I don't need to drive. This is just like most of your points irrelevant to the argument.

Click to expand...

What is irrelevant is that entire paragraph. It was simply pointing out that a lot of things cost money but rather than pick up on that you say "I don't use gas".

I'll give you another example: Yeah, and you probably spend more money on food too!
(hopefully you eat)

Menzies said:

Now, per civ on the base game does come to $4.44 (where I am Civ V is apparently $80 on steam...), but you have to consider the bundle effect. Let's consider some examples:

Click to expand...

Civilization V does not cost $80 and you know it. It was $49.99 on release date. As a matter of fact I just checked steam and the price is currently $49.99 (personally, I think it should be lowered because that was almost a year ago, but that is off-topic)

Menzies said:

So we can assume that a bundle reduces the overall cost by 25%. Without having any information on a triple, quad etc. bundle we can't really assume much. In that case let's take the 18 civs by the $5.99 price. This gives $108. Without that 25% however its $81. So about the cost of the game. You'd also have to consider an additive bundle effect which would bring the cost per unit down. But hey...

Click to expand...

$81 for the regular game! Yeah just sweep that right under the carpet there. You did not pay $80 for the game. You just conceded that the DLC is a ripoff. Thanks for doing the math for me.

Menzies said:

...who cares, nobodies mind is being swayed here. I'm still going to buy DLC and be happy about it. You think differently, I don't really care now I think about it. The company aren't going to change their tone, there's too much money for them. Have fun though. I'd just ask you to spend more time thinking about what goes into each civ, but I know you'll only see what you want to. It really doesn't affect me whatever way I look at it. Have a nice day!

Click to expand...

I'm sure your lack of care is what has kept you responding to me. Good night!

Moderator Action: There's no need to respond in kind.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Sonereal said:

Businesses trying to come up with a business model that makes them the most money without alienating their consumer base? What a bunch of greedy bastards!

Click to expand...

The whole driving force behind DLC is that Firaxis is intentionally using market forces to get away with selling small amounts of content for high prices.

Again, this should be pretty simple to understand. If something is scarce but in high demand, it will be worth more. That is precisely the principle that Firaxis is using to market DLC.

They have every means to release more content, but then obviously they wouldn't be able to get away with selling civs 5 bucks each (or else it would as expensive as I have stated above.) It is more profitable to sell small amounts of content at a time.

I actually like the DLC model cause i can pick the things i want and exclude those i dont. And actually i like some scenarios to come with new civs, seems a fair deal for me.

Sonereal said:

Now I remember why I hate this part of the board so much. The fact that I couldn't even see a third of the messages when I clicked on this thread should've warned me this wasn't going to end well.

Click to expand...

Oh please. You don't have to be cynical or contemptuous. Play nice with the other kids, will ya?

Moderator Action: Don't make posts that are only addressing the poster rather than points made. Infraction for this and one other post.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

George79 said:

I actually like the DLC model cause i can pick the things i want and exclude those i dont. And actually i like some scenarios to come with new civs, seems a fair deal for me.

Click to expand...

Welcome to civfanatics.

You sure picked an exciting thread to join the discussions!

Derrick CB said:

Empirically, DLC is not better for the consumer. It allows for less options and less content for greater prices.

Click to expand...

Your fault is that you assume the DLC itself has caused prices to go up, and that is faulty logic. "DLC" is just a method of distribution.

Price increases are price increases. The method of distribution does not matter.

They could easily release an expansion pack through Steam if they wished. They could have released individual Civs as physical media back in the day too.

PieceOfMind said:

Welcome to civfanatics.

You sure picked an exciting thread to join the discussions!

Click to expand...

Moderator Action: Everyone, just a reminder to address arguments rather than individual posters. If arguments get too personally involved then infractions will result.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Kerosene31 said:

Your fault is that you assume the DLC itself has caused prices to go up, and that is faulty logic. "DLC" is just a method of distribution.

Price increases are price increases. The method of distribution does not matter.

They could easily release an expansion pack through Steam if they wished. They could have released individual Civs as physical media back in the day too.

Click to expand...

DLC hasn't caused prices to go up. The lack of content is what has caused prices to go up. And I agree. They could have easily released an expansion pack and they still can. But it just so damn profitable to give the gamers small amounts of content at a time. That way we will pay more for it. Hence the term milking.

Yeah the first thread i saw

A little bit off topic but glad that i saw a page for civ fans. I feel like the only one in Mexico City

I look at it this way, I can get a new civ + scenarios more often than waiting for one expansion. Also, I can pick and choose what DLC I want to get. For now, I am on vanilla Civ5 with intent to buy some DLC once I play through all the current options first as I have done in previous iterations.

On the other hand, I would like to know if getting DLC for a few specific civs will prevent getting "less popular" civs in an expansion. For example, does DLC make it less likely to get an official Dutch civ, than if the civs came in an expansion?

SIDE NOTE: Also, if you buy a GOTY Edition with the original game + expansions for less than what the original game cost, what is the difference than buying the DLC at release or during a later Steam Sale because you waited? You are paying to have it "now" and not later. When I go to buy DLC for any game, I weigh that option.

In fact, most things in life are that way. Cars, TVs, Computers... your house.

Sonereal said:

It must be a great burden to educate the masses. My God, it's like White Knighting but so much more stupid.

Click to expand...

You don't even know the half of it.

Moderator Action: Trolling. Infraction for multiple posts.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Sonereal said:

AP Econ. The idea that the acceptable price is what people will pay for is drilled into the whole idea.

Click to expand...

The problem is, this isn't an acceptable price. I have explained how much it should cost (under $2 and that is the acceptable price). This is really the only price. Do not try to make it sound as if economics is so black and white that what ever you get charged it what you have to pay for.

Sonereal said:

No, the analogy doesn't work unless you tried to bring up the price people will pay for slaves. In which case, sure, you actually have an argument. You're comparing apples to bloody god damn oranges and trying to make yourself look intelligent in the process. I can keep saying the acceptable price will be whatever the people will pay for it and I'd be right because that is how it works. You can keep saying that it's a "rip-off" but the fact that clearly, a lot of people are buying DLC, proves the opposite.

Click to expand...

On the topic of popular opinion, the argument does work. Just because the majority of people think it is acceptable, does not make it right.

Sonereal said:

As for you Derrick, good job, you can count but according to the guy I'm quoting above, all of that should be free since it could easily be added by modders.

Now I remember why I hate this part of the board so much. The fact that I couldn't even see a third of the messages when I clicked on this thread should've warned me this wasn't going to end well.

Click to expand...

I'll just ignore this because you are really just going about insulting me again.

jtb1127 said:

The problem is, this isn't an acceptable price.

Click to expand...

I think what people mean when they refer to an "acceptable price" is what the market accepts - not what you find acceptable or not.

What the market accepts is what people are willing to pay.
What people are willing to pay is what people are actively paying.

Sonereal said:

Err, no. See, DLC isn't scarce. Everyone on this forum could probably download Korea if it was free and there would still be plenty of downloads for everyone.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely right. No it is not. But content is scarce. We always want more. A couple of leader heads and some wonders is nothing. Hence, why we are paying 5 bucks for a single civ. Don't you understand that if they released a bunch of content at a time, they would not be able to charge 5 bucks for a civ? It would be too expensive. At a glance, it does not appear expensive when you see that $4.99. All it takes is a little comparison.

The thought process over at Firaxis, is that they can sell off a couple of civs at a time and keep prices high for each one.

For a someone who attended AP Econ in High School, this shouldn't be so difficult.

Sonereal said:

You're confusing "scarcity" with "the amount of content in the DLC".

Click to expand...

No, I'm not. I am saying that content is scarce.

Sonereal said:

And yes, it is probably more profitable. Actually, I'm sure it is given that they're still selling because market forces allows them to and people are willing to pay for $5 DLC despite being in the midst of an economic downturn.

Click to expand...

Thank you. It appears you are starting to get the big idea.

Kerosene31 said:

Your fault is that you assume the DLC itself has caused prices to go up, and that is faulty logic. "DLC" is just a method of distribution.

Price increases are price increases. The method of distribution does not matter.

They could easily release an expansion pack through Steam if they wished. They could have released individual Civs as physical media back in the day too.

Click to expand...

PieceOfMind said:

I think what people mean when they refer to an "acceptable price" is what the market accepts - not what you find acceptable or not.

What the market accepts is what people are willing to pay.
What people are willing to pay is what people are actively paying.

Click to expand...

Sonereal said:

This.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I was in the midst of saying basically what Derrick said, but then I hit refresh on my other screen and canceled my post.