CiV is cheaper than Civ 4

[TW_Honorius]

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.

Duh, I am using the at release price, people are complaining about the DLC prices AT RELEASE so its only fair to put all prices AT RELEASE!

Duh, I am using a cost per civ basis, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE DLCS ARE RELEASED AS!

You should read the whole thread before making comments.

 

[CivCube]

You have to consider overall content. A better comparison would be scenarios:

Civ 4: American Revolution, $50
Warlords: 8 scenarios, $30
BtS: 11 scenarios, $30
Total: $110, 20 scenarios = $5.50 per scenario

I'm assuming that no one's buying individual maps here:
Civ V: Mongolia scenario, $50
Civ V DLC (with civs): $20 (Denmark+Explorer's Pack, Inca+Spain, Polynesia)
Total: $70, 5 releases = $14 per release

Civ V DLC (without civs): $10 (separate Denmark, separate Explorer's Pack, Inca+Spain, Polynesia)
Total: $62.50, 5 releases = $12.50 per release

Not as good a selling point, especially when you consider that BtS's scenarios had many more gameplay changes.

Another way to look at it is by pure product:

Civ 4: 34 civs + 20 scenarios = 54 products
$110 / 54 = $2.04 per product

Civ V: 24 civs + 5 scenarios = 29 products
We have to add Babylon, so add another $5 to make it $75.
$75 / 29 = $2.59 per product

A 0.51 difference. Not too terrible considering that you're paying taxes at Wal-Mart.

Consider also that Civ V civs are programmed with more core gameplay changes, as opposed to Civ 4's simple trait distribution. What's still the best selling point is that you can buy this DLC over time, as opposed to all at once. You're not pressured to play everything at once because you shelled out enough dough (that reminds me, I need to play everything in my Valve pack...).

 

[MarkM]

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.

lol, news to me! I got BTS for half price, less than two weeks after it came out!

I was expecting/prepared to wait (and be patched), but BOOM there it was, on sale at my local big box store.

BTW, to OP: cost per civ? Really? If that's your measure ... then let me whip up a game that I can charge you $100 and you will be even more happy with than civ!

 

[awesome]

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

tails of the dancing lobsters from the amanda show?

 

[Camikaze]

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.

Yes, and it is by including both Warlords and BtS. The OP doesn't assume a future, discounted bundle pack.

 

[CivCube]

And by the time you buy the bundle pack, the next Civ is already out anyway...

Civ 3 was actually less forgiving for the consumer:

Civ 3: 16 civs, $50
Play the World: 8 civs, $30
Conquests: 7 civs, 8 scenarios, $30
$110 divided by 39 products = $2.82 per product

And these civs were really distinct only in trait distribution and unique unit, things that could be changed by any modder. When you consider that Play the World was advertised mainly on new civs and multiplayer, that's not such a great buy.

 

[jagdtigerciv]

CIV and CiV are bad abbreviations.

Agreed.

 

[baldfalk]

Just wait till people start using 6iv for 6.

 

[ezwip]

Expansion packs changed the game considerably.

 

[Save_Ferris]

I measure price in terms of Dollars/Hours. In that case, Civ 5 is looking to be cheaper than Civ 4, yes.

 

[Morningcalm]

I think Civ IV was better value for money, even if Civ V with all its current DLC is far cheaper. Civ IV simply has more complexity, depth and character than Civ V imo. Also, the interface is clunky, but at least you can access nearly everything with the click of a button. Don't get me started on how the "show building queue" button in a city has to be clicked anew each time upon loading a Civ V saved game, it just drives me nuts.

 

[Revoran]

I think Civ IV was better value for money, even if Civ V with all its current DLC is far cheaper. Civ IV simply has more complexity, depth and character than Civ V imo. Also, the interface is clunky, but at least you can access nearly everything with the click of a button. Don't get me started on how the "show building queue" button in a city has to be clicked anew each time upon loading a Civ V saved game, it just drives me nuts.

Well if you simply don't enjoy Civ V then obviously no matter how cheap the DLC is it's not gonna be worth it for you.

 

[Tarkhan]

The difficulty is justifying the hours i'd put into Civ IV today, if I didn't own it. I was really interested in succession games, and playing along with them - and now the Civ 4 SG community is kinda dead.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I measure price in terms of Dollars/Hours. In that case, Civ 5 is looking to be cheaper than Civ 4, yes.

lol civ5 game take logner to play than civ 4 but that doesnt make better game if time spent waiting for game rather than playing, funny metric to user