I pledge to not buy Civ 6 until it is released

[kingchris20]

I'm just saying that I think the Preorder numbers and the future of the Civ series are directly correlated. Lower preorders equates to a lower chance of survival of the series itself.

I know I am supporting the developer by preordering, I also know it comes out buggy and problems are there, but at the same time, I know I will love the game and expansion packs and updates will correct those issues. When we all work together with the community playing and finding bugs and no one can ever really say that Firaxis does not listen to its community, we get a better game over time and it's really a perfect relationship.

Just my humble opinion.

 

[thecrazyscot]

The publisher pushed a game that, on release, objectively failed to deliver on its advertising with regards to both civilization 4 and 5 (both alleged that they had multiplayer, in both cases it was so terrible that it bordered false advertising and was certainly low-quality). Even to this day, putting 5 people in a MP match in civ 5 will de-sync --> go unplayable. Remember, this is something you can allegedly do, and something games with budgets well below AAA manage routinely.

Non-doormat markets would penalize future titles until the trend of release quality is positive. If civ 6 is like civ 5, buying it after release day is pre-ordering, and if you "pre-order" it now you're purchasing a future beta.

I know that's harsh, but the state of 4 and especially 5 on release was awful and I find it difficult to conclude rewarding that behavior with a vote of confidence to be anything other than irrational.

Most of the Civ community just doesn't care about multiplayer. Hardly makes it a "doormat" market if a particularly buggy feature is irrelevant to the majority of players and therefore irrelevant to their buying decision.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

The Atzec bonus is closest to the old school meaning of preodering.

If you preorder, you get content 90 days earlier. If not, you still get it eventually.

Personally I'm glad that those that do not preorder do not need to pay extra money to get it, or that content is not locked with "gold-plated" version of the game.

That almost makes it worse for me. Day one DLC is bad enough, but holding content back that's already finished and including in the price of the game just seems spiteful.
All it does is make me want 90 days after release until I buy Civ VI. And by then it wil have a couple of patches and probably a price drop...

 

[stealth_nsk]

That almost makes it worse for me. Day one DLC is bad enough, but holding content back that's already finished and including in the price of the game just seems spiteful.
All it does is make me want 90 days after release until I buy Civ VI. And by then it wil have a couple of patches and probably a price drop...

I don't understand it. There's a core game, it has value. There's additional content it could be distributed the way publisher sees it. IMHO, the choice between immediate availability with preorder and delayed availability without it is quite fair one. Much better than preorder bonus you'd have to pay otherwise.

 

[DeutschDachs]

That almost makes it worse for me. Day one DLC is bad enough, but holding content back that's already finished and including in the price of the game just seems spiteful.
All it does is make me want 90 days after release until I buy Civ VI. And by then it wil have a couple of patches and probably a price drop...

Or you could wait 5 years and grab the complete edition with all added content for about $30!

I don't see how waiting 90 days to buy because of one Civ makes any sense though especially since you can preorder literally the day before release, ie when most people would buy it, and still get the bonus. Or you could wait the extra day and play with 18 Civs

 

[Ryika]

I don't understand it. There's a core game, it has value. There's additional content it could be distributed the way publisher sees it.

It's often the case that people don't see the problem because it's only a small issue. So let's make it bigger:

Imagine the game shipped with 6 Civilizations and 12 more Civilizations for everybody who had pre-ordered, becoming available only 90 days later for everybody else. Same concept, just the part that is delayed has been increased - still don't see the problem?

Obviously Firaxis would not do that, and they did a good job choosing a part of the game that is both, interesting enough to make people consider pre-ordering and not important enough to make it a "big deal", but on principle it's the same thing. There is content. It is delayed for everybody who is not willing to pre-order for the simple reason that they want to get people to pre-order.

I think the only argument one could make to support this practice is that they wouldn't have created that extra Civ had it not been for the benefits they get from pre-ordering. And that may be a fair point, but it leaves me very skeptical.

 

[DeutschDachs]

It's often the case that people don't see the problem because it's only a small issue. So let's make it bigger:

Imagine the game shipped with 6 Civilizations and 12 more Civilizations for everybody who had pre-ordered, becoming available only 90 days later for everybody else. Same concept, just the part that is delayed has been increased - still don't see the problem?

Obviously Firaxis would not do that, and they did a good job choosing a part of the game that is both, interesting enough to make people consider pre-ordering and not important enough to make it a "big deal", but on principle it's the same thing. There is content. It is delayed for everybody who is not willing to pre-order for the simple reason that they want to get people to pre-order.

I think the only argument one could make to support this practice is that they wouldn't have created that extra Civ had it not been for the benefits they get from pre-ordering. And that may be a fair point, but it leaves me very skeptical.

You can't go multiplying just the part you dislike by 12 and then say it's the same principle

Maybe if they were offering 216 Civs (18x12) with 12 extra as a preorder bonus it would be similar

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Emotional responses rarely make rational sense.
I wasn't advocating for or condoning piracy, I'm just noting that publishers are disrespecting their customers when they put in day one DLC or lock content for an arbitrary amount of time for those who don't trust them enough to pre-order.

Moderator Action: Best not to discuss piracy at all.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[rastak]

Emotional responses rarely make rational sense.
I wasn't advocating for or condoning piracy, I'm just noting that publishers are disrespecting their customers when they put in day one DLC or lock content for an arbitrary amount of time for those who don't trust them enough to pre-order.

I guess I might feel the same if I had some big opposition to pre-orders but given I always buy Civ games the minute they are released all the way back to Civ 1 I really don't mind. Even a little.

 

[Alphons Rodulfo]

I'm just noting that publishers are disrespecting their customers when they put in day one DLC or lock content for an arbitrary amount of time for those who don't trust them enough to pre-order.

That is a harsh judgement. I don't think it is a matter of disrespect. I would call it a legitimate way to stimulate interest in the game before it is released and starting some early returns on investment.

Anyway, the people that are not pre-ordering could be better off in the end. They get to have the cake in two pieces. They get to experience the thrill of getting something new twice.

Besides that, imagine having played a few laid back games of civ 6 when one time you find yourself again at the dawn of civilization only to discover that the Aztecs have been just let out of their cages and they are right next to you. That is an experience the pre-orderers are denied.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I guess I might feel the same if I had some big opposition to pre-orders but given I always buy Civ games the minute they are released all the way back to Civ 1 I really don't mind. Even a little.

And l might not have a problem pre-ordering Firaxis games if they had earned my trust in the past. I bought Civ IV on day one, and although it was very well designed, it was quite the fiasco on the technical side until the third patch. Civ V thankfully had a demo and I waited until March 2011. Beyond Earth was in better shape but had many design and balance issues which never got fixed.
Civ VI looks like it's going to be the best game in the series, but holding back the Aztecs to pressure people into pre-ordering looks a desperate.
It's a very off-putting tactic coming from a company that keeps releasing buggy games.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm just saying that I think the Preorder numbers and the future of the Civ series are directly correlated. Lower preorders equates to a lower chance of survival of the series itself.

Correlation is not causality. Series don't die because people suddenly stop pre-ordering. People stop pre-ordering because they stop anticipating that the game is going to be good.

I know I am supporting the developer by preordering, I also know it comes out buggy and problems are there, but at the same time, I know I will love the game and expansion packs and updates will correct those issues. When we all work together with the community playing and finding bugs and no one can ever really say that Firaxis does not listen to its community, we get a better game over time and it's really a perfect relationship.

Just my humble opinion.

Intentionally supporting lower release standards leads to lower release standards. Paying to be a beta tester is not a reasonable expectation of the end consumer.

Most of the Civ community just doesn't care about multiplayer. Hardly makes it a "doormat" market if a particularly buggy feature is irrelevant to the majority of players and therefore irrelevant to their buying decision.

If the team puts it on the feature list, the product needs to be held accountable to the advertised feature. That the market embraces its treatment of consistent failure of product to make standards is exactly why I call it a doormat market. Clearly, this portion of the gaming industry is willing to handwave/be apologized for advertised features not functioning as advertised for years of a game's life cycle, or probably permanently in civ 5's case.

"Sure, your marketing team is lying to us about the specs and we know it, but here take our down payment on your continuing of this practice".

I can't stop it from being a doormat market aside from not participating, but it's the best way to describe the behavior.

You can't go multiplying just the part you dislike by 12 and then say it's the same principle

Actually, Ryika just did that, and wasn't wrong in doing so.

It is, in principle, an identical concept. The only difference is where the line is drawn...IE what Firaxis/2k think they can get away with doing without losing customers. If they believed they could do that without it impacting initial sales and would have wide-range community support similar to support for civ 5 MP beta, they would do it. And you would still have people making the exact same arguments as being made for day 1 DLC now!

But day one DLC is a rep-hit type setup. It is, at least, not implying the game has a feature while knowing full well it doesn't work and probably won't ever work well.

Maybe civ 6 breaks the trend of nigh-false advertising wrt multiplayer and releases it in a quality state. I'd love that. I don't want the game to come out badly. Expecting that given track record to this point would be strange.

What pirates do/do not get has no bearing here.

That much I agree with, though that discussion is tangential to the topic. The last thing we need is stacking on dishonest practices with even more dishonest practices :/.

We're talking about paying customers for the purposes of this thread.

I guess I might feel the same if I had some big opposition to pre-orders but given I always buy Civ games the minute they are released all the way back to Civ 1 I really don't mind. Even a little.

Essentially you are saying that you enjoy the game concept so much that its quality is of a lesser concern. I can understand that position, but I can't agree with it. There are consumers even in the gaming industry that hold their product purchases to higher standards, which are then met.

Civ is a much deeper game/concept than Call of Duty. Despite that, Call of Duty TROUNCES civ in mechanical execution and (unbelievably sadly) honesty. The milking is in-your-face obvious, but there aren't any listed features that don't work/left terrible.

Yet the civ community isn't willing to hold civ to the standard of call of duty. In fact, it's more than willing to incentivize lowering the standards further.

Maybe civ just needs better competition.

 

[rastak]

And l might not have a problem pre-ordering Firaxis games if they had earned my trust in the past. I bought Civ IV on day one, and although it was very well designed, it was quite the fiasco on the technical side until the third patch. Civ V thankfully had a demo and I waited until March 2011. Beyond Earth was in better shape but had many design and balance issues which never got fixed.
Civ VI looks like it's going to be the best game in the series, but holding back the Aztecs to pressure people into pre-ordering looks a desperate.
It's a very off-putting tactic coming from a company that keeps releasing buggy games.

We differ a bit there too. The last Firaxis game I was really disappointed with was Railroads! I was expecting a remake of Railroad Tycoon and didn't get it. I didn't play much Civ 4 on release because I was seriously ill when it dropped. I read the manual A lot! I played the heck out of Civ 5, XCom, XCom 2 and Beyond Earth immeditely at release and had a great time. All had some issues but it didn't dampen my enjoyment of those games. I got tired of Beyond Earth quicker than the others but still played a couple hundred hours.

 

[Ryika]

You can't go multiplying just the part you dislike by 12 and then say it's the same principle

Maybe if they were offering 216 Civs (18x12) with 12 extra as a preorder bonus it would be similar

Of course it's the same principle, how would it not be? There's X amount of content overall, then Y amount of content is removed to make it a pre-order bonus. That principle stays the same, no matter how much you twist around the numbers of X and Y (as long as Y < X that is).

The actual EFFECT wouldn't be the same, but that's exactly the point - if you think them removing 12 Civs would be a problematic thing to do, then of course them removing 1 Civ is also a problematic thing to do, just one that you're willing to accept because its effect is so small - which is fine, but the principle of what is happening doesn't change.

 

[djm_jm]

I will buy. Thanks for you feedback.

 

[seasnake]

Civilization will give enough enjoyment to justify it's price, of that I have no doubt. Further, this may be the best civilization of all time, based on the previews.

However, the Aztec thing is nonsensical to me and really, really will or make or break my decision. If there are 18 civs at release AND the Aztecs come either at release if you pre-ordered or for free later if you did not, I may still pre-buy.

However, if Aztecs are one of the 18 and they are holding them for ransom for three months unless you preorder I will not preorder: to me, it is rewarding terrible practices.

In general I like to see reviews before I buy, and usually that works out well.

 

[Ricci]

Most of the Civ community just doesn't care about multiplayer. Hardly makes it a "doormat" market if a particularly buggy feature is irrelevant to the majority of players and therefore irrelevant to their buying decision.

I fail to follow the underlying truth of your statement here. Any statistical backup the community isn't openly aware of?
I might say, instead, that MP is essential for the majority of the community, as so many people crave for it, and I wouldn't care much for these games if it wasn´t there.

 

[Ryika]

I fail to follow the underlying truth of your statement here. Any statistical backup the community isn't openly aware of?
I might say, instead, that MP is essential for the majority of the community, as so many people crave for it, and I wouldn't care much for these games if it wasn´t there.

I'd say that the fact that the amount of multiplayer groups is small, the fact that multiplayer-based threads are few strongly point into that direction. The only person who ever got some serious success with making Civ V Multiplayer videos is Filthy Robot (as far as I know at least), and his success is easily towered by many of the big Civ V Singleplayer Youtubers - which I would expect to be the other way around if Civ V Multiplayer were a big thing, because people who play Multiplayer generally have the bigger interest in watching content to get better at the game. The same goes for Theorycrafting, which is basically nonexistent for Multiplayer outside of the NQ-Scene - which also isn't that big.

But to be fair, that's a bit of a chicken vs. egg problem - did the bad multiplayer experience and the fact that just joining a lobby to play a quick match is almost impossible make it so that most people lost interest, or was there little interest to begin with.

 

[m15a]

if you think them removing 12 Civs would be a problematic thing to do, then of course them removing 1 Civ is also a problematic thing to do

Unless the consumer in question has no issue with this principle. In other words, the principle is the same but this particular principle is entirely insignificant to some people.

 

[Ricci]

I'd say that the fact that the amount of multiplayer groups is small, the fact that multiplayer-based threads are few strongly point into that direction. The only person who ever got some serious success with making Civ V Multiplayer videos is Filthy Robot (as far as I know at least), and his success is easily towered by many of the big Civ V Singleplayer Youtubers - which I would expect to be the other way around if Civ V Multiplayer were a big thing, because people who play Multiplayer generally have the bigger interest in watching content to get better at the game. The same goes for Theorycrafting, which is basically nonexistent for Multiplayer outside of the NQ-Scene - which also isn't that big.

I have never even sniff into MP threads/space and I love the feature. As I said, wouldn't care for the game at all if it was not there. I even play regularly with other 3 friends of mine who never attend to these forums. Having "seemingly" few people within threads or small groups is at least vague as an argument. Even though it may be the only thing to hold on, it doesn't suffice, I think.
I can't seriously state it is the other way around either, of course.