1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

4,99$ For Babylon

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by MoonFlare, Oct 19, 2010.

  1. Pangur Bán

    Pangur Bán Deconstructed

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2002
    Messages:
    9,019
    Location:
    Transtavia
    I wouldn't mind paying 5 bucks for new civs for Civ4 now, but for Civ5? The game has only just come out for goodness sake! To charge at the beginning/to create two tiers of player just to increase some distributor's profits? This is a violation of traditional developer-customer etiquette. :shake:

    This is further evidence that the developers have turned into another group of money-men. I mean, they always had to earn money, but with the game being dumbed down so much AND getting chopped up for extra profits ... this is a sure sign they have abandoned their traditional customer for a shot at the big money.

    I would say ... go for it ... what's another Warcraft game among many? But they control the rights for the format and are actively stopping better motivated developers from offering a higher quality game.
     
  2. Nekator

    Nekator Master of Desaster

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    86
    Location:
    Old Europe
    That´s exactly the problem... there are enough dumbnuts out there, who pay happily for everything, they got once in the initial game. And they even defend this strategy...
     
  3. troytheface

    troytheface Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,262
    lol

    defending freedom of choice is not really that hard

    especially from strangers on a game board

    lol

    but complain loudly and stuff because it will change the whole industry especially when gamers grow up and forget in about a week about such stuff

    lol
     
  4. Valkrionn

    Valkrionn The Hamster King

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    14,450
    Location:
    Crestview FL
    As I have said numerous times.... DLC allows developers to produce content they otherwise would not make. Do not assume "Hey, :):):):) this! If none of us buy this they'll realize DLC sucks and make it for free!"... It just won't be made. A simple fact of life is that everything must make money. Games are no exception to this. Get over it.

    Secondly, as I have also said numerous times, Babylon is less DLC and more Pre-Order Bonus. Some games never give other buyers the ability to grab that. The first true DLC for Civ5 is Mongolia... For which development was not even begun at launch, so no, could not have been included in the game. :lol:
     
  5. Pangur Bán

    Pangur Bán Deconstructed

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2002
    Messages:
    9,019
    Location:
    Transtavia
    Valkrionn ... no disrespect intended .. but that's a pretty standard excuse; not a very convincing one either, so saying it over and over is no good! Supermarkets do the same when they raise the theoretical price of a product in order to advertise a bigger, but fictitious, discount. It is of course possible that you are correct, but since it's counter-factual, you can't know. Whether or not you happen to be right or wrong, you're just acting as a naive profiteer mouth-piece! It is never in any customer's interest to be played like that! ;)
     
  6. PieceOfMind

    PieceOfMind Drill IV Defender Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    9,319
    Location:
    Australia
    Valkrionn, have you seen the thread about the Mogolia.mp3 file?
     
  7. atteSmythe

    atteSmythe Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    243
    You're setting up a false dilemma, though. The options include no content, free content, or larger paid content bundles. The argument against DLC is that it's inefficient to pay per item.

    Ooo, analogy time: Paying for each Civ as it comes out is like paying for each track of an album on iTunes. It's cheaper to buy the album as a whole, but that often never becomes an option with DLC.

    Back in the good old days, developers had to put out expansion packs in chunks of content, and they had to be good enough to convince people to buy the product. Now, it's like it just needs to be cheap enough to slip under most people's impulse purchase response.
     
  8. mmmfloorpie

    mmmfloorpie Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    97
    I woke up this morning and saw a Steam window on my computer that said "finished downloading Civ 5" so I curiously clicked the box which brought me to a screen that said something about Mongolia being available for download, but that Babylon would cost $4.99!

    The second I read this, I went into a fit of rage and had to come to this board to see if anyone else was upset.

    The reason I am upset is not because they are offering DLC. I understand that game companies must make money and that there is freedom of choice and gamers have the option of buying it or not buying it (I won't be buying it btw).

    The thing that has upset me is the blatant arrogance of Firaxis to post this for sale so soon after the launch of Civ 5. With all of the identified bugs in the game still outstanding and the utter lack of gameplay features currently present, where do they get off charging $4.99 for a single Civ?

    They just stole $50 from me just over a month ago for a substandard game (I know there is disagreement about this) and now they want me to shell out 10% of that on a new civ? Fix the game and put all the features from Civ4 that you striped out back into the game and I might consider DLC.

    DLC used to be a way for developers to give more content to gamers for an AWESOME game that they produced. Companies nowadays think they can offer DLC on crappy games and get away with it. This is the secret to DLC, no one will buy it for a lousy game! It has to be a great game that people would be willing to spend additional money on to add that new level of gameplay or new dimension.

    I know I said that I'm not upset about the DLC for any other reason than Civ5 is currently a game that is severely lacking in several key areas, but I feel like I have to go on this rant. I've been on so many forums where people stick up for game companies that charge outrageous prices for DLC. The Sims series is one such game. I don't understand why people DEFEND this practise of under contenting games only to add more at a future time.

    Yes game companies have a right to make money and sell DLC to you. But YOU as a consumer have a right to demand a quality product and not be cheated out of your hard earned money. As I said, if Firaxis blew the doors off the gaming world with Civ5, then I would have NO problem with them releasing DLC. But the fact that they are doing it SO quickly after the release of the core game and after numerous complaints, REALLY upsets me.
     
  9. cephalo

    cephalo Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    Messages:
    2,058
    Location:
    Missouri, USA
    Personally, I'm outraged by the idea that the game is broken into pieces that are sold separately. What incredible hubris! I think it is a gigantic mistake for Firaxis to jump onto this 'Steam philosophy' bandwagon, which was never about game quality. This is about the industry eating itself for short term gain and eventual ruin.

    Instead of making a truly memorable game with plenty of content, which by the way was always the formula for their success, they instead want to wring more money out of us by watering down the product as if we wouldn't notice! Not only does it smack of deception, but how much better of game would Civ5 be if all this content was included at first! Am I going to have to buy wonders next?

    I will not buy anything less than a full expansion that corrects the mistakes made in the original and fleshes it out with the amount of content one would expect from a Civ game. No friggin way!

    My advice to Firaxis is to round up these 'marketing' types and put them in a separate building, far away from where games are made.
     
  10. Valkrionn

    Valkrionn The Hamster King

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    14,450
    Location:
    Crestview FL
    Go back ten years time. Look at the amount of new content generated for a game.

    Now take a typical, recent DLC game (with publishers who don't nickel and dime... Say, Red Dead maybe, or L4D). Look at the amount of new content generated.

    There is much more content now that developers have the capability to produce DLC. Comparing it to a grocery store's price schemes is comparing apples to freaking hotdogs; It is an entirely different animal. Games take a huge amount of capital, which often will not generate any income for years before you can release. DLC allows you to develop content much faster, at a cheaper cost, and make profit faster; Without DLC, you flat out would not see as much game content as you do now.

    This is fact, not a strawman argument. Whether the content is any good, or worth the money charged, is a different matter entirely and is subjective.

    You may make the claim "Oh, but if it is not done as DLC, it will be included in the base game!", but this is fallacy. Including content of that nature costs developers FAR more money. Not simply extra money to develop the material, no... Extra time spent on development before release, time during which they generate no revenue. You may see some of it. You would not see the majority of the content, however.

    I have said numerous times that I dislike DLC, as a consumer. My point is that for a developer, it is incredibly beneficial, and that it can indeed benefit the consumer as well. And frankly, I've come to look at games more and more from the point of view of the developer, as I intend to pursue a career in game design.

    I have not, but I'm assuming the mp3 was included in the main game? If so... So what? That does not change the fact that development had not begun when the game was released. It was planned, yes; If you're paying for music, voice actors, etc, you tend to want to get as much as you are firm on. But actually in development or finished? No.

    Yes, it is cheaper to buy an expansion, rather than individual DLCs, for the consumer.

    It is far from cheaper for the publisher. Again, you will see less content. Some expansions would not be made, or would be less than they could have been, without the revenue from DLC helping to offset the costs accrued during development of the expansion.

    Let me reiterate: I dislike DLC as a consumer. Far too often, it is done cheaply, designed simply to make consumers part ways with their money. However, when done correctly, DLC can be a driving force behind content generation, allowing developers to produce more content for gamers, and hopefully rely less on funding from outside sources and publishers, thereby keeping more money in-house, enabling expansion, new development, and other growth.

    First off... Babylon took no development time away from patch content. It already existed, for the special edition purchasers. So complaints about the "blatant arrogance of Firaxis to post this for sale so soon after the launch of Civ 5" are unfounded; No development time required, no developers who turned their attention away from making the game better.

    Once again, the first true DLC for Civ5 is Mongolia. And guess what? Yeah... Free. How is it arrogance to release free content for a game after release? Particularly alongside patch content?

    Rather than reply to this, I'll just say to read the rest of my post. Same basic idea as the first two replies.

    Assuming the content would have been made without the prospect of DLC is fallacy. Claiming the game should not have been released without said content is an opinion, but IMO just as much of a fallacy. Games require funding to develop. During development, they make no profit. Delaying release to include all possible content is NOT a good business strategy.
     
  11. mmmfloorpie

    mmmfloorpie Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    97
    My complaint wasn't that it took dev time away from the patches to make this Babylon civ DLC. My complaint was that they shouldn't be asking for more money when they've delivered a substandard product. To me, that's unethical.
     
  12. Valkrionn

    Valkrionn The Hamster King

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    14,450
    Location:
    Crestview FL
    It is also unethical to ask people to pay $10 more to gain Babylon (oh, and music you already have in the game...), and then turn around and give Babylon for free.

    I would also argue against your claim the Civ5 is a substandard product (has issues, sure, but no more than Civ4 did at launch, and far more potential than Civ4 ever had), but that argument is both highly subjective and does not belong in this thread.
     
  13. PieceOfMind

    PieceOfMind Drill IV Defender Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    9,319
    Location:
    Australia
    Don't get me wrong. I'm not on the hate-train to Firaxis station, but I do think it's reasonable to say that Genghis had been in development a long time before release. Many of the early previews of the game, including one in a magazine from March, spoke fairly specifically of the Genghis Kahn leader. This was not based on video demos but rather conversations with the developers, IIUC. When the final 18 civs were announced, it was therefore surprising to a lot of people to see Mongolia omitted.

    Perhaps we just have different understandings of what it means for development to begin.

    Anyway, I've got nothing against DLC - I'll happily buy it if it's something that I want. I'm not going to go on a rant and say I feel betrayed or something else ridiculous just because it wasn't in at release. Realistically Firaxis/2K need to plan ahead, and it was several months ago that I accepted that DLC would be a part of their strategy. The DLC framework is, after all, arguably (or should I just say 'IMO') the biggest advantage of steamworks to developers.:)
     
  14. cephalo

    cephalo Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    Messages:
    2,058
    Location:
    Missouri, USA
    It is difficult to make a great game even when you give it everything you got. If you hold back, how does that help at all? When you create a game, and break it apart to be sold in pieces, you are giving up all hope of controlling the experience.

    The Civ franchise got to this point with great games stuffed with content and thick manuals! You seem to be argueing that the path that got them here, the very source of their success, is no longer feasable. Even if that were true, I see no reason that DLC could save the ship, when making Civ5 the best game possible will not save it. It can do nothing but squander their reputation until it's gone.

    I can find another hobby if I have to... I get very little from a partial game.

    DLC is a misguided fad. People will not buy products that they know are inferior out of the box unless an undetermined amount of money is spent in the future. Bait and switch is no kind of long term strategy.
     
  15. Valkrionn

    Valkrionn The Hamster King

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    14,450
    Location:
    Crestview FL
    Reasonable, but false, which was my point. :p

    Trust me: Mongolia development had not yet begun. I can't really say more without worrying about the NDA. :lol:

    Like I said, the plan for Mongolia was there (else how do you pay for the music/VO while you've got the people waiting?), but no development work had begun.

    I have a question for you... Did you even read my points? Allow me to spell it out as bluntly as I possibly can.

    • The game was not broken up, as that content did not exist at the time of release. If you say release should have been delayed in order to include the content... Then are you willing to pay the increased costs accrued by continuing development without any incoming revenue? PC games have cost $50 for what, 10 years now? During which time the value of the dollar has fallen considerably, and the cost of living has increased? By all rights, we should be paying $70-80 for a PC game, at this point.
    • DLC allows companies to release product and generate revenue at a much faster rate than before. This means there is less investment necessary in the content, less danger of losing a large amount of money if it flops, and more revenue for developing larger items, such as new games or expansions.
    • Bad DLC is an incredibly bad thing. I will never argue against that. However, well made DLC is beneficial to both the consumer and the developer; You simply have to be able to recognize which companies abuse the system. No different than any other product.

    Really, producing a game like Civ4 isn't viable any longer. Costs have risen tremendously while sale prices have remained more or less stagnant. Steam helps, as it makes a higher profit for the developer; DLC helps, subscription plans help.
     
  16. cephalo

    cephalo Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    Messages:
    2,058
    Location:
    Missouri, USA
    It helps them collect money, but makes it difficult to make quality product. I would gladly pay $100 bucks for a great Civ game. But I don't even want to look at it until it's finished! I feel duped by playing a Civ game without Ghengis and without Hammarubi! I'm going to be downright angry if a whole bunch more stuff starts coming off the line. It's not even about the money, its about wasting my time! Introducing game content cannot be done in a more crude, unimmersive way than making me buy it after the fact.

    This sort of thing happens to creative, art based industries from time to time. They begin to feel that giving people what they want is too difficult, so they then try to control what people want. This is crass marketers intruding upon and defacing our art form. Sell games any way you want, but don't inject this crap into the gameplay!

    It's like buying pieces of a song. For now I'll buy the verse, and listen to it over and over. Next month hopefully I can buy the chorus. Wrrrretch.

    I won't be buying it.
     
  17. Sock Bramson

    Sock Bramson Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    96
    Sigh, no one who already hates DLC is going to listen to me, but here we go anyway:

    DLC Civs are NOT a case of breaking a game into bits, selling an incomplete base product, and finally forcing people to buy the missing pieces. The people who complain that CiV is incomplete do so because they think the game mechanics are inherently broken and do not enjoy the game to begin with. (i.e. they are not mad because of the number of Civs in the game) Such people are not the target audience for DLC; only people who enjoy the game and want another Civ to mess around with will buy them.

    This leads to another starling fact: no one is forced to buy this DLC. (gasp!) It's optional; if you don't want it, don't buy it. While having "two tiers" of players may cause some multiplayer mishaps at present, it is easily fixable. (considering the other MP issues that need fixing, there will probably be a major path in the future specifically for online-play)

    Also, keep in mind that Babylon was basically a $10 deal to begin with, since it was part of the Deluxe Edition. Now, it's half price for those who want it but didn't feel like dropping $60 at launch.

    As far as arguments against DLC in general go, I have never come across DLC that was a "missing piece" that was required to have a "complete" game. DLC is extra material that enhances a game, be it extra items, maps, etc. You don't need it to complete or even enjoy a game; it's just a nice bonus you can buy if you choose.
     
  18. Aeneas7777777

    Aeneas7777777 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    24
    No offense but that's one of the most idiotic statements I've seen so far... (And you just learned that when someone says no offense, that doesn't mean that actually mean no offense... Cause I certainly mean to offend you)

    You act as if they're going to repeatedly release DLC's for $5 each... How easily I would make money if people were that stupid.. They're obviously not going to release this DLC for $5 and soon release another one for $5 and another even after that!
    Oh my.. I've just spent $15!! :(
    Don't be stupid. I assure you.. They will not release DLC's over and over again for $5 each. Even if they were foolish enough to do this, I'm sure there are intelligent people who would catch on and stop buying them? But I'm getting into a fantasy already. So I'll leave you to marvel over my artistic words.
     
  19. Aeneas7777777

    Aeneas7777777 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    24
    OOS is almost fixed? I think Civ 5 just got a serious competitor (In my mind)... I'm seriously considering waiting for that new patch and just dropping Civ5.. JOKE :mischief:
     
  20. Aeneas7777777

    Aeneas7777777 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    24
    Did you skip the entire thread? I think Valkrionn made this clear: They had not begun. Would you rather have the game delayed just to introduce more content? This would be particularly bad, especially because they already announced the release date of the game. And please don't say "They shouldn't have announced it then!" How many games have you seen not announce a release date. Whether you counter this last clause or not, I have one more thing for you. Take into consideration the fact that they stated that Civ 5 would be released in the Fall of 2010 long before any of this had begun. If I recall correctly, the announcement was made late last year... Approximately 10-11 months ago.

    Also note that Mongolia is free. No one seems to notice this... Sure, Babylon is $5.. Despite the amount of arguments about whether this is good or bad, I'll leave this alone. Let's assume that $5 is overpricing and unfair. Mongolia was free. One more time.... f-r-e-e. Do I need to clarify one more time? Hopefully, most of you got it.
     

Share This Page