4,99$ For Babylon

[gls5000]

Some of the arguments in here are so dodgy (from one person in particular whose arguments are so vehemently one-sided that he seems to have a hidden agenda).

Let's see:
- One user made a perfectly good point that expansion packs were much, much better value. The fact that one doesn't use all the Civs is irrelevant, they are there if you want them and you DO face them in game. The other point is that if the publisher could produce that many Civs (not to mention significant gameplay changes, new units, and missions) in the past at that price, is it fair to increase the price to such a large extent in the future (e.g. if ten Civs were sold in an expansion pack at $30, let's say $20 to allow for gameplay changes and other content, then in real terms, at the current price of Babylon, that expansion pack would cost at least $50 plus the value of other content and gameplay changes). The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not this is fair on consumers.
- Some are saying that making Babylon cheaper would be a kick in the teeth to those who have already paid for it. That only explains why the publisher won't go back on the price, it DOES NOT justify the price they charged in the first place.
- Some are saying that the developers should be expected to be paid for their work. Of course, but here are the missing arguments: 1. should that content have been in the game in the first place? (this is most obvious in Sims, where chunks of the game are missing because EA knows people will pay for it separately); 2. Is the price, given expected volume of sales, proportionate to the amount of content. It is NOT a case of is $5.00 enough to compensate the devs for their work, but rather is $5.00 x 1000s enough to compensate the devs for their work? If they are just breaking even or making a fair profit then nobody can complain, although since the publisher has not gone bankrupt since the last game in which it produced expansion packs for much better value, my opinion leans towards profiteering rather than seeking a fair and proportionate profit.
- Pointing to the prices of DLC in other games is not necessarily a justification, as they may be considered too expensive as well. If you look for comments on other games like Dragon Age and Sims, you'll see that the new model of paying for small bits of DLC is rarely appreciated when the content is such poor value for the price.

I tend to stay away from DLC because the prices do seem disproportionate so on the whole I'm not bothered. BUT what gets me is when publishers bring out games deliberately reducing content so as to sell it separately afterwards (not saying that's the case here, just making a general point).

Personally I think Farmville is to blame for all this micro-payment rubbish

 

[Sonereal]

$5 for a civ is too much. Considering they're selling it through steam which has (or should have, if valve isn't evil) no overhead costs.

I'd pay $1. Maybe $2. Though even then it's not good value compared to the content of the rest of the game for the price you paid.

Even without overhead costs, it costs to have the artist make the leaderhead, animate it, and even just turn the computer on.

Costs have to be covered. Free DLC shouldn't be an expected right, its a gift. The only company that I hear of consistently releasing free DLC is Valve.

 

[Generals3]

Personally i think DLC in general is a cheap attempt for "standard" games to copy the profit generation of MMO's . Which is disgusting taking into account the costs of MMO's are huge and the updates sometimes as big as what is sold as an "expansion" in standard games.

And lets add to that games didn't need DLC to be profitable in the past so why all of the sudden would it be fair? Now , i wouldn't mind if the DLC was worth the money and also not intentionally left out of the release version. But clearly this DLC fails at both.
Civ V lacked leaders/civ's and selling civ's is merely a way to let people pay for their game to be closer to what it should have been at release. Added to that a civ is not worth 5$ and you get a disgusted customer. I guess being as crappy as EA is something to strive towards nowadays , a shame . But i guess if everyone would , like me , boycott crappy DLC it would die . Too bad some people apparently have too much money.

 

[Kosmopolit]

*Yawn*



Workers of the World, Unite!

Commie.

In any case, now that you're finished here, that's one less person who has fail to give a point for me to deal with. Great. I can already feel my blood pressure go down.

Boring.

But the reason for ur behavior seems entertaining to me.
So i do have a decent look onto ur posts and have to admit my appreciation.
Thx for providing profile-orientated controversies, but u wont rule the world, because u r just to self-focussed.

The call for not paying for an unfinished game isnt communistic. it is purely capitalistic.

We have a word for such mistakes: it starts with n, followed by 2 0 and is finished with a b.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

In any case, the new civ DLC are worthless until they don't patch them to be used in multiplayer... so if they are free it's ok, i take them as a mod 0.5 for now.... If not, i cannot afford to buy broken contents...

 

[Novem]

I'm very confused here. If you think it's too much money, don't buy it. No one is forcing you to get it.

This is like the arguments about the in game items that Blizz puts in their online store. Some people will complain about anything.

It's not required to play the game.
Some people will get it because (horror upon horrors!!) they actually like the game.

While others will complain and call those that buy it stupid for wasting their money, in reality it's THEIR money and have a right to do with it as they please. I'm always flabbergasted at those people that can't fathom why others spend their money on different things.

Some people's trash are other people's treasures, still surprising that some people still haven't figured that one out.

 

[Drewcifer]

Maybe it is because I am getting old and remember the era when you would pay your money and get a full game but the DLC concept in general seems to be a way to offer customers less product up front and get more money out of them in the long run.

Compared to previous iterations Civ 5 was a barebones offering to begin with, you shouldn't have to pay for things that should have been in it in the first place.

 

[Fool Inc.]

Expansion packs being a better value than DLC is open to debate. If you purchase all of bits and pieces of the expansion as DLC, you are going to pay more money. That's not a question. However, there are two pluses for purchasing the expansion ala-cart. First, you don't have to purchase items that you don't want (which in turn lowers the overall price you are paying for the product), and more importantly, you get to use the DLC for a longer period of time than you would if you were to wait for a bundle/expansion. In the end the benefits between the two payment options are up to whether or not the added usage and customization outweigh the financial cost of the product.

 

[Sonereal]

Some of the arguments in here are so dodgy (from one person in particular whose arguments are so vehemently one-sided that he seems to have a hidden agenda).

I'm sorry. I thought this was Civfantics. I didn't know this was Above Top Secret.

Let's see:
- One user made a perfectly good point that expansion packs were much, much better value. The fact that one doesn't use all the Civs is irrelevant, they are there if you want them and you DO face them in game. The other point is that if the publisher could produce that many Civs (not to mention significant gameplay changes, new units, and missions) in the past at that price, is it fair to increase the price to such a large extent in the future (e.g. if ten Civs were sold in an expansion pack at $30, let's say $20 to allow for gameplay changes and other content, then in real terms, at the current price of Babylon, that expansion pack would cost at least $50 plus the value of other content and gameplay changes). The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not this is fair on consumers.

1. Expansions are a better value if you're just going for civilizations and your point is....?

2. The fact is is that if you're just going in for the civilizations, you'd get a better value not buying the expansion in the first place and downloading random civilizations from THIS SITE.

3. It doesn't take an economist to know that when the price of labor and even living go up, the price of goods go up. And it definitely doesn't take an economist to know a company often adjusts their prices to be competitive.

- Some are saying that making Babylon cheaper would be a kick in the teeth to those who have already paid for it. That only explains why the publisher won't go back on the price, it DOES NOT justify the price they charged in the first place.

They didn't change the price. The extra $10 included a soundtrack as well.

- Some are saying that the developers should be expected to be paid for their work. Of course, but here are the missing arguments: 1. should that content have been in the game in the first place? (this is most obvious in Sims, where chunks of the game are missing because EA knows people will pay for it separately);

I'm so glad you numbered this post. It made it almost readable to the average reader. Should that content be included in the first place? Yes and no. Yes if you believe you're entitled to optional DLC, no if you believe you should pay people for their hard work. EA takes this to an extreme and charge you too much for obscenely easy things like making a chair.

2. Is the price, given expected volume of sales, proportionate to the amount of content. It is NOT a case of is $5.00 enough to compensate the devs for their work, but rather is $5.00 x 1000s enough to compensate the devs for their work? If they are just breaking even or making a fair profit then nobody can complain, although since the publisher has not gone bankrupt since the last game in which it produced expansion packs for much better value, my opinion leans towards profiteering rather than seeking a fair and proportionate profit.

Moderator Action: *snip* No company makes something just to break even. Companies are supposed to maximize profits. $5 is the standard price for DLC of this nature in most games. Its actually cheaper than the price of DLC on XboxLive in most cases. The publisher not going backrupt has nothing to do with the fact there was A.) This whole economic trouble thing you seemed to have missed out on and B.) The fact its standard and artists don't work for minimum wage.

- Pointing to the prices of DLC in other games is not necessarily a justification, as they may be considered too expensive as well. If you look for comments on other games like Dragon Age and Sims, you'll see that the new model of paying for small bits of DLC is rarely appreciated when the content is such poor value for the price.

Game companies 2010=/=railroad companies 1880-1920

I tend to stay away from DLC because the prices do seem disproportionate so on the whole I'm not bothered. BUT what gets me is when publishers bring out games deliberately reducing content so as to sell it separately afterwards (not saying that's the case here, just making a general point).

EA does this. There's a difference between having one faction included in a Deluxe Edition of a game and a DLC that comes out for free a month later and what EA does. Such as charging $3 for a couch.

That's disproportionate. Especially since you'll be using the DLC civilizations far more than you use that damn couch.

Personally I think Farmville is to blame for all this micro-payment rubbish

I. hate. Farmville. Its more addictive, less fun, and more costly than any Civilization game I've ever seen.

 

[Sonereal]

Moderator Action: Stop having fun.

Expansion packs being a better value than DLC is open to debate. If you purchase all of bits and pieces of the expansion as DLC, you are going to pay more money. That's not a question. However, there are two pluses for purchasing the expansion ala-cart. First, you don't have to purchase items that you don't want (which in turn lowers the overall price you are paying for the product), and more importantly, you get to use the DLC for a longer period of time than you would if you were to wait for a bundle/expansion. In the end the benefits between the two payment options are up to whether or not the added usage and customization outweigh the financial cost of the product.

I....can't disagree with this. DLC work like expansions for sure. If you wait, the price does go down. Like expansion packs. One payment option gives you choice while the other gives you a bundle which you may not want as a whole.

Like Fallout DLC. In total, $50 but since it wasn't released as just one giant expansion pack, players were given a ton of options and it all added up to be an expansion in its own right. Of course, some may argue that Broken Steel is "required" because it continues the game and is required story-wise in some ways.

 

[C~G]

Just compare how many civs CivIV originally had compared to CivV.
Check out the prices.
And the quality of the game.

It's ridiculous.

 

[Sonereal]

Just compare how many civs CivIV originally had compared to CivV.
It's ridiculous.

I counted. There were 18.

Like in CivV.

 

[gls5000]

Moderator Action: *snip* we don't allow any flaming here.

1. Expansions are a better value if you're just going for civilizations and your point is....?

That's not very clear. Expansions have much more than just civilizations, so expansions are better value overall. My point is quite clear. Do I need to spell it out for you?

3. It doesn't take an economist to know that when the price of labor and even living go up, the price of goods go up. And it definitely doesn't take an economist to know a company often adjusts their prices to be competitive.

Nor does it take an economist to know that the price of the product ALSO GOES UP to cover the inflation of costs.

They didn't change the price. The extra $10 included a soundtrack as well.

You seem to have misunderstood. Not surprised really. You need to take a bit more time to read things properly, and it's difficult to write clearly with all that unchannelled anger clouding your judgment. I didn't say they changed the price; I said IF they changed the price... i.e. from $5.00 to something lower.

I'm so glad you numbered this post. It made it almost readable to the average reader.

I know, I have to dumb things down. I can't be certain that people like you will understand.

Should that content be included in the first place? Yes and no. Yes if you believe you're entitled to optional DLC, no if you believe you should pay people for their hard work.

If it's in the game in the first place it's not optional DLC is it! The price of the game is what pays people for their hard work.

Are you dense? No company makes something just to break even. Companies are supposed to maximize profits. $5 is the standard price for DLC of this nature in most games. Its actually cheaper than the price of DLC on XboxLive in most cases. The publisher not going backrupt has nothing to do with the fact there was A.) This whole economic trouble thing you seemed to have missed out on and B.) The fact its standard and artists don't work for minimum wage.

I must allow myself a smile because when I wrote that I knew you would take that literally. Let's reword it to 'the publisher seems to be making money'. There. Calm down now. Count to 10. And again you entirely missed the point I made about referring to other expensive DLC prices not being justification.

Also the main issue here is whether consumers are being treated fairly, not whether it's understandable that a publisher is trying to maximise profit.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Wow There was a time when you would get all of the civilizations for the $50 retail price of a game. Now they dont even have to invest as much in paper to box the product, and they sell a stripped down game for the same $50.00 then sell the rest of the game $5.00 at a time and people beg to buy more and more. In a way I can't blame them if there are folks willing to go on that ride.

Civ 3 onwards have always had expansion packs providing more civilizations.

PC game prices have pretty much remained around £30 ($50) for ages now. Despite inflation, the amount we're charged for a brand new game has stayed pretty much the same.

If you like the game, spending $50 or even up to $100 by getting all the expansions is very good value for money given you can play for 100s if not 1000s of hours for that. A film...2.5 hours of enjoyment if you watch it once, it is unlikely you'll watch it more than several times, by which stage it'll be on TV anyways.

I got CivV from direct2drive UK. I just want to know what DLC I'm getting free as part of their promotion - hopefully Babylon

 

[Vordeo]

Ok, I don't care... If you wanna give 5€ to 2k Games for an array and a cool leader, go on. I'm not going to stop you.

*Shrug*

If you think it's worth it, it's worth it. If you don't, don't buy it. Simples.

I assume that the times when companies make free content are over lol.

Mongolia says hi.

Let's see:
- One user made a perfectly good point that expansion packs were much, much better value. The fact that one doesn't use all the Civs is irrelevant, they are there if you want them and you DO face them in game.

Not if I only want 1-2 civs.

The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not this is fair on consumers.

Doesn't matter. No one's holding a gun to their head and forcing em to buy everything. People will make their own decisions on whether to buy DLC or not.

- Some are saying that making Babylon cheaper would be a kick in the teeth to those who have already paid for it. That only explains why the publisher won't go back on the price, it DOES NOT justify the price they charged in the first place.

Because they wanted to make money?

- Some are saying that the developers should be expected to be paid for their work. Of course, but here are the missing arguments: 1. should that content have been in the game in the first place?

I'd say that the developers would know more about this than random fans.

2. Is the price, given expected volume of sales, proportionate to the amount of content.

Which is down completely to each buyer's opinion.

If they are just breaking even or making a fair profit then nobody can complain, although since the publisher has not gone bankrupt since the last game in which it produced expansion packs for much better value, my opinion leans towards profiteering rather than seeking a fair and proportionate profit.

I'm sorry, but that's crap. You're using the fact that they haven't gone bankrupt as proof that they're making a fair profit?

And who defines what exactly a fair and proportionate profit is, exactly? The line between making a fair profit and outright profiteering is a fine one, and subject to individual opinion. You think they're profiteering, I think they're well within their rights.

 

[cccv]

BTW, wasn't Babylonian suppose to be a never to be released Civ as DLC? Skew the truth much 2k?

Nope, they never commented either way. Trust me, I followed that issue very closely. The response always given was to the order of "We're not currently aware of what the plans are for that." You can believe or disbelieve that statement. I have no reason to assume that Liz and Greg would have known, though. My best guess would be that someone at the company (not them) would have had a good idea but not made any official proclamation yet, and of course it's not a good idea to confirm things that haven't been officially decided. What I'm saying is I don't blame the 2K reps for not saying "yes, for sure" before. But either way, they definitely never said "no."

 

[Sonereal]

Moderator Action: *snip*

That's not very clear. Expansions have much more than just civilizations, so expansions are better value overall. My point is quite clear. Do I need to spell it out for you?

Expansions are also very rigid. You can't decide that you don't want something and then try to get the game for cheaper with that one feature or civilization removed. The reason why expansions are a better deal if you get everything is because you're buying it by the bulk.

Buying by the bulk isn't bad but a lot of people prefer to just go to the store and get a pound of meat, not the whole cow.

Nor does it take an economist to know that the price of the product ALSO GOES UP to cover the inflation of costs.

Why did you point this out if it seriously just hurts your argument?

You seem to have misunderstood. Not surprised really. You need to take a bit more time to read things properly, and it's difficult to write clearly with all that unchannelled anger clouding your judgment. I didn't say they changed the price; I said IF they changed the price... i.e. from $5.00 to something lower.

You changed your posting style all of a sudden. Reading a giant wall of text is pretty difficult. Of course, you're using my quotes as your bulletins now so maybe that's the reason your posting quality increased rapidly.

In any case, I reread what you wrote and I still can't connect the two things you're saying. No surprise since you came out with the writing style of a 5th grader then decided you was going to write out responses like the mature "adult" you are. Here's the quote:

- Some are saying that making Babylon cheaper would be a kick in the teeth to those who have already paid for it. That only explains why the publisher won't go back on the price, it DOES NOT justify the price they charged in the first place.

Wait. Now that I can actually understand what you meant here. I can tear up that argument as well.

They charged it because its their's to charge. When we get right down to it, you're posting as if you're the member of a railway union worker circa 1901 instead of some dissatisfied customer with an axe to grind.

I know, I have to dumb things down. I can't be certain that people like you will understand.

You certainly dumbed it down. I love the way you posted a giant wall-of-text then expected someone to take you seriously. When I felt as if people were going to start ignoring you, I was afraid you was going to cry so I humored you and you're rambling.

You're welcome.

If it's in the game in the first place it's not optional DLC is it! The price of the game is what pays people for their hard work.

Then there. DLC, since its also hard work, should be charged.

Glad we got that out of the way.

I must allow myself a smile because when I wrote that I knew you would take that literally. Let's reword it to 'the publisher seems to be making money'. There. Calm down now. Count to 10. And again you entirely missed the point I made about referring to other expensive DLC prices not being justification.

I was going point by point, or should I say hyphen by hyphen, when reading your drawn-out, poorly thought-out mockery you call an argument. Other expensive DLC does serve as justification because it established precedence. Until precedence is broken, I see no problem with it. $5 isn't a lot of money. 5 euros? Maybe. $5 no.

What year are you posting from? 1935? Maybe that explains why you're acting like $5 is reserved for buying a new family car.

Also the main issue here is whether consumers are being treated fairly, not whether it's understandable that a publisher is trying to maximise profit.

Customer's are being treated fairly. If they weren't, why aren't they lobbying to Congress about the unfair business practices of gaming corporations?

 

[Vordeo]

I counted. There were 18.

Like in CivV.

That might be one of the funniest things I've ever read on this forum. Well done, sir.

Given your hostile tone Sonereal, one has to question your age, upbringing, and/or whether you are frustrated in one or two personal areas of your life. Are you not capable of having a civil discussion?

Was this really necessary? Quick tip: on the internet, whoever pulls out the 'you're really a 10 year old!' card first generally looks more immature than the other guy.

Nor does it take an economist to know that the price of the product ALSO GOES UP to cover the inflation of costs.

Er... that's just about what he said.

You seem to have misunderstood. Not surprised really. You need to take a bit more time to read things properly, and it's difficult to write clearly with all that unchannelled anger clouding your judgment. I didn't say they changed the price; I said IF they changed the price... i.e. from $5.00 to something lower.

Might want to read what he was referring to.

If it's in the game in the first place it's not optional DLC is it! The price of the game is what pays people for their hard work.

Er.... if it's in the game in the first place it isn't really DLC.

Also the main issue here is whether consumers are being treated fairly, not whether it's understandable that a publisher is trying to maximise profit.

Consumers don't need to buy Babylon to play the rest of the game, and thus are given a choice of whether or not they believe a civ is worth $5. If he thinks it's worth it, he'll buy it. If he doesn't, he won't, and will go on the internet to complain.

How is that unfair to anybody?

 

[Andoo]

The good thing about DLC is that you don't have to pay if you don't want it. You can pass crappy ones and only get the good ones.

Expansion pack on the other hand nearly forces you to get a bunch of contents altogether with a a discount. I'm not saying I like it but only saying DLC is nothing more than an expansion pack released in small pieces.

I agree though that $5 for a signle civ is a bit too much. If you don't like the price, just don't buy it. Then the company will probably lower the price. Everything seems to work this way nowadays..

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: Back to topic, and please with a civil atmosphere!

I've got an idea!They should release patches for money.9,99% for 10 fixes in a patch

No way, that's too expensive.