4,99$ For Babylon

Yes he did. Go to page 2 and you will see for yourself.

Fair enough, the coding of the quote was faulty though.

And he wasn't really talking to you.

No offence intended? That's exactly what you intended. It would be impossible for me to work as an English translator if there was even the slightest doubt as to the quality of my English. To suggest that my English is that of a non-native speaker is absurd and can only be intended as a veiled insult. (I'm British by the way). If you really believe there is something wrong with my English then prove your point: feel free to PM me with a point-by-point analysis of my grammatical and spelling errors (good luck), or anything you feel sounds unnatural. I can do the same for you if you like.

No, I honestly didn't mean any offense. Some of your sentence construction just looks unnatural to me, and I thought that could explain why there were so many misunderstandings with your posts. I sincerely apologize if you took any offense at that, but that was my honest impression.

That said, my original point stands: if so many people aren't understanding the points you're trying to make, it just may be because you're posting your points poorly.

Ah, I see, so you are the supreme guardian of good reasoning. Does it not occur to you that your reasoning might be faulty? Whether or not somebody's reasoning is faulty is highly subjective.

It is. And I think your points and your arguments are extremely faulty. Thus I point that out.

It is the height of arrogance to assume that all your opinions and reasons are correct. A truly intelligent person understands that he does not hold all knowledge and is willing to engage in discussions with other people to arrive at the truth, not to impose his beliefs on others.

I fully agree.

None of that means we can't criticize your arguments though.
 
The developers should just give the extra Civs to us in Vanilla as good will. They also should not cut corners to deliver.

Make the best quality goods possible, at the lowest cost possible, and sure, try and pay the highest wages possible. Giving what the people want helps the developers gain loyalty and lets the players enjoy the game.

People want improvement. In Civ 1 only 8 civs existed, and the amount of Civs in each vanilla have been increasing. Why must Civ 5 stagnate and offer only 18 civs? Why not 21 or 24 in Vanilla? Why not improve an AI, and devote more resources to a real game instead of a makeshift scratchpost like Civ Facebook?

We can't know the answers, we can only ponder them.

Edit: One more thing I must note is the fact that this is Civ 5, Civ V. 5 is regarded as important and people hold Civ 5 to high expectations. Civs 1, 2, 3, and 4 were merely chances to correct mistakes - Civ 5 is the real deal, the coup de grace of the whole series. This is not the version of Civ to fail.
 
Paid DLC:s = One more reason to pirate game instead of buying.

It is getting harder and harder for me to buy games when they are new
-I have to use Steam which I hate.
-I get unfinished game.
-I have to pay more for each little addition.
-I Know that there will be expansion and once it is out I will get game+expansion+all the DLC for same price I paid for the game initially.

They are more and more forcing me to either pirate or to buy game year or two later when it is finished and much cheaper. And then they complain how sales are going down.

Moderator Action: We have a zero tolerance regarding piracy.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
The developers should just give the extra Civs to us in Vanilla as good will. They also should not cut corners to deliver.

Make the best quality goods possible, at the lowest cost possible, and sure, try and pay the highest wages possible. Giving what the people want helps the developers gain loyalty and lets the players enjoy the game.

In an ideal world, yes.

However, in the real world, game developers aim to maximise profits.

I would love to get 50 civs in vanilla and not have to pay for DLC, but it simply isn't realistic.
 
I will leave it to another sucker, they have already ripped me off enough with this game HAH !
 
Fair enough, the coding of the quote was faulty though.

And he wasn't really talking to you.

No, but since you had taken his side I thought it right to point out that the guy you were defending had done the same (I mean, you don't seem impartial if you only have a go at one person in a discussion, when both were guilty of the same thing).

That said, my original point stands: if so many people aren't understanding the points you're trying to make, it just may be because you're posting your points poorly.

As far as I know, only Sonereal and you have expressed a problem, that makes two people. That's not really significant either, as a lot of people who frequent these types of forums have a tendency to skim through text instead of reading carefully. If you were reading an academic text and read at the same speed as you read my posts, you wouldn't understand it either. That doesn't mean it's poor quality. Also, if you and Sonereal misunderstood my post, I'm curious how you still managed to argue against it. Shouldn't you have been asking for clarification?

It is. And I think your points and your arguments are extremely faulty. Thus I point that out.

By all means tell me which of my points are extremely faulty and why. I don't think you've actually done that. It's interesting since many of my so-called points were in question form or just highlighted possible arguments that hadn't been considered (I tend to argue like this because I DO go into discussions looking to arrive at the truth rather than imposing my own beliefs, rather than just berating everybody who doesn't agree with me).

None of that means we can't criticize your arguments though.

As I said to Sonereal, I have no issue with people having views that oppose mine, as long as it's civil and inoffensive.

Anyway, having read through the various posts. I have come to my own conclusion about the question I asked in my original post: There are as many civs as in the last game and most of the popular ones are there so no, they haven't stripped the game down with a view to charging for the missing parts. I still think that $5.00 is a lot for one civ but that's just my opinion. Since the game is fine without DLC, I'm not really bothered.
 
No, but since you had taken his side I thought it right to point out that the guy you were defending had done the same (I mean, you don't seem impartial if you only have a go at one person in a discussion, when both were guilty of the same thing).

Fair enough, I mostly skimmed through the thread anyway.

Still, one guy insulting someone else doesn't give you the right to insult the guy.

As far as I know, only Sonereal and you have expressed a problem, that makes two people. That's not really significant either, as a lot of people who frequent these types of forums have a tendency to skim through text instead of reading carefully. If you were reading an academic text and read at the same speed as you read my posts, you wouldn't understand it either. That doesn't mean it's poor quality.

It actually does. Or it could just be vague.

Also, if you and Sonereal misunderstood my post, I'm curious how you still managed to argue against it. Shouldn't you have been asking for clarification?

I argued against it as I understood it.

By all means tell me which of my points are extremely faulty and why. I don't think you've actually done that. It's interesting since many of my so-called points were in question form or just highlighted possible arguments that hadn't been considered (I tend to argue like this because I DO go into discussions looking to arrive at the truth rather than imposing my own beliefs, rather than just berating everybody who doesn't agree with me).

Sonereal did so a number of pages back, actually.

Mostly though, I disagree with your opinion that 2K/Firaxis is profiteering here. There's a fine, fine line between what is widely perceived as a 'fair profit' and profiteering, and where that line is is completely subjective.

You think it is, obviously, I just happen to disagree, and I think your arguments in support of this are faulty. For isntance:

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.

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding this, but you seem to be using the fact that 2K hasn't gone bankrupt as support for your profiteering argument, when everyone knows there's alot in between going bankrupt and making exorbitant profit.

That's leaving aside that profiteering isn't necessarily a bad thing here: Firaxis will charge the price that they think will bring in maximum revenue, and they've every right to do so.

Anyway, having read through the various posts. I have come to my own conclusion about the question I asked in my original post: There are as many civs as in the last game and most of the popular ones are there so no, they haven't stripped the game down with a view to charging for the missing parts. I still think that $5.00 is a lot for one civ but that's just my opinion. Since the game is fine without DLC, I'm not really bothered.

Agreed, fully.
 
I think most of you do not get the reason for the pricing of Babylonian DLC.

It was part of the Deluxe Edition, which costed more than the standard edition. Giving it for free or for very little cost 1 month after the release would be an insult to buyers of the Deluxe Edition.

So Babylonian DLC is a unique situation and should not be taken as an example for DLC pricing.
 
If you want the Babylon gameplay experience but without the leader graphics, music, unit art and whatever else, you can always try my Babylon mod. It plays exactly the same as Nebz (same attitude values, same colours, same city names, UU, UA, UB et.), just doesn't look as fancy.

It's a free mod. :)

EDIT - only thing is you won't get Steam achievements because it's a mod.
 
I am a total supporter of Civ 5, however I feel a bit taken back that I have to pay $5 for Babylon.

I'm still waiting for a polished game, I don't want to be offered anything new to buy. The game needs finishing first.

It feels a bit of a slap in the face to be honest.
 
They probably think Babs is OP so they think people will pay 5 bucks just to feel powerful.........remember, new target audiences ;) ?
 
Because there are tons of people who like official content if it's a good value. I'm one. I don't have much money at all, but I want to see my fav developers be successful and prosper.

^^^ A civ 5 developer ALERT!!! GET HIM!!!! ^^^
 
I think $5 is a good level for them to have experimented with the price. Presumably there will be many more to come, to testing the waters in terms of demand is important for them. $5 seems not too high, and not too low. If it were much lower, it would almost be not worth their while producing it. But obviously if it were higher, significantly lower demand would damage profits. So I think they've probably struck a good balance.
 
I think its a bit high. But lets be honest here.. What the majority of us here think doesn't really matter. The whole point of targeting a mainstream audience is to marginalize the existing fanbase to the point of insignificance. Even if we all think its too high , if a small portion of the new target base (aka mainstream) buy it our opinion of its price is moot.
 
Stop moaning $5 for another civ is fine. Try getting it in the UK or Europe we are looking to pay £5 / €5 Euros- bear in mind £5 GBP or €5 euros is about $7.50 USD. God ppl moan about stupid things.
 
Stop moaning $5 for another civ is fine. Try getting it in the UK or Europe we are looking to pay £5 / €5 Euros- bear in mind £5 GBP or €5 euros is about $7.50 USD. God ppl moan about stupid things.

And in soviet russia they get to pay just 5 rubles ($1=10000000000000000000 rubles!)...How fair is that? Does it come with a tube of Vagisil?
 
5 is too much for me. seriously where did they spend their money developing this game? not on content and not on polishing.
 
Good lord.... I hate DLC's... since the first time I heard of them. Will games ever feel "complete" again??

Guys, remember buying games over a decade ago? It felt like something special and now.... like a piece of crippled valuelessly junk with lots of missing stuff, mainly made for casuals, the mass, the future.... from Monkey Brain to Human Brain... and now back to the Monkey Brain.

BRING ME BACK THE OLD TIMES!!

/EDITED
thx to low! :) haha
Real life MMORPG games always existed! ;)
 
Good lord.... I hate DLC's... since the first time I heard of them. Will games ever feel "complete" again??

Guys, remember buying games over a century ago? It felt like something special and now.... like a piece of crippled valuelessly junk for casuals with lots of missing stuff.

BRING ME BACK THE OLD TIMES!!

Video games didn't exist a century ago. :p
 
Top Bottom