4,99$ For Babylon

[winthrowe]

guys i didnt read the 11 pages but how come i bought the special edition for so much money- and i dont even get this one for free

umm.. you should have had it from day one if you bought the correct edition. I know I did.

 

[Valkrionn]

I simply disagree on this point. The funding comes directly and indirectly from making great games in the past. It comes from your reputation.

Which then leads to a situation where new developers cannot break into the market. Very... undesirable, IMO.

I'm personally skeptical that reputation alone can make a game; Development costs huge. It certainly helps, though.

It makes it less good than it could be. It's like a prizefighter who wants to save his right hand for a later fight than the one he is in. It's not impossible to win with one hand, but...

And I just completely disagree about that. As I said: When done right, it need not be harmful at all. Too few companies do it right, though. Which would be why I personally hate DLC, even as I argue in it's favor.

When I first encountered Montezuma, it was a really cool, pleasant surprise with the flames and shadows and the jeering crowd. That was a high point in my Civ5 weekend. Discovering him as my neighbor by chance is a completely different experience than seeing him for sale on civfanatics! Let me emphasize that... the latter is a much less desireable path of discovery.

When Ghengis was released I started a duel game to check him out. Woop-de-doo, I'm done with Ghengis Kahn and the Mongols. What a waste.

So you're saying you prefer being able to 'stumble' on to a civ? Reasonable, but really, all civs in the game were announced well before the game came out. You're going to know what civs they are regardless.

I hope you understand that for me it's not the money, its the negative effect on the presentation that drives me up the wall. I do not believe it is sustainable.

I do, and never meant to imply that it was. Just meant that the majority will not go up in price.

And I absolutely agree that bad DLC is not sustainable. Example: I flat out will not purchase games made by EA. Not after the things they've pulled. I don't care what game it is, I will not buy it.

Once again: Difference between good DLC and bad.

And... I have another issue. How is this new paradigm going to effect modding? If I purchase Hammarubi, can I use those assets in my mod? Many mods in Civ4, including FfH, relied heavily on copyrighted material. If the asset owner's don't notice, no harm done, but Civ modding is done right under 2k's nose. If I distribute my mod with these new assets, am I going to be asked to stop? If not, how far can I go? Someone around here has already modded a Babylonian civ, can they now grab that leaderhead and use it for their mod? I do hope 2k/Firaxis recognizes that it is in their long term interest to allow this, otherwise things are going to get very convoluted around here.

Basically: You cannot use art assets from the DLC unless you set your mod to require said DLC (should be possible soon, I hope. Need that working.). Your mod can imitate the function (or even downright duplicate the function), but you cannot use that art to produce your own Babylon; Art is the major selling point of these DLCs, alongside scenarios.

No, I don't particularly like it either, but all things considered, that's a pretty light restriction.

In regards to art from other games that has been ported: Firaxis and 2k Games are neutral parties with no responsibility for content on the modbrowser. Unless they get a Cease and Desist from the original owners of the IP, nothing will happen; If they do, they remove it from the browser until such time as you can show you removed the copyrighted assets.

There is something that don't make sense: if you are right, then they are charging with Digital Delivery the absence of package, bundle accessories and distribution....

But the absence of package, bundle accessories (manual and "minchiate varie" as we say in Italy to speak about gadgets...) and distribution are lower costs, which should lead to lower prices as a result...

SO why i need to pay on Steam the same price of a store package? If it lacks, as digital delivery, of all the things i have spoken before??

How do you insert that in your speech?

That would be the fault of Brick and Mortar stores. If you notice, once games have been out for a while Steam (and other similar systems, most likely) offer steep discounts.

The stores set the prices, and will refuse to carry the game if the price is lower for digital delivery systems. Since they still (currently) represent a significant portion of the product sold, they get away with it. They are rapidly becoming more and more insignificant, however, and will become obsolete soon.

Actually i have a very reasonable explanation for that which include the whole industry.
If Firaxis and other companies just sold digital copies over the net at a lower price, you would not be able to go to stores and buy gameboxes anymore, as no stores would be able to gain any profit from them. Its the same with movies and other digital stuff. Unless you want these products to only be available as downloads you have to accept that the price is not lower than what you can buy them for from stores.

I personally belive that gameboxes/movies/music on CDs/DVDs are outdated, but alot of people like to get a physical product when buying stuff, and for the physical product to compete with the digital version, you have to artificial raise the price of the digital version. I know its silly but that is how it works

Pretty much exactly right.

I prefer boxes, but I recognize they are going to go the way of the dodo before much longer.

I hear this argument a lot. Its a sound argument, but its heavily flawed.

See the thing is, we can have it both ways. Infact, due to the video game consumer market nearly multiplying over 20x in the last decade, prices should have actually come DOWN. Inflation can't touch the rapid growth of the video game industry.

The reason why prices aren't going down, and why we have something as ridiculous as DLCs, is because business tycoons want a piece of the industry - an industry thats about to surpass both the music and movie industry combined. For example, Bobby Kotick has a 15 million dollar salary(and that was back in 2008....) for making other people develop games for him.

There are also far more games, meaning more competition for consumers. The two have more or less kept pace with each other (as they should; More demand means more product). Prices should have still gone up.

Though that is a very good argument.

And this is yet another reason I want games to switch to all digital distribution even though I prefer boxes... Less need for a publisher, developers keep more of the profits, and small developers find it easier to put out product and get into the business.

Get rid of publishers, and you CAN have your cake and eat it too. Publishers keep a huge chunk of the profits.

 

[Rub'Rum]

There's another way for small game projects to start too.

I just paid 9 euros for Minecraft, a game in BETA, because I think it's a great concept and I believe it'll become a great game (and it already is). Also, since I paid early as a beta customer, I'm going to get all future updates for free. Dang, there's customer respect right there.

Anyway, you keep saying you're against DLC, did you buy Babylon? If you got it through deluxe, then are you going to buy any further civ released as DLC? I mean, you have a point that DLC may actually be helpful to small companies releasing quality products. But 2K and Firaxis, no, and not only do they not need it, but what they released is heavily overpriced. As I've said, for me one civ is at most worth 1$. So I'm not buying it.

As I said earlier in the thread though, as long as people somehow buy this stuff and are okay with spending 20 times 5$ because "hey it's just like buying 20 cheeseburgers after all", well that's what we're going to deserve.

EDIT: You know, it's not about the concept of DLC at all, it's about the outrageous prices, for me, anyway.

 

[Valkrionn]

There's another way for small game projects to start too.

I just paid 9 euros for Minecraft, a game in BETA, because I think it's a great concept and I believe it'll become a great game (and it already is). Also, since I paid early as a beta customer, I'm going to get all future updates for free. Dang, there's customer respect right there.

Anyway, you keep saying you're against DLC, did you buy Babylon? If you got it through deluxe, then are you going to buy any further civ released as DLC? I mean, you have a point that DLC may actually be helpful to small companies releasing quality products. But 2K and Firaxis, no, and not only do they not need it, but what they released is heavily overpriced. As I've said, for me one civ is at most worth 1$. So I'm not buying it.

As I said earlier in the thread though, as long as people somehow buy this stuff and are okay with spending 20 times 5$ because "hey it's just like buying 20 cheeseburgers after all", well that's what we're going to deserve.

EDIT: You know, it's not about the concept of DLC at all, it's about the outrageous prices, for me, anyway.

Sure there is. But to do what Minecraft is doing, you need to be able to generate buzz for your game... And it only works for PC games. It does not work for every game.

I did not buy Babylon. And I have stated that I would not; It is one civ, which I'm not interested in the playstyle of. But that is entirely subjective. I've also stated I would pay 10 for Mongolia. I absolutely love that scenario, and have played it quite a few times.


As for the exact prices of DLC... I don't know. For me it very much depends on the DLC. Babylon, I'd buy if it was 1 or 2 dollars. Not much more.


However, that has nothing to do with my arguments about DLC not necessarily being bad.

 

[rune42]

There are also far more games, meaning more competition for consumers. The two have more or less kept pace with each other (as they should; More demand means more product). Prices should have still gone up.

I don't think you quite know what the effects of competition are for consumers. Competition means prices go down, not up.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Reasonable, but false, which was my point.

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

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 still think you have a different idea of what development means, and of course that could mean it's my idea that is wrong. I suppose you see writing the code as the development. More generally I describe the production of any of the content, including artwork and audio assets, as part of the development.

Anyway, it's just a matter of meanings of words. I don't see it as important, and I certainly don't care as strongly about it as the other people arguing with you here.

 

[Valkrionn]

I don't think you quite know what the effects of competition are for consumers. Competition means prices go down, not up.

Normally, yes. But when costs also go UP, that can offset (or surpass) the benefit from competition. Also note that more competition means better prices for consumers, not developers.

 

[Valkrionn]

I still think you have a different idea of what development means, and of course that could mean it's my idea that is wrong. I suppose you see writing the code as the development. More generally I describe the production of any of the content, including artwork and audio assets, as part of the development.

Anyway, it's just a matter of meanings of words. I don't see it as important, and I certainly don't care as strongly about it as the other people arguing with you here.

Yeah, I admitted precisely that in a later post. I just don't see how making use of artists while you have them available means development has begun.

 

[Rub'Rum]

However, that has nothing to do with my arguments about DLC not necessarily being bad.

Then I'm not sure there's even an argument to be had there. I mean, sure, DLC can be a good thing. Except it's not in an increasingly large proportion of the time, and certainly not in the case of the subject of this thread.

 

[cephalo]

Basically: You cannot use art assets from the DLC unless you set your mod to require said DLC (should be possible soon, I hope. Need that working.). Your mod can imitate the function (or even downright duplicate the function), but you cannot use that art to produce your own Babylon; Art is the major selling point of these DLCs, alongside scenarios.

No, I don't particularly like it either, but all things considered, that's a pretty light restriction.

In regards to art from other games that has been ported: Firaxis and 2k Games are neutral parties with no responsibility for content on the modbrowser. Unless they get a Cease and Desist from the original owners of the IP, nothing will happen; If they do, they remove it from the browser until such time as you can show you removed the copyrighted assets.

Hmmm, I wouldn't say thats a light restriction. That means that if I want to use the Babylon assets, my audience is reduced to only those who were duped into this horrible deal, which I'm sure will be a small minority. They worked hard to give us unprecedented modding capabilities, and then with this they are working hard to impede us. If we see alot of such DLC in the future, its going to suck the energy right out of the modding community, as nobody will know how this or that DLC asset will impact their potential audience.

I'm certain that a few modders will find this out by accident after they have done alot of work. Look at the first modded civ available, it was the Celts. For that mod, Kael used Boudica from Civ4! But... what if I didn't buy Civ4? They can't enforce this with their own assets, it doesn't make sense for them to do that, and people can point to this first example as a double standard.

They need to be careful with how they treat the community, or there will never be a Civ6.

 

[Valkrionn]

Hmmm, I wouldn't say thats a light restriction. That means that if I want to use the Babylon assets, my audience is reduced to only those who were duped into this horrible deal, which I'm sure will be a small minority. They worked hard to give us unprecedented modding capabilities, and then with this they are working hard to impede us. If we see alot of such DLC in the future, its going to suck the energy right out of the modding community, as nobody will know how this or that DLC asset will impact their potential audience.

I'm certain that a few modders will find this out by accident after they have done alot of work. Look at the first modded civ available, it was the Celts. For that mod, Kael used Boudica from Civ4! But... what if I didn't buy Civ4? They can't enforce this with their own assets, it doesn't make sense for them to do that, and people can point to this first example as a double standard.

They need to be careful with how they treat the community, or there will never be a Civ6.

I think it is light. Like I said, you can duplicate the exact stats of the DLC. There's a mod out there that is essentially Babylon. The core selling point of the DLC (barring scenarios, which are a plus for some and meaningless to others) is the art, as it is professionally done, unlike anything you will get from a mod as yet.

Allowing those assets to be used freely makes DLC inherently non-viable... Which 2K would be very unhappy about. Keep in mind, the decision to make DLC is not up to Firaxis, it is 2K.

Simple solution: Just don't use the art from DLCs. There is not much of it. There shouldn't be any need to do so.

And the restriction applies solely to DLC content, making it a very clear-cut restriction (and keep in mind, I may be wrong here; I haven't asked that question recently, so the info is several weeks/months old here). Bringing up art from Civ4 as an example does not work here.

Also: Assuming that a small minority will purchase Babylon, or other DLC, is ridiculous. DLC is widespread because it works. People buy it. I would not be surprised if within a few weeks a large percentage of players have Babylon.

 

[winthrowe]

Simple solution: Just don't use the art from DLCs. There is not much of it. There shouldn't be any need to do so.

This. Ripping off art assets without proper legal permission is a big taboo in many open source game/mod communities I've been a part of, and something that can get projects shut down occasionally for completely free engines.

 

[Valkrionn]

Right. The conversion mod myself and others are working on requires entirely new art assets (won't go into why); We could get some via conversions from other games (incidentally how I know for certain Firaxis's attitude towards use of copyrighted art; I asked ), but more than likely aren't going to be doing that.

Takes more time and effort, but ultimately it is better not to use art from other sources; No worries.

Yes, you can make the argument that as DLC for civ, the art is part of civ and if you can use some you can use all; I even expect to see that argument. Like I said though: Art is the primary attraction for the DLC. It is therefore taboo, unless your mod requires the DLC; All there is to it, and nothing to be done about it. If you dislike it, take it up with 2k; This is one area I'm not happy either. Nor were many of the other testers when that limitation was discussed.

 

[PieceOfMind]

As far as I'm concerned, the game itself was pretty cheap (less than US$40 where I bought it). Regarding the pricing of DLC, it is the market that will determine its price. Each individual has the power to choose what price they are willing to pay, and its in 2k/Firaxis' interest to neither overprice it nor underprice it.

The only main negative I can see with DLC is that it can indeed fragment the community a bit and generally create a bit more chaos. One could argue that coherence of the community, e.g. on civfanatics, is actually fairly important for a game like civ, as it's where a lot of the modding goes on. If we get drowned with too much content released as DLC, it makes it harder for all of us to discuss the same game. This problem is my main motivation for the Babylon mod by the way, as I wanted people who didn't buy the deluxe edition to at least have the opportunity to see how the civ plays in the game. The artwork and leaderhead etc. is something that should rightfully go to only those who pay for it, but they are paying primarily for the aesthetic privilege.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I actually think that Babylon is going to be the only nation that will be paid for.

 

[thamis]

The DLC is absolutely reasonably priced. There's no need to whine.

Also, calling CIV5 "unfinished" is a bit of a stretch. Like any game there are things that can be improved, but it's definitely a finished product!

 

[cephalo]

Also: Assuming that a small minority will purchase Babylon, or other DLC, is ridiculous. DLC is widespread because it works. People buy it. I would not be surprised if within a few weeks a large percentage of players have Babylon.

I dunno, there's a poll on this page that so far indicates that about 1/5 of civfanatics pollers will buy it. I do realize that is a gut reaction, an initial revulsion that may subside once we are beaten down, but I would not work that hard for a 1/5 audience.

If there was an amazing, 'can't miss this' mod that required this, I would buy it. But nothing short of that would make me buy.

Personally I think that a variety of Civs adds to the whole, and are not worth 5$ on their own. As others have said though, I'm willing to waste 5$ on much less (I did so this morning on junk food), but if I'm not playing Civ5 and Civ5 mods, then there's just no motivation to download it even for free.

 

[Pangur Bán]

DLC is a marketing strategy that increases a game company's profits by exposing customer to more temptation. The company's profits increase depending on how they split up the product, not upon how much they give the customer. There's no reason to expect a better product in future as a result.

DLC means they can invest less time and money for more payback. If that's what it means, then that's what they will do. Likewise, they believed dumbing down the game sells, and they have dumbed it down. Don't be surprised if Civ 6 consists of little more than a video short of Goofy the Dog laughing into a camera! And there's nothing a hardcore Civ fan can do, because the developers own the rights of the format and no-one is going to replace them.


I'll be stunned if DLC means the Civ 5 customer ends up getting a better deal. Beyond the Sword came with 10 new civs (plus other leaderheads). It was around $20. That would be $2 a civ, but we got other things too. Probably in terms of work/price, we paid about 20 cents per new civ in Civ 4.

The kind of embarrassingly slavish fanboi apologism I've seen on this thread just won't cut any ice until we have moved on to Civ 6 and we can compare with previous games. The wise among us already know DLC means the customer will pay more for what they'd have gotten free otherwise.

it can indeed fragment the community a bit and generally create a bit more chaos. One could argue that coherence of the community, e.g. on civfanatics, is actually fairly important for a game like civ, as it's where a lot of the modding goes on.

Indeedie.

 

[atteSmythe]

And there's nothing a hardcore Civ fan can do, because the developers own the rights of the format and no-one is going to replace them.

Nah, all they own is the name. Personally, I think the lack of competition for this kind of 4x game is hurting them. Despite the market confusion, there were good things to come out of the whole civ II/CTP/civ III mess.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Nah, all they own is the name. Personally, I think the lack of competition for this kind of 4x game is hurting them. Despite the market confusion, there were good things to come out of the whole civ II/CTP/civ III mess.

Interesting. I certainly hold little if the format is left to the 2K money-men. If you are right, then there might be hope.