Buy Now or Pay Later? ($80 US)

[Lord Shadow]

I paid less than 60 dollars (47-ish) for the Standard Edition since I'm not sure which DLC the Deluxe Edition is attached to. I made the mistake of preordering XCOM 2 with its "season pass", and it turned out only 1 of the 3 later DLC didn't merit waiting for discounts.

In Civ6's case, I'd rather wait and see instead of shelling out blindly and ending up with uninteresting "free" civ packs I wouldn't have spent much on otherwise.

 

[Fede1893]

It's not about being cheap, it's being a smart consumer. The price you pay, at least in the US for civ 6 has no bearing on what the publisher makes, provided people are not using grey market resellers. The publisher and retailers have a signed contract that has a set amount that the publisher gets for each unit sold. The only exclusion to this is if you purchase directly from the developer or publisher like EA's origin service, or valves own games on steam.

You also need to realize that value is personal, many people do need to look for deals due to limitation on disposable income. I paid 47$ for civ 6 and probably would not buy it at 60, not because I can't afford it, but because it is not a good value for my entertainment dollar compared to other games.

Maybe it's my European snobby attitude but I hate to see myself as a "consumer". I don't buy things only on a pure individualistic necessity basing myself on the minimum available price. I am person, living in a society, and when I can I try to prefer buying things made by groups of people I appreciate.

I am also happy to support Steam for the service it provides. If somebody would give me the bank account number of Ed Beach I might also wire him some extra bucks.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I'm thinking the first Steam sale might also roughly correspond to the point when they've worked out most of the bugs and balance issues: Mid January, say.

I think that's when I'll buy it. Shave a little off the price. Don't serve as the game's beta tester. Play the real game, not one with temporary placeholders (the radical revision of the social policy trees early in Civ V's history cost me a victory because I didn't realize I no longer had social policy benefits on which I'd been counting. Can't remember the details.)

Civ V is the only game I've ever bought on release, and that was fun. But I can do without that specific form of fun this time.

 

[anandus]

the smart play is to wait and play the game in 6 months

Yes, wait until the dark indoors winter months have passed and the weather is nice again and you want to go outside to buy Civ

 

[wiggawuu]

This is easily the most complete civ EVER released. It already has the base mechanics of a civ 5 plus all those expansion packs. Religion, etc etc. I think it will offer the most for a vanilla build. Although, I'm going to wait until after release. I'm not as eager as I once was in my younger days of gaming.

 

[wiggawuu]

I'm thinking the first Steam sale might also roughly correspond to the point when they've worked out most of the bugs and balance issues: Mid January, say.

I think that's when I'll buy it. Shave a little off the price. Don't serve as the game's beta tester. Play the real game, not one with temporary placeholders (the radical revision of the social policy trees early in Civ V's history cost me a victory because I didn't realize I no longer had social policy benefits on which I'd been counting. Can't remember the details.)

Civ V is the only game I've ever bought on release, and that was fun. But I can do without that specific form of fun this time.

If you bought civ 5 on release and you thought that was fun. really? Worst vanilla release of any civ game. I think civ 6 will be much better on release, but yikes. I'll take what I read from you with a grain of salt.

 

[Lexicus]

I chose "never". I pre-ordered the game, I'm not going to wait for it.
How can't you justify it? It's one of the cheapest things you'll ever buy!

I paid, $100, maybe $120 for Civ 5 (plus DLC/expansions) and I got more than 1600 hours out of it. So the game has cost me at most 7.5 cents an hour.

I can't think of any other recreation, apart from a walk outside, that's that cheap!

I work about forty hours a week for the money I use to buy video games, and I have lots of other things I like to spend money on, to say nothing of expenses that aren't a matter of choice.
So for me the calculation is different.

I don't understand the obsession so many people have in getting a game you love for cheap.

I'll give you a hint: some people have to pay rent, for food, and other expenses, leaving less for video games. Moreover I have other things, some of which also cost money, that I enjoy doing as much or more than playing video games.

Second, applying this criteria in life would lead you to never go to the cinema (most movies will be available on tv for free in 4 years time), never buying a book (download the pdf on the web or take it at a public library) etc. and this will end up in ruining your life for what? Having spared $ 20 here and there? To buy what?

In fact, I do buy books here and there but otherwise this is a perfectly accurate description of my habits with regard to these things. Somehow, I don't feel that this 'ruins' my life, because there is more to life than books, films, and video games. I mean, really, paying $20 to see a movie in the theater is like burning it as far as I'm concerned. The last movie I saw in theaters was The Force Awakens and that was a mistake. The last one before that was the final Harry Potter movie and I didn't pay for it.

If you are a young person whose parents still pay most of your expenses, or if you have a job where you don't have to work too much and you make enough money to support routinely paying full price for these things, good for you: most people aren't so lucky. And most people have other things they like to do that cost money that aren't watching movies, reading books, or playing video games.

 

[Lord Shadow]

Strictly money-wise, it's obviously best to wait till you can get the most content the cheapest. Provided you can tolerate playing the game 3+ years later. You can get any game for cheap if you're willing to wait years on end. Hell, the same rule applies to many other items outside videogames.

That's fine, being just a sign you're not interested in a given thing all that much. Personally, there's many games I don't buy until they're deeply discounted, but Civ isn't the case.

If you are a young person whose parents still pay most of your expenses, or if you have a job where you don't have to work too much and you make enough money to support routinely paying full price for these things, good for you: most people aren't so lucky. And most people have other things they like to do that cost money that aren't watching movies, reading books, or playing video games.

There's no need to pull the "job and expenses" card. Different people have different hobbies, and value each accordingly.

 

[King Jason]

I always buy the release version and then buy the 2nd expansion because the second one has all of the content of the first one +DLC.

 

[Lexicus]

There's no need to pull the "job and expenses" card. Different people have different hobbies, and value each accordingly.

But how much people value their hobbies is only one side of the equation. How much they value their money is the other. Not so long ago, I was a kid whose parents paid most of my expenses, and consequently I had no idea what money was worth. Now I do, because I have to work for it, and pay my own way. I don't begrudge people this, you understand, but it strikes me as a likely explanation for people saying they 'don't understand' why anyone would want to pay less than full price for a video game.

 

[anandus]

I work about forty hours a week for the money I use to buy video games, and I have lots of other things I like to spend money on, to say nothing of expenses that aren't a matter of choice.
So for me the calculation is different.

Ah, yes, because I don't work and video games are my only expenses?
(Spoiler: I work and am a parent, own a house, a car and have a lot more expenses and not a lot of time).

The calculation is simple. It's the amount of time (and pleasure) you get for a certain amount of euros. And in that respect a video game like Civ is incredibly cheap.

 

[Lexicus]

Ah, yes, because I don't work and video games are my only expenses?
(Spoiler: I work and am a parent, own a house, a car and have a lot more expenses and not a lot of time).

Then frankly I have no idea how you found time to play 1600 hours of civ 5 since 2010. I was a college student with virtually no responsibilities during that time frame and I only clocked about 250 hours, and I spent about a year playing the game pretty religiously. Was Civ 5 the only game you played during this time period?

The calculation is simple. It's the amount of time (and pleasure) you get for a certain amount of euros. And in that respect a video game like Civ is incredibly cheap.

I never said it wasn't simple, just that it is different for me than it is for you, since presumably you got both more time and more enjoyment out of Civ 5 than I did.

 

[Abraxis]

Were you playing in offline mode? Steam doesn't always record hours played in offline. I had about 800 hours in only a year of playing Civ5. I managed to get 250 hours in Dark Souls 3 in less than a month of its release.

As far as the "calculation" of value is concerned... this is a pretty stupid thing to argue about. Anyone who can't appreciate the unlimited range of its variability has led a very static life-style and probably isn't worth arguing with. I've been on both sides of the spectrum, and bounce back and forth constantly, arbitrarily giving away 10s of thousands of dollars worth of stuff on a whim, and being so desperate as to be willing to kill for a meal, or a vehicle. There is no standard.

 

[Lexicus]

Were you playing in offline mode?

No.

 

[stealth_nsk]

At some point I got my steam stat reset - some people tried to steal my Steam account, took a bit of efforts to get it back. So, a lot of my corded hours are lost.

 

[anandus]

Then frankly I have no idea how you found time to play 1600 hours of civ 5 since 2010.

It's not that much. On average it's only 5 hours a week. Of course I've had periods where I played it a few evenings in a row and periods where I didn't play the game for many months.

I never said it wasn't simple, just that it is different for me than it is for you, since presumably you got both more time and more enjoyment out of Civ 5 than I did.

I don't get how you think I have more time. I'm actually quite sure I have less time, as I'm also a parent, which seriously eats into my free time
And maybe more enjoyment, yeah, could be. That's subjective.

 

[thecrazyscot]

There's no option for "preorder". And you certainly don't need to pay $80...I paid $60 for the DD and you could get the standard edition for about $45 (right now actually over at GMG).

 

[Sagax]

With Thanksgiving and then Christmas around the corner, I am fine with waiting a couple of months to see what discounts Lord Gaben is preparing for us. If this was summer then I probably would've bought the game on the spot.

There's no need in arguing which buying strategy is better - it's all the matter of value you personally assign to the game.

 

[Gori the Grey]

If you bought civ 5 on release and you thought that was fun. really? Worst vanilla release of any civ game. I think civ 6 will be much better on release, but yikes. I'll take what I read from you with a grain of salt.

What was fun was playing along with this community while everyone was discovering the game. Every other computer game I've owned, I've purchased from a bargain bin years after its release. (Civ 3 best $5 I ever spent. Morrowwind, best $29 I ever spent). It was a poor game upon release, I agree. But that extra experience of being able to hear from people about their reactions, share my own, that was new to me, and enjoyable.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't get how you think I have more time.

Well, according to you, you got 1600 hours out of Civ V, and I only got ~250.
1600 is more than 250. So that's how I think you got more time.

And maybe more enjoyment, yeah, could be. That's subjective.

Which is my entire point.