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

Can't keep up with DLC, annoyed by it.

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Tamed, May 3, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. P-Zombie

    P-Zombie Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    61
    Spain/Inca is $7.49.

    Babylon is $4.99.

    The most I'd currently fork out for a single civ is probably about $2. Yes I can afford to pay more. But I don't think they're worth more than that. I am the purchaser, and I say they're not worth $5. :p
     
  2. Drawmeus

    Drawmeus Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    1,213
    This is unfortunately a misrepresentation of the computer games industry. Cost to create a product hasn't gone up with inflation - it's gone up much, much faster. Small increases in graphics require large increases in team size. Games industry professional wages are increasing as demand for their skills increases.

    Cost to make a AAA product has gone up much more than the cost for a consumer to purchase them; even post-DLC sales, games are less profitable (EDIT: per-unit. Games like CoD selling vastly more copies than they used to are making more money total) today than they were 5 years ago. The only real exception is subscription online games/microtransaction online games.
     
  3. anandus

    anandus Errorist

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    3,859
    Location:
    Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Okay, I thought it was 1$=1€ (it used to be), but apparently it has changed :)

    Edit:
    Ooff, it's still cheaper than the price in euro's.
    Offtopic: What happened to the dollar? :eek: I thought a euro was 1,0-1,2 dollars, but it's about 1,5dollars. Oh, well, it's good for the US economy :)
     
  4. Ian7

    Ian7 Youngest Civver I know!

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    120
    Location:
    Somewhere
    My computer never has any problems playing Civ5.
     
  5. Psyringe

    Psyringe Scout

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Messages:
    3,394
    Location:
    Berlin, Germany
    I found your posts well-researched so far, so I'll trust you on this one (though if you have a quotable link, I'd still be grateful - for example, given the current situation on the job market with all these unemployed programmers and artists, I'd expect wages to be quite low.). However, I still can't believe that any realistic increase in costs can account for the fact that combined individual DLCs are more expensive than comparable expansion packs were. If anything, I'd expect DLC to be substantially cheaper.

    For a regular expansion pack, costs (apart from creating the content) consisted of:
    - obtaining and burning the CD/DVD, designing and printing the front side
    - designing, printing, and folding the box
    - possibly designing, printing, and folding the manual
    - putting all of that together
    - possibly storing it until sold
    The publisher then sells a number of copies wholesale. The wholesale buyer may then resell it to smaller shops, or put the game on display on its own shops. In any case, he also has costs for shipping, he has to pay rent for his store, etc. All this is added to the product and finally makes up the retail price. I.e., all the things I listed so far are things that the customer ultimately has to pay for.

    Now, compare that to DLC. You have _no_ costs for packaging, printing, assembling, or storage. Instead of shipping costs you have bandwidth costs which are smaller by an order of magnitude, especially for small files like DLC. You have less middle-men involved who want or need their piece of the pie.

    Even if the costs for content creation have risen, I see no way how they could have risen so much that they outweigh all the savings listed above.

    I think that DLC _could_ have been a win/win situation for publishers and customers - less expenses for publishers, lower prices for customers, both win. That's what I expected from DLC some years ago. But it didn't work this way, and the reason for this is that the publishers discovered that they can have even more "win" if they don't relay their savings to the customers. Moreover, they can even _increase_ prices (despite having lower expenses) because they are now much more flexible and can respond quicker to the market. They can start selling their product at a very high price, reaping maximal profits from the people who can't wait and/or who don't care so much for their money. Then they can slightly reduce the prices, continue to sell, and from time to time they can do a "weekend sale" for a lower price. With Steam, they can see how many people log on and see the offer, they can see how many people who haven't bought the product for the current price were then willing to buy it for the lower price. then they can adjust the price if calculation point to a higher profit. The way DLC is handled right now is great for publishers, especially with Steam and all the data it collects, you can be almost sure to maximize your profit. But it's very far from the customer-friendly invention that DLC _could_ have been, imho.
     
  6. Isikien

    Isikien WHOA

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    Messages:
    299
    But his and plenty of others have

    All subjective, but i personally have been subjected to some bizarre crashes and long turn time calculation.

    It's not by any means a well optimised game but its improving at least in that department.
     
  7. Kerosene31

    Kerosene31 Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2001
    Messages:
    402
    Sorry, but the massive flaws in your logic are too hard to deal with.

    You don't understand basic economics if you think everything should be priced at 2006 prices plus inflation. I wish my local gas station followed your mantra :lol:

    Nobody has to explain anything to you. Prices have gone up, and no matter how many angry posts you make, 2006 is not coming back.
     
  8. King Patrick

    King Patrick Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Messages:
    233
    My computer has no problem running Civ5, but I bought a new one at the same time I picked up the game. I didn't even bother buying Civ4 as my old computer was so far outside the specs I probably wouldn't have gotten it to run at all. Does that make Civ4 a terrible, awful, horrible, badly designed game? No. New software constantly pushes the envelope of computing power upward. It's always been that way. Otherwise we'd all still be playing on our 386's, since there'd never be a reason to upgrade.
     
  9. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,913
    "Free patches?"

    You do realize that there are vast numbers of basic, advertised gameplay elements that do not work properly to this day, and you're trying to talk about the "value" in patches that make the game attempt to work properly?

    DLC itself isn't the problem. The problems:

    - Multiplayer remains short of 100% functional. The list of why is pretty long, ranging from difficulty ending a turn due to endless production prompt loop to someone crashing/dropping with more than 3-4 players to struggling to change basic settings in a startup lobby

    - Even if all of that worked like it should have more than half a year ago (!), DLC creates compatibility issues with MP! That's pretty sour.

    - The game's UI is still awful, lacking polish like hotkeys, reasonable queue, and complete descriptions of what is actually happening in-game (UI doesn't lie as much as in civ IV at least, though it still does it...). Note that game controls are a core gameplay feature, and we're missing some basics common to virtually every good game in the *previous* decade from a game > 6 months from release...and yet the company responsible for that atrocity is still trying to siphon money by adding content to an incomplete game.

    It's not that DLC is necessarily bad, it's that Civ V's DLC has been crudely implemented and that firaxis/2k has literally chosen to prioritize it over finishing the game. It's astounding that even a decent chunk of the community is OK with this! You talk about "free patches" like they're some charity from Firaxis...these "free" patches are an ATTEMPT to finish the product that was sold to players and advertised as finished on release!

    Nevermind the lack of balance testing for civs, laughable net code, inability to cache ANYTHING it seems, and completely inefficient use of processing cycles...the game doesn't even have all of its advertised features working yet. "free patches" indeed...............no, we've paid dearly for those patches.

    Going fanboy on civ V will not make it the game it can be. Until chunks of the gaming community quits behaving like sheep and actually gives a fair evaluation of a game based on its basic implementation, we'll continue to see major developers shaft us. This game *can* be good, but not if people keep bleating about how great it is that we're getting DLC while it isn't finished. It's bad enough that major review publications like the game informer LIE in their reviews of the game (on release review, the word "bug" did not appear in that review even 1 time. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm)...must the community do this also?
     
  10. Psyringe

    Psyringe Scout

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Messages:
    3,394
    Location:
    Berlin, Germany
    You have now, again, answered to detailed arguments with sweeping generalizations. If this is all you have to offer, then indeed further discussion is pointless. If you read my post, then you'll see that I already included a buffer in my calculation that accounted for extra-inflational factors. If you think that this factor isn't sufficient (which would be fair enough), then you could have argued why this might be the case (as Drawmeus did, putting forward the argument of bigger teams).

    However, you (again) didn't bring an argument at all. Your "argument" is simply to misinterpret and then ridicule the reasoning I put forward. I don't think that this makes an especially strong argument ...

    You're correct that you don't have to explain anything. It might have backed up your argumentation though, which might have been a good idea, considering the state it's in ...
     
  11. Louis XXIV

    Louis XXIV Le Roi Soleil

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    13,579
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    To say DLC creates compatibility issues with Civ5 is misleading. It's practically the same as saying "Civ4 creates compatibility with Civ5" because you can't play each other when one person has Civ4 and the other Civ5. You both can play the game with the same DLC and disable the rest.

    A comment on bugs. Reviewers get a list of bugs that developers intend to fix. They don't report those. That's standard practice. Other bugs generally aren't noticed during a casual review. I've only had the game crash once ever, so I'm not sure what that says about bugs except that it's possible the reviewer never noticed any.

    Since I haven't had a crash in many months and I find the game enjoyable to play, I don't complain about DLC. Yes, multiplayer is a major problem. If it were a priority, I'd be more upset. But, in the meantime, I recognize that DLC funds patching and hope that they fix the things that still need to be addressed rather than laying off more staff and switching to another project. Since I enjoy the DLC content, I buy it. If I didn't, I wouldn't. I don't think I'm a sheep for this and, if I am, at least I'm a content sheep.
     
  12. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,913
    Yes, it is painfully clear that "standard practice" for reviews of games by major developers is to lie to consumers. There's no way around it...in giving the game a near-10 rating and not mentioning some of the most obvious flaws on release, the reviewers are lying.

    The list of confirmed bugs on this forum lit up in the opening weeks; the people who did so are *not* professionals on the payroll of major publications. Professional standards in the review industry? What standards?!

    Firaxis took a bit rep hit with civ V for ignoring basic mechanics. There's no way around this. They've offered a downward trend since civ 3 conquests when it comes to post-release support of the base game, instead shoving features down our throat and never ever fixing some mechanics that don't work.

    Don't hold your breath for some of this civ V stuff. I can give a list of totally borked things, things that were knowingly broken and LEFT so, things that were openly never tested and never balanced when shown imbalanced, interface lies, shoddy coding, etc that runs pretty long.

    For civ IV.

    That's not to say civ IV isn't a fun game or that civ V can't be, but at this point expecting a change in that trend with such a clear trend history against it is flat-out unrealistic. If you enjoy an objectively inferior product to other games when it comes to basic mechanics, I guess that's just the way of the market; most games will turn into that and the best I can hope for is that some still sell to a niche that likes reasonable, balanced, competitive games. Blizzard still holds that torch with sc2 (which on any objective basis SHATTERED civ V last year, as it has a viable competitive scene, 100% working controls, virtually 0 crashes for anybody with minimum specs, balance beyond firaxian dreams, and smoother-running gameplay despite being in a genre where that is *harder*), but precious few others do so.......
     
  13. CossackProblem

    CossackProblem Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    131
    If you want to see paid off reviews just look at Empire: Total War. I stopped subscribing to PCGamer because they on numerous occasions could not look more "paid off" and were ridiculously off the mark -- always with "top tier" games. As for DLC... If you bought all the DLC right now, how much would it be? $30 in total? Certainly not worthy of the price of an expansion. DLC is brilliant from a marketing perspective for this reason.
     
  14. MrSmith

    MrSmith Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    13
    i just bought the game, and have no intention of buying all this overpriced crap. is there a discount for buying them all? no way i'm paying 30 dollars for a few civs and maps.
     
  15. awesome

    awesome Meme Lord

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,768
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    behind you
    i never said the game was perfect.
    but anyway, the patches combined with the dlc's probably aren't worthy of calling them an expansion pack, but that's why they're patches.
    also, there were still patches for civilization 4 even after the "complete" version was released, meaning that game wasn't what it could be, either.
    finally, calling people "sheep" only takes away from your points.
    but hey, what do i know? i'm just a fan boy for a game i've never even played. apparently you missed that part of the post you quoted.
     
  16. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    27,312
    Location:
    Sydney
    Moderator Action: Please make sure the discussion remains civil. Do NOT:
    • Comment on the poster. Make sure you direct your attention to the post, don't feel the need to attack the poster.
    • Imply that a group of people holding a certain position are <insert pejorative>. You are more than welcome to disagree with someone, or with a group of people, but steer clear of insulting language.
    • Edit the quotes of other users, particularly in a trollish manner.
    This discussion need not be uncivil, so please ensure that your posts do not fall into the trap of discourteousness.
     
  17. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,913
    To be clear, I'd like to point out a distinction between "behaving like" and actually calling people something. One can easily behave like something unsavory without being that something...a comparable example would be to point out someone is acting in an irrational fashion - this does not imply said person is always irrational, but only that what they are doing in that instance is irrational. I'm not calling anybody sheep; that's both inappropriate for the forum and well beyond my capability (or right) to evaluate.

    If anything, there's not a whole lot an end consumer can do about being "herded" (or in other words, forced to accept certain things if we want to play), and that includes me which is part of my frustration. Part of the problem is that as gamers we have no "rights" (and I'm not the type to call for regulation as that's a dark road that basically has no chance to make products better), so the only way we have to influence game quality is through market force; but arguing on a forum in an attempt to steer market forces is ridiculously impossible...still, what avenue have I to vent frustration over what firaxis has done with this game? They are one of many developers who is pushing us to behave in a very subdued fashion. Their conduct and staffing choices pre and post release have made that clear. What bothers me most, then, is the amount of the community that is either a) fine with that conduct or b) not even bothering to stop and think through the implications of that conduct. How many times have I heard people say "the game runs fine"? How many of those people even know how the mechanics in the game work, or have tried MP?

    And when I state "go fan boy" I mean to say that people are supporting the game against arguments on its flaws...generally without addressing those flaws or worse by glossing them over. There are a lot of good ideas in civ V ranging from its tactical potential to an entirely different model for teching; these things are veiled by the likes of RA (and whether people abuse the RA tech block), voodoo diplo, and the game running at a decent pace on > recommended specs on minimum graphical settings. It's fine to point those things out; but it bothers me a lot when people start spouting out features and ignore previous points entirely; what's the point of a forum discussion if people just ignore dissenting points?

    Also, I *have* played civ V with hours numbering 100's across most of the patches; long enough to have a firm grasp on the issues with the game and plenty long enough to tell you that these patches are not "free"; generally speaking patches to a game product are released because it's not working as intended when sold - these and future patches have been paid for by every consumer with the game...and the post release support is lacking, something you'll see if/when you actually play it.

    My argument/standard for the game has never been "perfection", it's "finished product". There are way too many aspects of civ V that do not work properly or do not exist that are game standards for nearly a decade; several of them core or otherwise openly advertised features! The standard is *not* perfection, it is *reasonable quality when compared against similarly priced/advertised titles".
     
  18. aatami

    aatami Kuruth Urfarah, kuruth!

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    741
    Location:
    Finland
    15€ for 5 civs.
     
  19. Teperi Blaze

    Teperi Blaze Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    225
    In what way would you call it "basic"? It's nothing basic that a legal copy should give me and many others this headache.

    If you assume my copy is not legit, then tell me how I get all patches downloaded from STEAM without errors.

    So IF there actually are two versions of this game and both are legit, then something is even more wrong. If that's true, can you give us a hint where to find this information?

    Or did I miss something in your cryptic reply?
     
  20. NukeEm

    NukeEm Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2001
    Messages:
    73
    Location:
    Montreal
    Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, this whole discussion is completely subjective. Personally, I like the DLC, just because I like when things are added to my game. Civ5, for me, is a really fun game. I've been playing since the original Civ and have been a long time strategy game enthusiast. Everything from Sins of a Solar Empire, to Alpha Centauri, Europa Universalis and of course... Civ5. I respect that you have issue about the game. But I go by, how my play through goes. To date, I've logged well over 300 hours and I continue to play. I enjoy the game. But I could never speak definitively or in absolutes. How could I? I never touched Multiplayer.. because I don't like Civ Multi player. The game doesn't crash for me, the turns are reasonable (I've played many games with much longer wait times.. so my patience it tempered a little) and I enjoy the DLC's because they add to my game.

    You mentioned SC2... I was one of the few who didn't like SC2... Simply because Blizzard focused on the e-sports side of things. I personally don't find e-sports remotely entertaining... the game itself had elements I didn't like... (Like it being designed to have generally shorter games for viewing purposes... large focus on offensive tactics).. Again I've been playing RTS's for as long as I remember...

    My point is this: One persons idea of what is "obvious" is not always shared. It's like World of Warcraft. It's insanely popular, millions play it and it's very profitable... You'll find people who adore the game... and you'll find people who loathe it. This is just the reality of things.

    DLC's are worth it for those who decide to purchase them. This is a free market, if anyone doesn't like the product.. then talk with your wallet. Don't purchase it. It amazes me still to this day that people feel the need to go on and on about DLC's. It's optional. It is not mandatory... Yes, they make money for the company... They're supposed to. Corporations go into business because they want money.. not because they love us.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page