headcase
Limit 1 Facepalm Per Turn
I agree, but there may be a Civ 5 add-on called "Civ 6" depending on what their marketing team thinks is best. (Similar to Vista's big service pack being called "Windows 7").
Civ V GOTY announced
- Thread starter comatosedragon
- Start date
I agree, but there may be a Civ 5 add-on called "Civ 6" depending on what their marketing team thinks is best. (Similar to Vista's big service pack being called "Windows 7").
blitzkrieg1980
Octobrist
Ha! Good point!I'm always bewildered at the number of people who enjoy a game enough to get hundreds or thousands of fan forum posts about it, yet complain lustily when asked to pay $6 for some fairly useful DLC.
The same people who download a $2 iPhone game and freak out when it isn't a masterpiece.
The same people who download a $2 iPhone game and freak out when it isn't a masterpiece.
blitzkrieg1980
Octobrist
So I suppose they should release only 3 or 4 civs and maybe 5 wonders in Civ6 and then make everything else a 5 dollar download? Your acquiescence to the changing methods of marketing make further abuses seem "okay" to the companies which release the games. I payed $50 for the game. If I downloaded all the DLC separately (which I refused to do), then I would have to have payed upwards of $85 for the complete vanilla version of Civ5. This is outrageous in my eyes and, sure, it's an opinion, but it's a pretty defendable one considering Civ4 vanilla cost me $45 (for the entire version).
Free market / capitalism doesn't work if the people just acquiesce to anything a company does with its pricing structure just because they like the product. Should I have to pay $150 for the next iteration of Civ without complaining if (it the game is good)?
Free market / capitalism doesn't work if the people just acquiesce to anything a company does with its pricing structure just because they like the product. Should I have to pay $150 for the next iteration of Civ without complaining if (it the game is good)?
UNIT 666
One of Many
The (quality of) content in the DLC is not the problem, the absurd price is. If you bought a 'complete' game using only DLC, you'd be paying hundreds of dollars. Plus it punishes loyal fans - how much is a Civ5 pre-order plus all post-launch DLC in price versus the Civ5 GotY Edition?
The DLC for Civ5 thus far has been stuff that modders have been doing for free.
With what Firaxis has released for DLC thus far, it wouldn't surprise me if they release Civ6 in the next two years as essentially an expansion pack (adding espionage or some new mechanic, perhaps) for Civ5 GotY. Of course, since it's a new game you'll have to pay $60. Then they'll have a bunch of patches funded by overpriced DLC. Then the GotY Edition is released later, and the cycle continues.
I can onlyhope pray that this won't be the case.
The DLC for Civ5 thus far has been stuff that modders have been doing for free.
With what Firaxis has released for DLC thus far, it wouldn't surprise me if they release Civ6 in the next two years as essentially an expansion pack (adding espionage or some new mechanic, perhaps) for Civ5 GotY. Of course, since it's a new game you'll have to pay $60. Then they'll have a bunch of patches funded by overpriced DLC. Then the GotY Edition is released later, and the cycle continues.
I can only
Gamewizard
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,234
Those loyal fans wanted to play the game over a year earlier than those picking up the GotY Edition. I don't understand how that is punishment.
Becomedeath
The Destroyer
Nobody makes you buy it, and unless you're 4 you will know that software comes down in cost over a matter of months. Moderator Action:
there's no reason to be so degrading. "loyal fans" had the opportunity to wait and buy it cheaper, if you wanted to pay the cost to get it the instant it was available, then who's really to blame?It's only money, you got what you wanted and you were happy at the time. This seems to be a large amount of making an issue out of nothing so there's something to complain about!
It doesn't appear to be in the UK (£22.99 on Steam vs £22.95 on D2D). Not that there's really any reason to pick Steam over D2D, since it just activates on Steam anyway.
The regular version is still around £20, so the GotY edition is a good deal for new players. Surely, that's all a GotY edition (or Gold or Complete) was ever about anyway?
oops, seems you're right. It's a good part cheaper in the UK than in the rest of europe, that's it. On Steam or D2D.com the version is up for 49.95.
Becomedeath
The Destroyer
unless you're 4 you will know that software comes down in cost over a matter of months. Moderator Action:
Apologies, what I meant was that if you've been a player of games that have DLC or expansions or even just the games themselves for any length of time then you know that the prices drop over time.
Civ 4 is now being sold with all of it's expansions as a bundle at a significantly lower cost than it's original releases as seperate items. Why shouldn't the same apply to the smaller DLC?
blitzkrieg1980
Octobrist
What is it with people and the whole "crying/complaining" attacks?Nobody makes you buy it, and unless you're 4 you will know that software comes down in cost over a matter of months. Moderator Action:
It's only money, you got what you wanted and you were happy at the time. This seems to be a large amount of making an issue out of nothing so there's something to complain about!
You seem to miss the point that the idea of having to buy DLC in order to get the FULL version of the game is a NEW paradigm in the marketing of Civilization games. I never had to pay $85-90 to get previous vanilla versions of Civ. In fact, I paid $45 for Civ4 (when it was less than 6 months old). Let's not try to say the price of all games have gone up, because they sure as hell haven't gone up to $90 a pop. That's almost the cost to upgrade Windows (and there are significantly more people and significantly more money involved in creating an Operating System vs. a TBS game).
Again, I point to the failure of free market / capitalism when the consumers (who are responsible for holding companies accountable for their actions) simply acquiesce to new (and absurd) pricing structures. You fail to see how the combined price of the game and all DLC for "loyal civ fans" (OF COURSE they will buy the game when it first comes out since they are AVID fans and not wait a year for the economized version) is out of hand. $90 for one game is not acceptable ESPECIALLY given the fact that it took a year to patch the game to acceptability.
The only thing remarking about people "crying" (
) does is show us that you are willing to acquiesce to absurd pricing structures simply because you look at the structure as a normal $50 with some fairly priced $5 downloadables. When it really is a $90 game that was released piecemeal along with numerous fixes to the highly flawed original release.
Becomedeath
The Destroyer
The only thing remarking about people "crying" (
Actually, it shows that when I buy something I accept the price of it, or I don't buy it. If it becomes cheaper at a later point, I don't sit around feeling ripped off because I got it when it was brand new. Everything drops in price for one of two reasons, 1) people won't pay it because it's over priced, 2) enough sales have been made at the original price that reducing it will attract more customers.
As Civ is now a year out of the box, it's only natural that they're going to offer a bigger better package to attract more new customers.
I can't remember a time when this sales model wasn't true in computer games. But it doesn't change the fact that if you bought it at it's original price and then want to complain when they make that price lower at a later date you're going to spend the rest of your life in a permenant state of annoyance at the world.
To be fair, you're better off if you've bought the DLCs IMO as you've had the chance to adapt to them and learn more about them than someone who gets hit with them all at once.
You can buy Civ 4 and all of it's expansions for under £10 now, originally that collection would have cost you £120...that's no more outrageous than this is. Which is not very at all.
And you don't HAVE to buy anything. If it were a required part of the game that enabled it to function then that would be true. What you're talking about is playing the latest version with all of the optional extras. It's hardly the same as being forced to pay $90 for the full game, you got the full game on day 1. What you choose to buy after that are extras.
If you had to pay for the patches, then you'd have a point here, but you don't, so you don't.
It isn't really a new paradigm. You HAD to buy all the expansions if you wanted full version of the game before, and after DLC. One might argue expansions generally add more stuffs on the table. At least for me, the added civs, scenarios, and map scripts added more flavour to the game than PTW did for Civ 3 or Warlords did for Civ 4, while giving me the chance NOT to buy unwanted additions such as Cradles series.
You are right. CiV was the first game I ever pre-ordered and I've learnt my lesson. I will wait 3 years before picking up any games. Let others beta test for me. After all, it is better to spend my scarce time on books and physical outdoor activities.
Thank you CiV for the lesson. Life's too short to feel ripped off. If I need online entertainment, the forum's full of FREE fun.
CiV GOTY? just wait for an even more complete GOTY. It will come.
Thank you CiV for the lesson. Life's too short to feel ripped off. If I need online entertainment, the forum's full of FREE fun.
CiV GOTY? just wait for an even more complete GOTY. It will come.
Except, Blitzkrieg, you don't have to pay $90 to get the full vanilla game. The vanilla game was $50 at launch and has since gone down.
The DLC additions, while not full expansion packs, are still extra content. The GotY edition does not constitute an updated "vanilla" version, but fills the same role as Gold/Complete editions used to.
While this isn't the thread for DLC pricing discussions, if you compare how much one will have paid if one had bought the game on release, and each DLC thereafter (I've spent £57 or so on the preorder and all the DLC, bundled appropriately, minus the pointless map packs), it isn't so very much more than Civ IV and Warlords at full price (around £30+£20=£50 if I'm remembering right). That's why I find it hard to agree with the more apocalyptic comments people make about the state of the industry.
The DLC additions, while not full expansion packs, are still extra content. The GotY edition does not constitute an updated "vanilla" version, but fills the same role as Gold/Complete editions used to.
While this isn't the thread for DLC pricing discussions, if you compare how much one will have paid if one had bought the game on release, and each DLC thereafter (I've spent £57 or so on the preorder and all the DLC, bundled appropriately, minus the pointless map packs), it isn't so very much more than Civ IV and Warlords at full price (around £30+£20=£50 if I'm remembering right). That's why I find it hard to agree with the more apocalyptic comments people make about the state of the industry.
What I am struggling with is why so many people are preaching their own opinions and trying to sway other into their belief, its starting to get annoying. You like the game or not, you buy DLC or not, you hate the prices or you dont care. Quite frankly this is not an idealistic world so you just have to live with what is, just stop posting complaints about everything you dont like on every thread
blitzkrieg1980
Octobrist
You seem to be responding to other peoples gripes about the price having gone down 1 year after release. That was never my point, and so, I am sorry if my post was directed incorrectly at you. Of course the price will drop as the game ages, I have no problem with that and I don't feel cheated because of it. Nor is that anything new.
What IS new in the realm of civilization is partially releasing a vanilla game (IE with less leaders and wonders than you planned on releasing) and then making people (who want the entire vanilla game) pay for the rest of the leaders/wonders piecemeal and then AFTER the die hard fans buy the DLC (who OF COURSE buy these DLC as soon as they come out since they are "die hard fans") release the ACTUAL full version of Civ5 Vanilla with all DLC inclusive for less than the original game sold for.
THAT is completely uncool, IMO. And THAT is what I was posting about. Again, my bad if you were simply referring to the decline in price as a game ages (which is, of course, an old and logical marketing technique).
No. This is completely incorrect. The expansions for Civ4 (Warlords and BTS) both added entirely new dimensions to the game. New (base) units (ie not just new unique units from new civs), new systems (like vassals and espionage), new diplomacy options, new technologies, new wonders, new civs AND leaders, new leaders for existing civs, new combat mechanics... THAT is an expansion. BTS was an entirely different game from Vanilla Civ. Warlords wasn't as drastic, but if you played warlords and then went back to vanilla, you felt a major difference (especially because the entire idea of vassals was introduced in warlords). Releasing some leaders and a few wonders piecemeal and making people pay for it is NOT an expansion. It is completing the full VANILLA version of Civ5. The idea of only partially including the Leaders / Wonders with the initial release was well planned ahead of time. It wasn't accidental, nor did they "forget" to include the leaders/wonders. It isn't an expansion, and, therefore, is completely different from the previous versions of Civ.Andoo said:
Ah, but is there actually evidence of that? Just because they had worked on the DLC content before the release of the game does not mean that they were cut. I'm sure they always planned to release them as DLC.
You can object to that if you like, but can you really say that, for all its faults, Civ V was lacking in leaders and wonders? Even without DLC, it launched with 18 civs, just like Civ IV. In this sense, adding six new civilisations over 12 months is really no different to releasing six in an expansion pack. It is irrelevant when they were first conceived.
Besides, even before the age of DLC, I'm sure developers deliberately saved planned features for expansion packs. I have no idea if this happened with Civ IV, but it was certainly the case with The Sims games, each of which have had a pets expansion, for instance.
Do you think when Firaxis released civ4 they had no plans to develop for it further?
And if "die hard" fans choose to distinguish themselves from less hardcore fans by buying all extras for the game at maximum price when they are released, I don't see how that's a problem. It's their choice. No one forces them to do anything. When civ5 released in Australia, EB Games sold the collector's edition for $130 (more than US$130) and they had an exclusive on it. I'm a fairly loyal fan of civ games I'm pretty sure and I bought civ5 at release, but for $40 not the $80 they were asking on Steam or in stores. I spent that money willingly after reading about the game and deciding that even with any shortfalls the game was worth at least that much to me. In other words it was a rational decision at the time and still is. I bought the Babylon DLC when it was released and a few of the other DLCs when they were 66% or 75% off. I don't feel compelled to buy all the DLC to make the game feel complete, especially the Cradle of Civ map packs. Any civs or scenarios I haven't got yet I'll probably pick up when they're cheap in a sale.
All up I've spent about the same on civ5 as I did on civ4 vanilla (which if I recall was about $60).
Civ5 is not quite what I was expecting as a civ fan but I don't immediately translate this to a feeling of being punished by the developer or publisher because of the release of DLCs. They've made a game in the hopes to, in the case of 2K Games hopefully make a profit and in the case of Firaxis to have a job at all. They're not charities. They won't work for free. They have every right to charge as much as they want for what they produce just as customers have every right to decide what price it is they're willing to pay and wait for the product to lower to that price.
If they couldn't make money (to be precise, a minimum ROI) from the game they wouldn't develop and publish it. That's free market / capitalism at work.
If the new pricing structures are absurd then why do they work? It may alienate some fans who object to the concept of DLC but I'm sure they are significantly the minority.
It's a bit insulting to assume that most people are simply like sheep and pay what they do as if they are somehow tricked into doing so. Games are a luxury and people pay for them from their disposable income. People pay what they please and I'm sorry but if that upsets you it's your problem not theirs.
If we were talking about healthcare or education or some other essential product or service, it might be worth worrying over. But it's not - it's a video game.
*******
Re the comparison to the price of an operating system, it doesn't really work. Operating systems are entirely different to video games. For one, OS's reach a much much larger market and also one that is much much more competitive. Both these things obviously have a downward influence on prices.
All software (including OS's) which have unlimited supply are not priced based on cost to produce but rather to maximise (or attempt to maximise) return with the current demand in the market. For instance a lot of indie games are sold for $10 or $15 but in most cases you can bet anything you like the cost to produce them is not anywhere near a 5th or a 3rd (10/50 or 15/50) of the big publisher games which go for $50 typically.
Look at simulator games (or just "simulators" if you prefer not to call them games). They have a very niche market so they have a different pricing model again. They usually have a base program and then "addons" which you buy separately. Consider the hundreds of addons available for Railworks or Microsoft Flight Simulator. There are terrain packs for FSX that cost $100. People buy these things because it's what they want and they're willing to put up the money, not because they're being conned or tricked into spending more than they should.
