CIV6 false advertisement by Fireaxis?

[TheMeInTeam]

It's not good practice to have these pay-in-advance moves give so little value, and it's not good practice by the market to accept it. That said, I'm not seeing false advertising here. That's more Paradox's department (Firaxis doesn't tell us cross platform MP works and advertise it as a selling point). Granted, cross-platform MP doesn't work here either, but at least Firaxis isn't blatantly lying about that in their ads (the non-windows updates even say this point blank for "convenience")...I haven't noticed anything in the ads that is a blatant lie.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

Ugh; it's always embarrassing to admit one is wrong on the internet because the vultures swoop in and kick you when you are down. Go easy on me.

To be fair, I did turn the snark up. That type of thinking is pretty prevalent (and drives me nuts) since otherwise every year we wouldn't have all the car companies do their "win black Friday" commercials where they explain how while your neighbors are saving hundreds buying stupid gifts you could SAVE THOUSANDS just buy a $50,000 car. But great on you for taking a breath and thinking about it more rationally, hats off.

So the base game, consisting of 20 civs (or was it 19 civs 20 leaders?) should cost 80 dollars for civs, and then more because there's also wonders, map scripts, etc in there?

No. The more content you put together, the cheaper every single part should become. That's how purchasing more things has worked basically... forever.

EDIT: I do want to say, I'm happy with my purchase, but they are very much walking on the line of not delivering what they promiesd.

That isn't how that works. You are talking about bulk purchasing which at only 2 items, may not kick in.

What you are basically talking about is, more or less, are economies of scale. Things can be priced lower in groups ONLY if there are sufficient fixed costs to spread over the items. When making a product you have two types of costs, fixed and variable. Fixed costs remain constant no matter how many items you make, while variable costs will go up or down depending on how many you make. So depending on the proportion that these costs make up of an item will determine what, if any, costs can be saved by producing more (which will, in turn, lead to savings to the consumer).

So we need to look at what are the cost savings by producing 2 civs here. It isn't in the high level dev costs stuff like this is already priced across anything created after the 1st civ (in other words every civ past the 1st civ has the same share). There are no art team savings (the overall style costs again are shared across all equally) as each civ (should) need the same amount of unique art team time. Same for all other creative team content. So where would the savings actually lie, well in most areas this is in packaging and distribution. Since this is a digital good, packaging is out, and we are left with basically just the distribution costs. So the teams that deal with marketing, promotion, and ultimate distribution are where the costs can be saved by packaging multiple items together. That is going to be a pretty small proportion of the overall product. As such, any savings that can be passed onto the consumer are going to also be small or non-existant.

 

[MadDjinn]

So the base game, consisting of 20 civs (or was it 19 civs 20 leaders?) should cost 80 dollars for civs, and then more because there's also wonders, map scripts, etc in there?

No. The more content you put together, the cheaper every single part should become. That's how purchasing more things has worked basically... forever.

No, you are trying to compare oranges to video games. While yes, mass manufacturing leads to lower per part costs and therefore lower end user costs, that's not how everything works for anything else. Even then, mass manufacturing has only been around for a tiny amount of forever.

Especially since 'how many civs' is not a viable comparator to the oranges. The base game has a tone of stuff in it that is not a 'civ' and yet still needs to be cost covered. Dlc are priced at whatever the publisher says they are priced and that's it. Steam sales take care of people who disagree with that price.

Suffice to say, it's actually "we made more so you pay more" wrt. 1 civ vs 2 civs DLCs.

Only those who had the price of the fourth dlc spike past 2x the cost of a previous one can complain that the price was jacked to cover some arses. Only Brazil so far (confirmed anyways) can say they paid too much for the digital deluxe compared to the 4 dlc prices.

 

[Leyrann]

No, you are trying to compare oranges to video games. While yes, mass manufacturing leads to lower per part costs and therefore lower end user costs, that's not how everything works for anything else. Even then, mass manufacturing has only been around for a tiny amount of forever.

Especially since 'how many civs' is not a viable comparator to the oranges. The base game has a tone of stuff in it that is not a 'civ' and yet still needs to be cost covered. Dlc are priced at whatever the publisher says they are priced and that's it. Steam sales take care of people who disagree with that price.

Suffice to say, it's actually "we made more so you pay more" wrt. 1 civ vs 2 civs DLCs.

Only those who had the price of the fourth dlc spike past 2x the cost of a previous one can complain that the price was jacked to cover some arses. Only Brazil so far (confirmed anyways) can say they paid too much for the digital deluxe compared to the 4 dlc prices.

I'm actually not sure right now wheter I've not been confusing numbers with all the different currencies mentioned in this thread... In euro's the prices are fine in my opinion, the first three DLC's being 4,99 and the last one 8,99 with the deluxe edition costing 20 extra. I really thought I saw people mention things like the first three being 3,99 in a currency and the last 7,99 when imo it should be 7,49 at most in a case like this. Maybe it's just me though. In euro's it's fine.

Also, I kinda considered the edited-in part in my previous post quite important, not sure why you omitted it.

 

[OnceAKing]

Far from a 2K apologist, but I just want to point out that technically the Aztec 90 day advance civ was also considered DLC if I remember correct. So maybe one could argue an additional savings of between $1.23 - $5 US.

I came to that numher judging on the basis that since there wasn't a map pack or scenario we could cut the normal price in half. So $5. Then accounted for the fact that pre-orders got an additional 24.6% of a year with the civ so $1.23

However I personally think that while they're in the right in this case. We CANNOT continue to pre-order going forward if you feel it wasn't a worthy savings to basically give them a cash advance loan. They only learn by economics. So give them the incentive to offer a better value proposition. Plus I knew it'd be buggy going off the Civ 5 and Civ Beyond experience. I refuse to be a beta tester.

I trust Firaxis but I'll gladly pay them good money when they deliver on a complete solid game. And allow me to pick and choose more ethnically diverse Civs that should have been in the game in the first place. I don't need 3 versions of Greece.

 

[MadDjinn]

Far from a 2K apologist, but I just want to point out that technically the Aztec 90 day advance civ was also considered DLC if I remember correct. So maybe one could argue an additional savings of between $1.23 - $5 US.

Actually it was not dlc. The Aztecs were always a purely bonus civ and some just got it earlier. no one will have to pay for them so there is no savings on 0 cost.

 

[SomeGuyHere]

I apologise if this had been mentioned - I haven't seen it yet. I am also in no way linked to the following channel.

What do people think of this?

 

[nicki_boy777]

Thats just stupid...

As previously discussed I also agree the deluxe edition is a huge disappointment. I will not be so easily fooled in the future.

 

[DWilson]

Except for the few places in which people actually were ripped off due to 2K's pricings, the deluxe edition was probably more than anyone should have expected (no maps or leader only packs, for example). There is a thread for this already, however.

Moderator Action: Threads merged

 

[DJ_Tanner]

As it has been discussed before, it is unfortunate that it happened but currency translation issues can arise over the course of 8-12 months. DD prices were set a long time ago and the DLC prices were set recently; how local currencies stack up against the dollar can cause fluctuations. The Brazilian Real has been strong vs the dollar in that time period. I would imagine they are working with those that were impacted by the issue to resolve it.

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

The problem is, the original DD price is still listed there as R$ 189,00. The price hasn't fluctuated since, so anyone who looks at that and at the summed final price can't help but think (the Portuguese equivalent, of course) "WTF?"

 

[GamerZakh]

In his Macedon and Persia videos, GamerZakh pointed out that the Digital Deluxe was more expensive than just buying the base game and the DLCs separately.

be careful quoting someone who was wrong, already admitted it in the comments section, but then left the inflammatory bit in the video so that he still gets views.

In the videos he complained about them as separate dlc offerings (from what I saw in his comments). So he rushed to complain without knowing anything (go figure).

but, when you look at the actual prices on steam... yup, it's cheaper to buy the DDx in Malaysia.

Not saying that they *didn't* purposely inflate the price of this latest DLC to make that happen, but it's kinda obvious.

I feel like I need to clarify this because nothing you guys are saying is true or what I said in the videos at all.

1. I never said that the price of the Digital Deluxe edition in Malaysia was more expensive than buying the DLC à la carte.

2. If I make a falsely 'inflammatory' video and it turns out that I was severely wrong, I delete the video. The videos in question are my 2 on Persia and Macedon, and the latest one specifically on Brazil prices. In the Persia and Macedon videos, I never say exactly what is going to happen. This was before the price of the final DLC was revealed btw. I set up an A or B scenario:
A = The Persia/Macedon DLC would be free and doesn't count towards the Digital Deluxe edition because the content doesn't justify 3x or 4x the price of the previous DLC, which I said was unlikely to happen
B = They add more content that will be made available for Digital Deluxe owners, so either more content in this DLC (which we now know there isn't) or a 5th DLC added to the initial 4 included in Digital Deluxe
I then said if it's either not A or B, the only way to not break laws is artificially inflating the price, which seems to have happened in some regions. This is kind of option C. And if it wasn't A, B, or C, then it would be breaking the law and be false advertising, which I never ever expected to happen, but then Brazil happened and I made a video on that.

3. Even if these videos are a little 'inflammatory' for your tastes, I'm especially leaving them up because I can't find many people at all talking about this issue on YouTube.

4. I don't know what you're referring to when you say that I admitted in the comments section that I was wrong. Wrong about what? Just asking this so we're on the same page.

5. In my videos I complained about them as separate DLC offerings? I never complained about the DLC existing or that they were bad DLC, except that I have said in the past that the Viking DLC is not worth the same price as the new civ DLCs. "(from what I saw in his comments)", are you referring to a specific comment or is this something in the video?

6. I confirmed in my latest video once the price of the new DLC was revealed that it was not breaking any laws and still had savings in Malaysia. My issue with Malaysian prices is that RM35 is way too high compared to the other DLC at RM12. Even with the 0.02 increase in the exchange rate since the release of Civ 6, the latest DLC should be RM25, and even in that situation 12+12+12+25=61, which would be an RM1 saving in Malaysian prices. This is on the issue of inflated prices, related to the Brazil issue but still separate.

I hope this clarifies things and what my videos were actually about. Yes, be careful about quoting someone who was wrong but also be careful about misquoting people too.

 

[Mesix]

I always wait for a Steam Sale to buy games. Digital Deluxe was ~30% off IIRC.

 

[MadDjinn]

I feel like I need to clarify this because nothing you guys are saying is true or what I said in the videos at all.

1. I never said that the price of the Digital Deluxe edition in Malaysia was more expensive than buying the DLC à la carte.

2. If I make a falsely 'inflammatory' video and it turns out that I was severely wrong, I delete the video. The videos in question are my 2 on Persia and Macedon, and the latest one specifically on Brazil prices. In the Persia and Macedon videos, I never say exactly what is going to happen. This was before the price of the final DLC was revealed btw. I set up an A or B scenario:
A = The Persia/Macedon DLC would be free and doesn't count towards the Digital Deluxe edition because the content doesn't justify 3x or 4x the price of the previous DLC, which I said was unlikely to happen
B = They add more content that will be made available for Digital Deluxe owners, so either more content in this DLC (which we now know there isn't) or a 5th DLC added to the initial 4 included in Digital Deluxe
I then said if it's either not A or B, the only way to not break laws is artificially inflating the price, which seems to have happened in some regions. This is kind of option C. And if it wasn't A, B, or C, then it would be breaking the law and be false advertising, which I never ever expected to happen, but then Brazil happened and I made a video on that.

3. Even if these videos are a little 'inflammatory' for your tastes, I'm especially leaving them up because I can't find many people at all talking about this issue on YouTube.

4. I don't know what you're referring to when you say that I admitted in the comments section that I was wrong. Wrong about what? Just asking this so we're on the same page.

5. In my videos I complained about them as separate DLC offerings? I never complained about the DLC existing or that they were bad DLC, except that I have said in the past that the Viking DLC is not worth the same price as the new civ DLCs. "(from what I saw in his comments)", are you referring to a specific comment or is this something in the video?

6. I confirmed in my latest video once the price of the new DLC was revealed that it was not breaking any laws and still had savings in Malaysia. My issue with Malaysian prices is that RM35 is way too high compared to the other DLC at RM12. Even with the 0.02 increase in the exchange rate since the release of Civ 6, the latest DLC should be RM25, and even in that situation 12+12+12+25=61, which would be an RM1 saving in Malaysian prices. This is on the issue of inflated prices, related to the Brazil issue but still separate.

I hope this clarifies things and what my videos were actually about. Yes, be careful about quoting someone who was wrong but also be careful about misquoting people too.

Most of my comments were directed at people referencing your videos, not the content thereof specifically.

Inflammatory might have been the wrong word. Rushed to comment before knowing things? It's usually an ok strategy, but sometimes backfires. In this case, it led people to come here and complain more even if they may not have read the comments that would have explained that the video had bad info in it. And for those that still reference the previous two videos without watching the brand new one that clarified it all, well the videos are still there.

My comment about 'being wrong' was more about the videos and initially you suggesting it was a single DLC, but then you pinned a comment to clarify that you knew later it was a double civ DLC on the Persia video. Though, "That would still be false advertising." is still in your pinned comment on the Persia video. An Opinion, but legally false and definitely wrong.

My last few comments were actually unrelated to what you had said, but more to what others in the thread were mistating wrt to the pricing in Malaysia and elsewhere (aside from Brazil) and 'false advertising'. Then I pointed out that they did look to have boosted the price of the 4th DLC in some places, and in Malaysia's case 3x the price of the previous DLCs did mean they charged more there to cover their butts. Compare that to a 2x cost of DLC 4 vs DLC 1-2-3 in most other places.

that was it.

 

[WileyWilson]

OP.
I bought the £40 base game of Civ 6 and will buy the DLC only when it is on 50% sale. Even if I have to wait a couple of years.
I wouldn't be too happy if I ended up paying more for the "full package" than individual items. As a general personal rule, I don't buy anything unless I know exactly what I am going to get.

 

[GamerZakh]

Most of my comments were directed at people referencing your videos, not the content thereof specifically.

Inflammatory might have been the wrong word. Rushed to comment before knowing things? It's usually an ok strategy, but sometimes backfires. In this case, it led people to come here and complain more even if they may not have read the comments that would have explained that the video had bad info in it. And for those that still reference the previous two videos without watching the brand new one that clarified it all, well the videos are still there.

My comment about 'being wrong' was more about the videos and initially you suggesting it was a single DLC, but then you pinned a comment to clarify that you knew later it was a double civ DLC on the Persia video. Though, "That would still be false advertising." is still in your pinned comment on the Persia video. An Opinion, but legally false and definitely wrong.

My last few comments were actually unrelated to what you had said, but more to what others in the thread were mistating wrt to the pricing in Malaysia and elsewhere (aside from Brazil) and 'false advertising'. Then I pointed out that they did look to have boosted the price of the 4th DLC in some places, and in Malaysia's case 3x the price of the previous DLCs did mean they charged more there to cover their butts. Compare that to a 2x cost of DLC 4 vs DLC 1-2-3 in most other places.

that was it.

Ah thank you so much for clarifying!

I did rush a little to comment on the issue but it was something I've never seen before in the industry and no one was talking about it. Seems some people misunderstood what I was saying because it was unclear at parts, sorry about that.

Also, thanks for pointing out that my pinned comment could be misunderstood. The point I was making in that was that the next DLC is only worth 24 at most, even though it's only got 2 civs and 1 scenario, when previous DLC has 1 civ and 1 scenario valued at 12. So I was saying that the content they were saying was in the new DLC wasn't worth 24 and that if they charged that or more than that it would be artificial inflation. I have just added an edit to clarify the point now that we know it's RM35 for Malaysians. The false advertising was me predicting that it could really be an issue, and it happened in Brazil, so I did actually call that correctly. It was possible that it could've happened in Malaysia if they priced the new DLC at 24, as they should have.

 

[sonicmyst]

While we all agree that the combined cost of the individual DLC versus pre-ordered DDE seems like a rip-off, I think we should move forward the discussion in what Firaxis/2K should do to compensate.

I, for one, would like a free DLC that only contains a map pack and world builder patch. (Asking for a free civ / leader / scenario seems too much, I think)

 

[c4c6]

Technically a Brazilian/Russian gamer, who bought the DDE instead of the base game using Real/Ruble, changed implicit the price difference in US$, because the DLCs are _later_ priced on the base of the altered exchange rates valid _then_.
Relative to this "deposit" in US$ the buying power of their national currency strengthened (Real) or weakened (Ruble). Ie. their US$-"deposit" lost/gained value.
A symmetric double-sided sword.

(Maybe 2k should have used a disclaimer related to the 'saving': "this statement is based on US$ and might be influenced by currency exchange rates."
Or should give the Brazilian gamers etc. a refund now, while not being able to get additional money from the Russian gamers etc. ... )

The last DLC was a bit light for some countries, probably trying to cover those issues. A second scenario or some maps (wonders, city states) would have felt appropriate to me. As sonicmyst pointed out, a nice map pack along with the world builder patch could mend some 'goodwill'.

 

[MadDjinn]

There was a nice chart at launch showing who over or underpaid (USD being the balance point) and some countries got the game for nearly nothing.

So they definitely didn't take currency conversion into account for all countries.

 

[Loxas]

And that's why i never buy this kind of stuff, deluxe editions, season passes, etc. This is not the first time I hear something like that, I think street fighter v, but not sure.
Heck, I bought regular edition of civ 6 and I knew the game would need massive changes in lots of aspects, but damn, can't resist. Pretty much every other game I would wait for goty edition on steam sale. Now I'll wait no matter how long for all those dlc's to be dirty cheap before buying them.

PS: BR here too, so I understand your pain.