Congratulations to CFC for getting us FREE DLC! (the mongols)

[ZimbuTheMonkey]

The major problem is that we are used to much better and this frankly is garbage.

For example, with cIV, you would get expansions that would add at least 6 Civs/Leaders plus a lot of new content. That would sell for around $30. So, yes, you are playing $5 a Civ but you also get a lot more new content.

If Babylon was $2 or $2.50 I'd say that was a fair price actually. If they are not giving any extra stuff to go along with it.

Why do you think DLC and expansions are mutually exclusive?

Has there been any indication that there won't be expansions just as fully-featured as Civ IV's expansions?

DLC is not an expansion, it's just DLC.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Look, I want stuff as cheaply as possible same as anyone. But saying $2.50 is the limit to what "anyone" should be asked to pay is a pretty strong position. You don't know what my gaming budget looks like - if I've got a good income, $5 could be pretty much irrelevant to me. The purpose of DLC is to provide an additional revenue stream for the company, so the pricing of DLC should be whatever nets the most additional profit ($5 might be on the high side, but I have no data whatsoever on this and neither do you - we're both just extrapolating from our own budgets). Setting it at $5 instead of $2.50 will certainly price out some people, but it won't price out others and we have no data available on how many people will be priced out. It could be 5%, it could be 95%.

I'll say what I said about DLC before launch - if it's not worth it to you (Babylon at $5 isn't worth it to me), don't buy it, but at least appreciate what DLC does for gaming. The cost to create a game has drastically increased over the last 10 years, while the price to sell a game has increased by much less. You have to sell a lot more copies to break even than you used to have to sell, and many games have always fallen short - it's a boom-or-bust industry. DLC puts more games at or above the break-even mark. That makes games a safer investment for the people with money, and that means more games made. This is true even on the obvious megahits, since the big hits pay for the flops and pay for companies taking risks; more revenue for game companies means more money going into new games.

The alternative to DLC is jacking the base price up to $70, $80 or whatever for no additional content. DLC is, overall, better for gamers than the reverse situation, since you can at least say no to it without passing on the game itself.

You make a good point and one that many people around here don't appear to appreciate. The way I see it, games like civ4 and even civ5 are effectively a massive bargain. I bought my copy for $40, but I would have paid $100 if that was the cheapest available. Heck probably even $200.

This same old argument of "divide up the price of the base game by number of civs and ... *does some irrelevant arithmetic* ... ripoff" is getting really boring. It's an attempt to break down some good into its component parts, which is something we rarely do for other products.

I can understand if people think it's too expensive - too much for what they're willing to pay - but to justify it based on an end-user cost breakdown of components is just pointless.

Oops, nearly forgot. IMO

 

[Thormodr]

You make a good point and one that many people around here don't appear to appreciate. The way I see it, games like civ4 and even civ5 are effectively a massive bargain. I bought my copy for $40, but I would have paid $100 if that was the cheapest available. Heck probably even $200.

This same old argument of "divide up the price of the base game by number of civs and ... *does some irrelevant arithmetic* ... ripoff" is getting really boring. It's an attempt to break down some good into its component parts, which is something we rarely do for other products.

I can understand if people think it's too expensive - too much for what they're willing to pay - but to justify it based on an end-user cost breakdown of components is just pointless.

I wish they'd just be up front with us. Say that PC gaming is dying and that the price of games has to go up because it's essentially a niche game. The base game has to go up to $70. I think most long time lovers of Civ would be ok with this.

These things are all perfectly understandable. The problem is that Firaxis and 2K Games have horrible communication skills with their fanbase.

 

[eviltypeguy]

You make a good point and one that many people around here don't appear to appreciate. The way I see it, games like civ4 and even civ5 are effectively a massive bargain. I bought my copy for $40, but I would have paid $100 if that was the cheapest available. Heck probably even $200.

This same old argument of "divide up the price of the base game by number of civs and ... *does some irrelevant arithmetic* ... ripoff" is getting really boring. It's an attempt to break down some good into its component parts, which is something we rarely do for other products.

I can understand if people think it's too expensive - too much for what they're willing to pay - but to justify it based on an end-user cost breakdown of components is just pointless.

Indeed; I'd love to see the same apologists apply that logic to movies and food. After all, people will happily pay $10-20 for a ticket to a movie that lasts 1.5 hours, but <deity> forbid that someone price a new Civilization at $5 that they can play hours and hours (indefinitely, really).

 

[Louis XXIV]

I wish they'd just be up front with us. Say that PC gaming is dying and that the price of games has to go up because it's essentially a niche game. The base game has to go up to $70. I think most long time lovers of Civ would be ok with this.

These things are all perfectly understandable. The problem is that Firaxis and 2K Games have horrible communication skills with their fanbase.

What if they had said that, because of those considerations, they'll keep the same price, but add additional content for a fee? Would long time Civ fans be OK with that? I feel that raising the price to $70 up front hurts buyers on the margin who would buy it for 50. After they buy the game, they might be willing to buy additions for small extra prices that add up to 70, but not at once (the time it is spread out helps defray the extra cost).

 

[Wardancing]

I wish they'd just be up front with us. Say that PC gaming is dying and that the price of games has to go up because it's essentially a niche game.

Why do people keep saying PC gaming is dying?

http://store.steampowered.com/news/4502/

Steam has 30m users... yeah you know what? PC gaming is dead. Piracy keeps people from buying GOOD games. LOL

PC gaming is there, 30m just for steam, how many people pay monthly for World of Waldo? Now what about all the other games combined? See? Piracy isnt the problem, PC gaming dying isnt the problem either.

Seems to me, bad products dont get sales like they used to.

 

[Mathalamus]

yeah whats up with that? people keep saying PC gaming is dying, and nearly everyone is moving to consoles. i just feel the need to mention that desktop computers are inherently more powerful than consoles.

 

[Morningcalm]

Indeed; I'd love to see the same apologists apply that logic to movies and food. After all, people will happily pay $10-20 for a ticket to a movie that lasts 1.5 hours, but <deity> forbid that someone price a new Civilization at $5 that they can play hours and hours (indefinitely, really).

Sure, but a movie is a new thing, a DLC is simply a small add-on to the original (for example, if we're talking Civ 5 DLC--the rest of the content may well be stuff you played to death, and you're simply going to play against Genghis Khan (to view his model, interact with him, listen to his music) or play as him....doesn't last long. A good movie, on the other hand, may be much more memorable.

 

[Achilleslastand]

This is like a slap in the face. If they had any honor and dignity they would admit the games mistakes and shortfalls and please the people that pay their salaries instead of this 5 bucks per civ nonsense.
Im voting with my wallet.

 

[pdome01]

Why don't you just buy the Nations that you must have this moment, otherwise wait to buy the first expansion. Thats what Im going to do. There probably isn't any need to complain and go on and on about nothing. However I do find it all very amusing so either way.

 

[PieceOfMind]

These things are all perfectly understandable. The problem is that Firaxis and 2K Games have horrible communication skills with their fanbase.

It's easy to criticise 2K for having poor communication skills, but it takes two (or more) to communicate, and the reception of the message is just as important as the transmission. Perhaps if the fanbase didn't react so fanatically, 2K and Firaxis would have a bit more space to have reasoned discussion.

Of course, rhetoric like "this game is completely unacceptable" isn't going to build any bridges, is it?

I don't wish to outright defend 2K for their communication to the fans at fansites, as I do think it could be done a lot better, but in fairness, the way their representatives get treated at times makes me understand why they find it difficult. For example, every statement that ever gets said gets automatically translated to a promise.

 

[Thormodr]

It's easy to criticise 2K for having poor communication skills, but it takes two (or more) to communicate, and the reception of the message is just as important as the transmission. Perhaps if the fanbase didn't react so fanatically, 2K and Firaxis would have a bit more space to have reasoned discussion.

Of course, rhetoric like "this game is completely unacceptable" isn't going to build any bridges, is it?

I don't wish to outright defend 2K for their communication to the fans at fansites, as I do think it could be done a lot better, but in fairness, the way their representatives get treated at times makes me understand why they find it difficult. For example, every statement that ever gets said gets automatically translated to a promise.

The way the game was released far too early makes it completely unacceptable in my books. If they are offended by my bluntness then too darn bad I say. They deserve a lot worse in my opinion.

I honestly don't think playing nice with them is going to work. Their trail of tears and broken promises with other games gives them near zero credibility.

They simply need to do much, much better. I'll agree with you on that.

 

[Desper_Taferro]

So it finally will make some sense to conquer a continent with a bunch of horsemen.

 

[PieceOfMind]

@Thormodr,

What would have made the game 'partly unacceptable' to you, or 'mostly unacceptable'?

 

[Fistalis]

@Thormodr,

What would have made the game 'partly unacceptable' to you, or 'mostly unacceptable'?

I can't speak for thor but personally.
Steam requirement, Removal of so many features, changing micromanagment dynamics into macromanagment dynamics, AI that "plays to win".
Removal of any one of those complaints from my list would have made it mostly unacceptable.. removal of 2 would make it partially and removal of all 4 would make it acceptable.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I can't speak for thor but personally.
Steam requirement, Removal of so many features, AI that "plays to win".
Removal of any one of those complaints from my list would have made it mostly unacceptable.. removal of 2 would make it partially and removal of all 3 would make it acceptable.

So if it--oh, I don't know--administered a strong electric shock every time you booted it up, would it be more totally unacceptable than it is now?

 

[Fistalis]

So if it--oh, I don't know--administered a strong electric shock every time you booted it up, would it be more totally unacceptable than it is now?

Can't get more unacceptable than totally unacceptable.

Definition of TOTALLY
: in a total manner : to a total or complete degree : wholly, entirely

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Can't get more unacceptable than totally unacceptable.

That's kind of my point.

So if the game gave you a shock, or burned your house down, or didn't run, or crashed your PC--it wouldn't be a worse product?

Or even for more reasonable issues, you can't possibly conceive of a way that it could be worse?

 

[Fistalis]

That's kind of my point.

So if the game gave you a shock, or burned your house down, or didn't run, or crashed your PC--it wouldn't be a worse product?

Or even for more reasonable issues, you can't possibly conceive of a way that it could be worse?

I stated my opinion whats the point of trying to play word games?

Totally unacceptable means it is wholly unacceptable.. it doesn't mean it couldn't be worse. It simply means that it is unacceptable in its entirety.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

It just seems pretty extreme to me, that's all. That's okay I guess.