DLC business model hurting your company 2k/Firaxis

[Mr. Shadows]

That's a good argument for video games in general, but not necessarily a good argument specifically for Civ VI DLC content IMO. For the price of a few DLCs I could get a whole other video game. If you are a Civ fanatic (ie people on this forum) or a completionist, then maybe you get just as much value from having access to Ethopia, Persia and Poland as you would from a whole other game that you could spend hundreds of hours playing. But I suspect this is not the case for the general gaming audience.

Civ's popularity is based largely on its replay value, which is why it inspires so much loyalty from so many fans. Quality DLC (so far I'm very happy with the way VI is developing) adds fresh interest and a reason to replay a game that I already want to replay. I'd rather have one wonderfully detailed game than divide my attention between a half dozen others. Besides, there aren't many games that inspire me to spend hundreds of hours on them outside the X-Com franchise... which is also made by Firaxis.

 

[Matte979]

I understand that it could be expensive for some people as economy is different depending on your situation.

But capitalism like it or not work this way, its seems we get a lot of complaints in general on pricing of DLC etc. on steam forums.

It's not like you cant play the game without the DLC, if you feel its worth to you buy it, to complain about pricing is just pointless.

I all about a value proposition. Do you see value in the DLC and how much value is it, if you do buy it if not don't.

You can wait until its cheaper etc.

We are not entitled to something at a certain price that fits us, its the other way around.

Somehow we apply a different rule to software and even hardware than other things, makes no sense.

I like that we get a lot of support after release due to DLC financing of development, I always hated when games was not enhanced and fixed over time.

That is what my value proposition for DLC is, you pay a fee to support continued development of a game.

The end result is better, than if you bought 2 games that had no DLC

 

[brasswire]

However, comparing a DLC to an entire game is really unfair. One adds to an existing item and one is something totally different.

Well the original comparison that I was responding to was comparing video game DLC to a movie or novel. It is no more unfair than that. At least with a movie or novel you are getting a complete experience. Civ DLC is merely adding one more option to the list of civs you can choose to play. I can still get hundreds of hours of enjoyment from the game without buying any of the DLC, and I don't feel like getting access to one additional civ is worth $5. If Firaxis is fine with the situation, then that's ok.

 

[Vandlys]

I don't think the DLC model is the problem. The biggest marketing mistake with Civ VI, IMO, was selling the deluxe edition without any info on what the DLC would be. This led to purchasers of the deluxe edition saying they didn't get their money's worth. And they didn't go back and change their reviews when they added the two additional DLC.

Woah, Nelly! It did say that the DLC would grant "access to four/six [added later] DLC packs that will add new civilizations, leaders, scenarios, and more for a bundled discount". It doesn't specify the contents themselves, but it is not like there wasn't 'any info'.

The issue in my opinion is there's no "early adopter" reward. It's actually a trend in the industry as a whole in my opinion. Buy early, you'll pay a premium for the access. Wait 6-12 months, and you'll get much better deals. I think publishers/devs should issue DLC discount coupons for people who bought the game early as a show of gratitude. Unfortunately that doesn't seem like it'll be catching on anytime soon.

The only way to counter it, in my opinion, is to either go big early and get a deluxe pack, or wait it out. If you buy early you have to expect that you're paying extra for the early access. And that goes for more ways than one given how often games need to be patched for core flaws on release.

What? ^^' That would mean just selling it for a lower price, no? If they sell it to early adopter cheaper, and to late adopters, it's just a lower price.
1) If they adopted your model 'mid adopters' would scream that they should get a discount too..
2) If you want to buy something that has just been released, you pay full price. It's how that works with everything. They offer it to you with the most amount of money they can make to earn their profit, to invest and to continue to support the product (or give it to a greedy CEO, in a lot of companies). That's also why they often lower the price later, because it earns them more money, not because it's a favour to people who haven't decided to buy their product yet, or to screw with people who have.

This. There really is no other medium where you get as much entertainment for your money as games. Civ is at .20 euros per hour for me, meaning that one dinner out for 25 euros is 125 hours of playtime. And that's my current time played.

And then there's also League of Legends which I've spent several hundred euros on and is still cheaper per hour than Civ...

I would count board games here too, because I often play them with multiple people so it quadruples the value of entertainment per hour. But yeah, that's also why I buy Civ DLC without hesitation. I'm at 1013 hours since launch, and it will probably still entertain me for another 1000 hours.

Except maybe your library, where you can get books for free!

I guess I really do not understand at all. The game does not feel very expensive? But I do suppose that can be totally relative to your income. I feel to me it's just a personal decision if you feel the addons are worth your money then you buy them, otherwise you don't?

Your libary doesn't offer games? Also, I don't think income is the point here. I mean, your point is absolutely valid, but this is a classic case of customers feeling cheated because they see discounts they can get. I get it, although I don't mind buying a la carte. The Deluxe Edition gets discounted consistently, but the DLC included in that edition does not, which is quite strange indeed. It's a model that rewards new customers, but not existing ones. I get why that would disgruntle some. Me? I think paying full price is still great value for money in Civ's case.

 

[Xur]

You know, if you head on over to the Creation & Customization forum, I'm sure you could find "better AI" mods and "less cartoony graphics" mods for free. Just off the top of my head, AI+ is a perfect example of the former.

You cant mod the AI to be smarter at this point. All that mod does is messing around with priorities. More units is not smarter, just different.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

Well the original comparison that I was responding to was comparing video game DLC to a movie or novel. It is no more unfair than that. At least with a movie or novel you are getting a complete experience. Civ DLC is merely adding one more option to the list of civs you can choose to play. I can still get hundreds of hours of enjoyment from the game without buying any of the DLC, and I don't feel like getting access to one additional civ is worth $5. If Firaxis is fine with the situation, then that's ok.

Absolutely, the dollar per hour of enjoyment is a poor measure on its best day.

 

[Art Morte]

I haven't bought any of the DLCs, because I thought they were too expensive for what they offered. I don't feel like I need them, either. Did buy RnF, though.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Well the original comparison that I was responding to was comparing video game DLC to a movie or novel. It is no more unfair than that. At least with a movie or novel you are getting a complete experience. Civ DLC is merely adding one more option to the list of civs you can choose to play. I can still get hundreds of hours of enjoyment from the game without buying any of the DLC, and I don't feel like getting access to one additional civ is worth $5. If Firaxis is fine with the situation, then that's ok.

I haven't bought any of the DLCs, because I thought they were too expensive for what they offered. I don't feel like I need them, either. Did buy RnF, though.

This is a big part of the economic rationale behind the DLC system. It's the same reason a latte costs so much more than a regular coffee at your local coffee shop. Or why your grocery bill is less if you clip coupons.

Any company would like to sell me their product at a price equal to how much I value it. If they price it above what I value it, I won't buy it at all. If they price it below what I value it, they give up possible revenues as I'm not paying as much as I'm willing to pay. How can they figure out how much I'm willing to pay? By having expensive specialty coffees on their menu alongside regular 'jo, or by offering a host of DLCs that aren't necessary for the core game experience. Or if even the base game price is too much for you, wait and hunt for opportunities to buy it on sale.

 

[Eliminator_Sr]

For my money and taste I get more bang for my buck from Civ than I do out of anything else that I do for entertainment. It's a great value.

Yeah it seems silly to complain about pricing when people are getting 100s of hours of entertainment from the product and the DLC is completely optional. I haven't bought all of them but I have bought most of them at full price and I definitely got my more than my money's worth out of it. Video games in general always seem like a clear win unless they are completely awful.

 

[Karpius]

At least with a movie or novel you are getting a complete experience.

Are you? When I first saw Star Wars, I had no idea it would turn into the franchise it did. So, since I paid full price to see Episode IV, should I have received a discount for each subsequent installment because *my* experience would be incomplete without seeing them?

Likewise, when I first picked up the novel "Game of Thrones", I did not know it was going to carry on for several books. Not once do I recall a discount offer for those who bought the first, second or third books.

As far as value goes, if I divide hours played by money spent I am down to a nickel an hour. (yes, I play alot.) That is far, far less than the Star Wars cinematic franchise and the GoT books put together.

I am afraid I just do not see the logic - or even the ethics - of expecting Firaxis to lower its prices on DLCs when the current model is working just fine and dandy for them. Each of us has the right to decide just how much money we are willing to spend on a product. Likewise, each company is allowed to ask whatever price they feel they can get away with.

 

[DWilson]

I like the DLC. They add value in replayability, but aren't required for a full game. Given that games haven't increased prices in decades, despite notably growing costs, I expect it's a significant part of ensuring games stay profitable.

 

[ChocolateShake]

.

What? ^^' That would mean just selling it for a lower price, no? If they sell it to early adopter cheaper, and to late adopters, it's just a lower price.
1) If they adopted your model 'mid adopters' would scream that they should get a discount too..
2) If you want to buy something that has just been released, you pay full price. It's how that works with everything. They offer it to you with the most amount of money they can make to earn their profit, to invest and to continue to support the product (or give it to a greedy CEO, in a lot of companies). That's also why they often lower the price later, because it earns them more money, not because it's a favour to people who haven't decided to buy their product yet, or to screw with people who have.

It's a model that in my opinion is dangerous for the game industry as a whole. Obviously devs/publishers are free to choose their models. But consider two customers:

Customer A bought Civ 6 at release, decided to go for the standard at $40.

Customer B waited 6 months to buy the game. Surprise! The deluxe edition was on sale for 33% off, at $40. Both customers paid the same rate. But Customer A now has to pay an extra $20-40 (with the later DLC) to get the same amount of content that B got. I'm not sure if that was the case for Civ 6, but it's happening on an industry-level basis. Early buyers are often left to purchase DLC at full price. So consumers who can wait now have a strong incentive to do so. Imagine if Customer A also ended up with a product that on-release had critical flaws that took a few months to get fixed (not saying that was the case with Civ, but some would argue it, and there were some issues). Doesn't it feel like early adopters are being punished at that point? I see this happening on an industry-wide basis.

The early buyers are the most valuable customers since they're ready to pay a higher premium, and are also more likely to pay for DLC and continue to support the game. Not rewarding their loyalty reduces their numbers in the future, and I don't think that's healthy.

I think Firaxis is doing a great job, but I wish they would've given some reward to early buyers of the standard edition, or those who pre-ordered it. I like DLC (I pre-ordered the deluxe) as a model, except in cases like Paradox where it feels like there are so many that you have to conduct research to figure out which would be the most enjoyable. I also really like it when companies offer the opportunity to complete a game at a reduced price.

 

[MaryKB]

I feel what you're missing ChocolateShake is that person A got to play the game for 6 months while person B only could watch, so that really makes a big difference? If I want to play right now then I've got to pay, if it's not really important to me I can wait for a sale, right? If there was never a sale would person B ever even play the game? It mustn't be so important to him or her if not? So they start selling at regular price for everyone who really wants the game, and then they lower it later for people who aren't as interested but will maybe buy when it's cheaper. That really feels like typical normal business to me at least.

 

[Gorbles]

.

It's a model that in my opinion is dangerous for the game industry as a whole. Obviously devs/publishers are free to choose their models. But consider two customers:

Customer A bought Civ 6 at release, decided to go for the standard at $40.

Customer B waited 6 months to buy the game. Surprise! The deluxe edition was on sale for 33% off, at $40. Both customers paid the same rate. But Customer A now has to pay an extra $20-40 (with the later DLC) to get the same amount of content that B got. I'm not sure if that was the case for Civ 6, but it's happening on an industry-level basis. Early buyers are often left to purchase DLC at full price. So consumers who can wait now have a strong incentive to do so. Imagine if Customer A also ended up with a product that on-release had critical flaws that took a few months to get fixed (not saying that was the case with Civ, but some would argue it, and there were some issues). Doesn't it feel like early adopters are being punished at that point? I see this happening on an industry-wide basis.

The early buyers are the most valuable customers since they're ready to pay a higher premium, and are also more likely to pay for DLC and continue to support the game. Not rewarding their loyalty reduces their numbers in the future, and I don't think that's healthy.

I think Firaxis is doing a great job, but I wish they would've given some reward to early buyers of the standard edition, or those who pre-ordered it. I like DLC (I pre-ordered the deluxe) as a model, except in cases like Paradox where it feels like there are so many that you have to conduct research to figure out which would be the most enjoyable. I also really like it when companies offer the opportunity to complete a game at a reduced price.

Customer A got to play the game for six months longer than Customer B.

Is this playtime not worth money?

 

[bite]

In the end of the day Firaxis/2K have very accurate statistics about what is and what is not selling, and clearly the DLC is selling well enough that they don't need to put it on sale and well bully for them.

 

[sonicmyst]

I see no problem with DLCs, though I understand the concerns of others. I play Cities Skylines without most of the DLC because I find them to be a bit expensive and I dont play the game frequently anymore. For Civ, I think if you feel like playing this game more in the future, then I guess DLC pricing should not be an issue.

 

[bbbt]

.

It's a model that in my opinion is dangerous for the game industry as a whole. Obviously devs/publishers are free to choose their models. But consider two customers:

Customer A bought Civ 6 at release, decided to go for the standard at $40.

Customer B waited 6 months to buy the game. Surprise! The deluxe edition was on sale for 33% off, at $40. Both customers paid the same rate. But Customer A now has to pay an extra $20-40 (with the later DLC) to get the same amount of content that B got. I'm not sure if that was the case for Civ 6, but it's happening on an industry-level basis. Early buyers are often left to purchase DLC at full price. So consumers who can wait now have a strong incentive to do so. Imagine if Customer A also ended up with a product that on-release had critical flaws that took a few months to get fixed (not saying that was the case with Civ, but some would argue it, and there were some issues). Doesn't it feel like early adopters are being punished at that point? I see this happening on an industry-wide basis.

This is pretty standard across a lot of things though. See the movie opening weekend, wait for discount Tuesdays, wait for the two dollar theatre, wait for home video/Netlfix. Buy the hardcover, buy the trade paperback, buy the mass-market paperback, etc. Buy the newest model of the Iphone/Car/etc., buy last year's model, etc. It's designed to get the most money out of the biggest fans basically, and the hopefully pick up more money (and new 'fans') later on. I mean when (if) Winds of Winter comes out, you can spend $25 and read it right now or you can wait and read it for $5 in two years, etc.

 

[ChocolateShake]

@MaryKB, @Gorbles, @bbbt: I understand regarding the premium to pay for early access, the thing that's getting dangerous regarding the game industry though in my opinion is that the release versions are getting rushed in favor of DLC and sales. If I bought a phone for $400 on release only to find that it had a lot of bugs etc., and I then noticed 6 months later it was in a package for the same price but with $200 worth of accessories thrown in and key bugs fixed, I don't think I'd feel too good about buying it on release. It's up to the buyer of course to take responsibility for their purchase, if that situation had occurred to me you could bet I wouldn't buy the next phone from that company on release again.

I'm not saying that sales are bad, on the contrary I like them. What I'd prefer to avoid is having early buyers getting significantly punished in favor of waiting for sales. In this case I'm referring to buyers of the standard edition on release. I'm sure most of them expected the DLC to go on sale at some point, instead they got "locked in" to buying the DLC at full price for quite a while. I don't think they'd be willing to buy on-release again in the future, and I'm guessing on-release numbers are key to getting a game funded in the future.

That kind of trend is I think unhealthy, that early buyers often end up getting put in bad positions regarding DLC. Especially when game-industry standards regarding releases are going down, not up, so buying early also means now that you might have to deal with critical bugs. Civ 6 was in a good state on release, but it did feel a little rushed. I think Firaxis is doing a great job in general, I just wish they'd taken that extra step to try to reward the loyal part of the fanbase that got the standard on release. An upgrade option for early buyers would in my opinion ensure that they feel ready to buy on release again in the future, and continue to support the devs. I don't think a decline in early sales is in the interest of the gaming industry as a whole. I like DLC, I just think a new model needs to be put in place.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I bought the standard rather than the Deluxe Edition but have subsequently bought all of the DLC. The DLC packs are cheaper than a pint at my local and I need a reason to drink less anyway, win win.

 

[NukeAJS]

I would agree that the prices for the individual DLCs are too much from a consumer's POV. $5-$7 dollars 6 times is basically an entire expansion without any other cool mechanics.

However ..

What really matters is the actual data -- is the price so high that they'd actually make more money by lowering the price and selling more units? That's really the only question that matters. This is a business after all.