DLC business model hurting your company 2k/Firaxis

[MaryKB]

I really don't understand, I don't feel there is any punishment at all if I get to play the game right away rather than waiting a long time for a discounted price. It's like I can pay $20 for a new movie when it comes out on blu-ray or I can wait for however long for it to be on Netflix or HBO or something and not pay extra, but I'm choosing buying now at full price or waiting an unknown time so I can see it for less. Just because I buy a movie now that I really want to have and see doesn't mean I'm going to get angry or something when I see it's on Amazon Prime a year later.

I don't feel the phones or cars makes sense either, like usually there are only sales when the new models come out, so I can either get like the old one cheaper or the brand new one right away? There's always a trade off but it's not a punishment.

I bought Civilization 6 the first time just as the standard, but when I had to buy it again I bought the deluxe. I feel the lesson more is that next time I'll buy the deluxe right away if I felt it was a better deal, and not skip the game entirely. I feel that everyone who really wants to play right away is going to pay to play when it comes out and not wait, and people who will wait aren't the same level of dedicated fans of the game and might not even buy it at all if there's never a sale, so it makes sense the company'd have different pricing strategies for everyone? Now if like when it first comes out and I got to Steam and say "I only sorta want it, so I'll give you $30" and they took the money and gave it to me right away, then I could totally understand people who paid full price feeling ripped off, because we both got the game at the same time.

 

[Karpius]

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.

What you really want is for people to NOT purchase upon release so that the company is forced to lower prices to encourage sales. Right now, people tend to flock to new products and that is generally the prime time for the company to make the most profit per unit. The public is also quite aware that if they wait long enough, prices will likely come down unless constant demand remains incredibly high, yet they still tend to rush buy anything new and shiney. In the end, its the people who generally determine the price simply by buying or not buying. So you should really rant against those of us WILLING to spend now, rather than wait and save a few bucks later.

The trend you have deemed "unhealthy" is an ongoing trend across many consumer products. From electronics to fashion, from media to home goods. Truthfully, I can't remember a time it wasn't like this.

Just last year my wife purchased some fancy handbag for herself (don't ask what designer because I have no idea) for over $100. It was something she never does for herself. Six months later the same store put the same bag on sale at half price. She was miffed. She lamented not having waited for the sale. I told her to stop worrying about it because she bought what she wanted when she wanted it. She still loves the bag, by the way.

 

[ChocolateShake]

@MaryKB, @Karpius: I guess my problem is that games are getting released in an incomplete state. It's one thing when the product is complete, then you can say you were able to get the full enjoyment out of it at the time of release; but sadly that's not the case anymore. Now it's becoming more and more the case that you get to enjoy 80-90% of the content but the rest is bugged, etc. So many games now are released at full price in an incomplete state that it's completely driven me away from buying on release. I've reserved it to Civ and a few other games that might interest me.

Using the movie analogy, imagine if you bought an "online only" movie that had 10 mins or so missing. And then six months later you see the special edition version of the movie on sale at the same price, but now the 10 mins are there, and the new buyers get the extras that come with the special. I definitely agree with the concept of being happy with a purchase and not getting upset about not waiting, but I think that concept starts to run into issues when the product/service that you purchased ends up being incomplete. That's mostly only possible with software I guess.

I know DLC is here to stay, it seems like companies want to offer games as a service, and I can see why that's necessary. DLC is almost always welcome. I just hope that at the very least in the future more care is given not to rush releases. But I know how that'll turn out

 

[Karpius]

@MaryKB, @Karpius: I guess my problem is that games are getting released in an incomplete state.

But its really not incomplete. When I first bought the vanilla version I was able to play complete games just as I expected. I got what I thought I was paying for. Then Firaxis said, "oh look! Additional content!" and I decided - of my own free will - to purchase the additional content. Then Firaxis said, "oh look! An expansion!" and I right away purchased the expansion. At no time did I have an incomplete game. Now I have a game with *extras*. How Firaxis chooses to market their extras and how they choose to price them is entirely up to them, just as it is entirely up to me to choose to buy now, later or never. I am well aware that I may end up paying twice as much by buying each release seperetely rather than waiting for some bundle later that might come at a glorious discount. I don't want to wait! Firaxis knows that many of us won't wait. Firaxis seizes upon that opportunity to charge what they can get away with. It business! Its good business!

Was "Star Wars Episode IV, A New Hope" an incomplete movie because of all the sequels to come? No. It stands alone quite well, but if you want to know more of the story, you need to see the other movies that no one knew in 1977 would even exist. So did I pay too high a price to go see Star Wars in 1977 since it was only the first of many movies? (Not mention a blockbuster in other media as well)

 

[MaryKB]

Or @Karpius I feel it's like the Lord of the Rings, and like a year later we got the new version that was like an extra hour longer with all those added scenes. @ChocolateShake the way I feel is not that it's incomplete, but these days we are so spoiled because we just keep getting more and more, lol. I remember the first Civilization game we never got anything extra at all, but now after they finish a game they keep doing more work on it so we'll get extra events to enjoy!

 

[Karpius]

they keep doing more work on it so we'll get extra events to enjoy!

Enjoy....and pay for! We mustn't forget that part!

 

[Mr. Shadows]

I'd like to point out that there are a lot of pay-to-play and pay-to-win models that are flagrantly opportunistic and even unethical, but Firaxis does not engage in that behavior. They also don't require us to have a special account with them that can then be hacked ala UPlay. Opinions on this or that DLC will differ but I far prefer engaging with Firaxis' business model than many other game developers. I hope they're successful enough to reinvest a pile into the next expansion and Civ VII. There are real bad guys out there, why not save the grief for them?

 

[ChocolateShake]

But its really not incomplete. When I first bought the vanilla version I was able to play complete games just as I expected. I got what I thought I was paying for. Then Firaxis said, "oh look! Additional content!" and I decided - of my own free will - to purchase the additional content. Then Firaxis said, "oh look! An expansion!" and I right away purchased the expansion. At no time did I have an incomplete game.

That's I guess where I may be too harsh, I thought that some of the AI issues on release made the game feel rushed. It didn't bother me personally, but there were some aspects that I felt should've been addressed, like the AI making greater use of its navy and air-force. I didn't mean to imply that I considered that the DLC itself was the incomplete part. I think Civ 6 was in good shape on release, just that there were some aspects that needed work.

I personally paid up front for the deluxe edition, so I have no problem with that, and I did the same for Rise and Fall. I want Firaxis to make money, I realize they have to operate like a business. I just wish they had given the early buyers of the standard a limited-time upgrade route or something, before they had announced the additional DLC that would be included past the first 4. But again that's their choice.

Or @Karpius I feel it's like the Lord of the Rings, and like a year later we got the new version that was like an extra hour longer with all those added scenes. @ChocolateShake the way I feel is not that it's incomplete, but these days we are so spoiled because we just keep getting more and more, lol. I remember the first Civilization game we never got anything extra at all, but now after they finish a game they keep doing more work on it so we'll get extra events to enjoy!

We are spoiled I do hope they keep making the DLC. Civ is the game I most look forward to playing, and the DLC added some very interesting civs (Indonesia in particular is a lot of fun to me), so the more the merrier

 

[Gorbles]

@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.

See, no, these aren't the same arguments. You said what is there to show for buying the game six months earlier. My reply was "you get to play the game for six months longer".

This is not a punishment.This is something you willingly choose to do, in an era full of all sorts of varied reviews from all sorts of people. But even if a game is released in a theoretically perfectly-stable state, it'll still improve over time. Improvements are natural. You're always going to feel whatever thing you're feeling.

You're making a lot of assumptions to support these changing arguments. A phone worth $400 is not a game worth $60. I can afford one at any given point in time, I cannot afford the other. The price involved (and the commodity offered) fundamentally changes the scenario. "games are getting rushed" is a broad statement. Are you talking about a specific game? We're talking about Civilisation. Has Civilisation been rushed? Can you prove this in any meaningful way (beyond the nature of the industry, which I'll get onto in a second)?

Games have always been rushed. Software development is a business. Games development is a business. It always has been. It works to deadlines. Things invariably will get cut. Bugs will invariably not get fixed. We're talking about incredibly complex pieces of software put together by teams of up to 100 people at a time. In an ideal world, the creativity of development would not be bound to a deadline for the sake of revenue. But we don't exist in an ideal world. And again, this is completely irrelevant and indeed a tangent compared to the initial claim of being short-changed by buying a game earlier than other people.

If people want to wait for a sale, that's entirely on them. That comes at a cost, and with a risk. It also comes with benefits. The same goes for the inverse. Your opinion is that certain benefits are not worth certain costs. Other people have different opinions. There's no need to attempt to demonise the entire industry because you think you've cracked the economic model that drives it. You need to think on it more. Why are games rushed? Why is DLC becoming more and more necessary to guarantee a return on investment? How do you separate out the greedy from the valued (in terms of content offered)? If you want to get into a discussion about business models, you have to go deeper than "the industry is bad, they need to make things cheaper for consumers". Video games have increased in price at a rate far slower than literally any other entertainment commodity. We're only now seeing the impact of that, with AAA prices finally rising a somewhat substantial amount in recent years, and post-release support models becoming more and more demanded by customers (which need financing somehow).

Games never used to have years of support, and they rarely used to even have expansions. And yet they still cost $40 or more, twenty years ago (based on conversion from GBP, which is my currency). That's, by a quick Googling of a financial calculator, just over $60 now. And yes, they still needed the support back then. Games still had bugs, even back then. Plenty of them. They just weren't addressed as comprehensively as they are now.

Sorry for sounding a bit exasperated. This topic comes up relatively frequently and there is little opportunity to explore it fairly without being labelled things. Or maybe I just notice these topics more frequently than others

 

[MaryKB]

If @ChocolateShake is saying people didn't buy the deluxe because it only had four dlcs, but they would've bought if they knew it'd be six, maybe I can kinda see a little bitty frustration?

 

[ChocolateShake]

See, no, these aren't the same arguments. You said what is there to show for buying the game six months earlier. My reply was "you get to play the game for six months longer"

My argument is that early buyers need to be rewarded more significantly. That's all I'd like to see. In this instance, not wanting to spend an extra $20 for the deluxe edition on release shouldn't mean that they have to spend a total of $80 (unless they wait for a DLC sale) to get what other players who bought the game 6 months later would get for $40. That's what I think the OP is upset about. As a deluxe buyer I wasn't upset at all that it was on sale later, even after the 2 additional DLC were announced. I had finished a space race victory then that I had enjoyed

I consider Firaxis to have a great model, as @Mr. Shadows mentioned. My preference would've been for them to keep an upgrade option available for the early buyers of the standard, but that's business. I respect Firaxis, their decision regarding the deluxe edition was a bold and great one, and it shows they care about their fans.

We're talking about incredibly complex pieces of software put together by teams of up to 100 people at a time. In an ideal world, the creativity of development would not be bound to a deadline for the sake of revenue. But we don't exist in an ideal world. And again, this is completely irrelevant and indeed a tangent compared to the initial claim of being short-changed by buying a game earlier than other people.

I'm a computer scientist, so I can appreciate the effort it takes to develop a game (I'm trying to build one very slowly). But I think there's a trend to have the "completion date" get further and further away from the release date. And that does punish early buyers. I don't like criticizing the Civ 6 AI since I think the developer was probably put in a very difficult situation, but there were some elements regarding the AI that were clearly rushed and not completed, and releasing with a plan to fix it later is in a way punishing the early buyer. I know it's unintentional and due to not being in an ideal world, but I still think there are things that have to be there for a game to be complete. I'm not talking about developing a deep blue AI before release; I mean things like the AI building air units and knowing how to use a navy. Even something like helicopters being forced to embark leaves a strong impression of things being rushed and being incomplete before release. This is probably why Blizzard is such a leader now; they polish everything to the extreme so it's hard to find any problem.

Games never used to have years of support, and they rarely used to even have expansions. And yet they still cost $40 or more, twenty years ago (based on conversion from GBP, which is my currency). That's, by a quick Googling of a financial calculator, just over $60 now. And yes, they still needed the support back then. Games still had bugs, even back then. Plenty of them. They just weren't addressed as comprehensively as they are now.

Sorry for sounding a bit exasperated. This topic comes up relatively frequently and there is little opportunity to explore it fairly without being labelled things. Or maybe I just notice these topics more frequently than others

I do wonder if I should load up a game of Civ 2 to see how well the AI handled air combat then. But I'd rather keep the nostalgia alive

The gaming industry needs the additional funding of DLC, and I recognize that and encourage it. I just want to see more upgrade paths/deals for early buyers so that I feel more confident in early buy-ins. It's starting to feel like too much of a gamble in some cases (regarding state of the game on release and potential sales timing windows). But maybe that's an outdated model at this point, and the future is in quick sales and making the revenue through DLC instead. I'd like to read more of your thoughts on this.

If @ChocolateShake is saying people didn't buy the deluxe because it only had four dlcs, but they would've bought if they knew it'd be six, maybe I can kinda see a little bitty frustration?

I think this is probably at the root of it for the standard edition buyers who are upset by the lack of an upgrade option. They opted out of $20 of content, suddenly the deal became twice as good and they didn't get the chance to buy in.

 

[Zuizgond]

What is unacceptable is to pay full price for an unfinished and buggy game. If buying at release means beta-testing the game for Firaxis, they should offer a discount.

 

[arik24]

I do not like dlc I would rather have things on physical disc's or cd's because dlc and download games only works if your internet is really fast and in the USA the internet is really hit and miss. For me really big games like civ 6 take days to finish downloading and this was the base game not and of the dlc or rise and fall I would only allow dlc if it was a minor patch but thats it ! anything more must come out in physical copy from on disc or cd's so we don't have wait hours or days for a game to downloading to play it.

 

[God of Kings]

Don't forget the difference between watching a sporting event in person vs. watching the same event on cable or even playing a sports video game (yes, 2k has a sports games division).

Of course watching a sporting event in person is generally more expensive, but there are many willing to do so.

Why are Super Bowl tickets sell for hundreds of dollars yet being sold out? How about the Olympics opening ceremony? The FIFA World Cup Final?

Compared with live sporting events, video games are a steal!

Yes, I sometimes go watch live sports in person.

 

[megabearsfan]

There are a lot of things about the way the modern video game industry works that frustrate me. Loot boxes, pre-orders, overpriced DLC, mandatory annual release schedules...

I do think that paying extra for a deluxe edition that will contain DLC later is kinda scammy. You're asking the consumer to pay, in advance, for something that you havent made yet. It's especially true when you don't even know what that DLC would be, or when it's part of a pre-order and you don't even know if the product is any good yet.

In Civ V, wasn't the deluxe edition bonus a bunch of map packs or something like that? That was crap. At least VI gave full civs. I would've prefered a couple of the DLC have been alternate leader packs with like 3 or 5 new leaders for existing civs, but whatever.

For me though, the thing that frustrates me more about Civ VI's DLC model in particular was that they seem to have come at the cost of improvements to the core game. I have A LOT of complaints with the core Civ VI experience. Some have been addressed by patches (the extra layer for religioys units was one of the best ones, IMO), but neither the DLC nor Rise & Fall made substantial improvements to A.I., unit balance, unit variety, interface (STILL no build queue?!), and so forth.

 

[Gedemon]

While I'd prefer an old-fashioned expansion only model similar to civ4 with patch still released after the last expansion to keep your players happy and ready to buy the next iteration of the game, I do understand that the DLC model has its own advantages.

If you find the price too high, it's simple, don't buy them, hoping that there are enough people that will do the same. They have the numbers, they'll know if the model is good/bad for theim, and they want everyone money, at one point they'll made their price attractive for you too.

On the other hand, I've never understood that entertainment hours / price ratio argument that I'm seeing more and more everywhere.

I mean, for an example amongst others, a flat surface, a shared soccer ball, a few people that don't even need to be your friends, and then you have countless hours of play time for free (as long as you don't take an arrow in the knee)

IMO making people believe that they should be thankful for not paying more for video games is the greatest victory of the industry's marketing department (well, maybe after changing the physical distribution of their games, including hundreds pages manuals, keyboard covers and other goodies, to digital distribution without lowering the prices)

 

[Leyrann]

I do think that paying extra for a deluxe edition that will contain DLC later is kinda scammy. You're asking the consumer to pay, in advance, for something that you havent made yet. It's especially true when you don't even know what that DLC would be, or when it's part of a pre-order and you don't even know if the product is any good yet.

It's funny that you make the exact opposite argument about DLCs that the OP in this thread made.

On the other hand, I've never understood that entertainment hours / price ratio argument that I'm seeing more and more everywhere.

I mean, for an example amongst others, a flat surface, a shared soccer ball, a few people that don't even need to be your friends, and then you have countless hours of play time for free (as long as you don't take an arrow in the knee)

IMO making people believe that they should be thankful for not paying more for video games is the greatest victory of the industry's marketing department (well, maybe after changing the physical distribution of their games, including hundreds pages manuals, keyboard covers and other goodies, to digital distribution without lowering the prices)

I don't know. I came up with the ratio argument myself (though I'm obviously not the only one) and I like it.

 

[ezysquire]

Either way the price is pretty reasonable tbf; decided mostly by the wider gaming market.

 

[newbie2]

video games have never been more expensive to make and have never been cheaper inflationwise for the customer (and thats not even taking into account steam sales), and people are still complaining.....

Its just sad how people take more effort in finding something to complain about, rather than enjoying their purchase. personally, I blame the likes of TB and Jimquisition who basicly say "if you enjoy a game, you are dumb, cause everything is ****", all coloured by their nostalgia glasses


Speakin of dumb, do never buy a game at full price, there are enough ways around it. hell, even Ubisoft hands out -20% coupons like candy

 

[Gorbles]

My argument is that early buyers need to be rewarded more significantly. That's all I'd like to see. In this instance, not wanting to spend an extra $20 for the deluxe edition on release shouldn't mean that they have to spend a total of $80 (unless they wait for a DLC sale) to get what other players who bought the game 6 months later would get for $40. That's what I think the OP is upset about. As a deluxe buyer I wasn't upset at all that it was on sale later, even after the 2 additional DLC were announced. I had finished a space race victory then that I had enjoyed

I consider Firaxis to have a great model, as @Mr. Shadows mentioned. My preference would've been for them to keep an upgrade option available for the early buyers of the standard, but that's business. I respect Firaxis, their decision regarding the deluxe edition was a bold and great one, and it shows they care about their fans.

I'm a computer scientist, so I can appreciate the effort it takes to develop a game (I'm trying to build one very slowly). But I think there's a trend to have the "completion date" get further and further away from the release date. And that does punish early buyers. I don't like criticizing the Civ 6 AI since I think the developer was probably put in a very difficult situation, but there were some elements regarding the AI that were clearly rushed and not completed, and releasing with a plan to fix it later is in a way punishing the early buyer. I know it's unintentional and due to not being in an ideal world, but I still think there are things that have to be there for a game to be complete. I'm not talking about developing a deep blue AI before release; I mean things like the AI building air units and knowing how to use a navy. Even something like helicopters being forced to embark leaves a strong impression of things being rushed and being incomplete before release. This is probably why Blizzard is such a leader now; they polish everything to the extreme so it's hard to find any problem.

I do wonder if I should load up a game of Civ 2 to see how well the AI handled air combat then. But I'd rather keep the nostalgia alive

The gaming industry needs the additional funding of DLC, and I recognize that and encourage it. I just want to see more upgrade paths/deals for early buyers so that I feel more confident in early buy-ins. It's starting to feel like too much of a gamble in some cases (regarding state of the game on release and potential sales timing windows). But maybe that's an outdated model at this point, and the future is in quick sales and making the revenue through DLC instead. I'd like to read more of your thoughts on this.

I think this is probably at the root of it for the standard edition buyers who are upset by the lack of an upgrade option. They opted out of $20 of content, suddenly the deal became twice as good and they didn't get the chance to buy in.

The thing is, that doesn't seem to be solid reasoning to me. It is absolutely a tricky line to walk between consumer advocacy and understanding of development and business, and I believe your good intentions here. My disagreement is simply with the reasoning.

Games are always going to be cheaper later down the line. All products become cheaper later down the line. What's the cut-off point here? Should games be reduced in price less often? Because offering "early adopters" more is a bit of a tricky strategy, because of the criticisms you yourself raised of the state of the game on release.

People who buy games on release aren't going to get a "better deal" unless a product comes out with more development time behind it. However, this doesn't mean that the game is therefore being released with a deficit of time applied to it. Bugs will crop up invariably in games. It doesn't matter how simple they are perceived to be, they happen. It doesn't matter how easy they are to arguably fix. They still happen. More time doesn't necessarily always fix this, because for every one bug you see, there are probably a bunch of others you don't. I mean this is a truism, you're a computer scientist, I'm kinda wasting our time stating this.

The baseline is, for a game to be delayed, or even to simply to plan to have a longer development cycle, costs more money. You're paying the team members for longer for the end result of a single product. Good business is about finding a good sweet spot between that and rushing out a release. Absolutely. But I think there are better ways to have that conversation than approach it via the idea that people who buy games early need more incentives. If the game itself is not an incentive, then the game (or next game) won't sell as well, which in an ideal world would make people have thoughts on how to improve the process. Sadly this isn't always the case, and this can affect the developers themselves. So yeah, it's complicated. Nobody should be forced into buying something they're not going to end up enjoying, but how do you balance that against a business which is getting (in some areas more than others) increasingly risk-averse? Where failures stand out more?

I don't have an answer. I just evaluate things on a case by case basis. "quick sales" is an answer and a problem in of itself, right? I'd agree with you there. I just don't see this need to demand more value for a game which I feel definitely offers it. But again, value is subjective. It works for me. It works for you, by what you're saying. It might not work for everyone. But I guess the answer is: it can't. Otherwise developers become beholden to more and more arguments of "value", which then often unfortunately end up getting twisted to what people are "owed". I would encourage people to keep asking for support, to keep saying "hey this is an obvious bug that should be fixed". Keep visibility on the right issues. But be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking what is "owed" (not that you are, this is just my thought process here), because that often breeds bitterness and then resentment.

As a side-note, Blizzard are one of the exceptions to the general rule. Their financial base is very strong, and this allows them flexibility where other companies simply don't have it. Starcraft 2 apparently had something like nine years of development time. As someone who started playing games mainly because of the strategy genre, but specifically because of real-time strategy, I can think of an awful lot of titles (many of which were good and successful in their own right) which could've benefitted from nine years of development prior to their release.