DLCs once again not included in Steam sale

[Kwami]

If they add the DLC-content for free in the expansion, you do not "rebuy" it. By buying the DLC before, you had the opportunity to use it before the Expansion.

It would really simplify the system if a new expansion would automatically include all DLCs so far (and any Deluxe Features). Now you already have 8 separate DLCs (including Azteks and R&F) to activate/deactivate.

Of course, I'd be rebuying it. They would use those civs as a selling point for the new expansion and people would pay for them. If all that I bought was a license to use the new civs a year earlier than others, then they would be free now. That's not the case, which means that they still have monetary value and would thus factor into the price of the expansion.

Arenanet had this problem with Guild Wars 2. They released an expansion, but bundled it with the base game and then sold it for full price. Why should I rebuy the base game just to get the expansion? Forget it.

 

[historix69]

An full expansion is usually a package of 8-10 completely new civs + new gameplay elements + new wonders, etc. for 30$.

If you now add the content of last year's DLCs for free to a full expansion, it is an addition and a bonus motivation for some players to buy the expansion. Players who bought the DLCs earlier have no advantage from the free DLCs, but they also do not pay more for the expansion itself and they still get a full expansion.
(However it should not be that the core content of the expansion like the 8-10 new civs are actually taken from the DLCs. Then the expansion would only be kind of extended DLC-bundle and DLC-owners would be forced to buy the new Gameplay mechanics in an overpriced package.)

 

[Magil]

I got the Digital Deluxe and I don't think I'd feel cheated if the DLC went on sale at this point. It doesn't hurt me any, I don't regret my purchase and I've had a good amount of fun with the DLC Civs and city-states and such. Now if the DLC was released on sale or something sure, but it's been a while now.

 

[Timothy001]

I was unable to afford the Digital Deluxe. Bought the base game. As finances permitted, I bought the DLCs. I was able to pre order R&F. I don't feel cheated or hard done by this. If I had the money, I would have bought the deluxe, it would have been cheaper in the end. But with the responsibilities of a family, moving cities, etc, reality kicked in.

 

[bonafide11]

I got the Digital Deluxe and I don't think I'd feel cheated if the DLC went on sale at this point. It doesn't hurt me any, I don't regret my purchase and I've had a good amount of fun with the DLC Civs and city-states and such. Now if the DLC was released on sale or something sure, but it's been a while now.

It wouldn't bother me in the slightest. I've had the DLC for a year, some of the DLC I barely played with even. But I'm not one to really hold grudges if someone else gets a deal on something a year after I got it. Never quite understood that mentality.

 

[Karpius]

Now they’ve learned, their hungry for our every penny, and won’t give us a fair price for their useless overdeveloped fluff unless we really wait for it.

Or....
don't give them a single penny for their useless overdeveloped fluff.

A *fair* price is what someone is willing to pay. Especially when we are talking about luxury items like this.

 

[Katakanja]

Humans (and many other animals) have an inherent sense for fairness and fair deals.

It's the exact opposite that is frequently true - humans are quite bad at judging risk. For one thing if this were not the case, casinos, along with any gambling-based system intended to derive a profit, would be incapable of making money.

Regarding the DLCs :
Actually the market is not willing to pay that much. Look at steam reviews :

Civ 6 : 69%
R&F : 62%
Australia : 39%
Khmer and Indonesia : 48%
Nubia : 37%
Persia & Macedonia : 34%
Poland : 30%
Vikings scenario : 9%

You have to have bought the product in question before you can leave a review of it on Steam. Those people are certainly not content with the DLC, but they were willing to purchase it, whether through the deluxe edition or individually, so using review statistics to try and determine whether a product is selling well or not is a flawed process.

 

[historix69]

It's the exact opposite that is frequently true - humans are quite bad at judging risk. For one thing if this were not the case, casinos, along with any gambling-based system intended to derive a profit, would be incapable of making money.
...
You have to have bought the product in question before you can leave a review of it on Steam. Those people are certainly not content with the DLC, but they were willing to purchase it, whether through the deluxe edition or individually, so using review statistics to try and determine whether a product is selling well or not is a flawed process.

It is one thing to judge the fairness of a deal in comparison with other deals (independant of making a deal or not) and it is another thing to judge mathmatically the chance for winning / loosing money in gambling.

Imagine there are "digital" products A and B.
If product A costs 30 $ and a bundle of the products A and B costs 40$, what is a fair price for product B alone?
And what is a fair price for B if you know that the effort to produce B is around 20% (or less) of the effort to produce A?

 

[Jackanape]

Chincy coins and an art book? I feel like I missed out on some swag. Is that edition still available? Cuz, yeah, I'm goofy for that sort of stuff.

As am I which is why I made the plunge! Here it is:
Sid Meier's Civilization VI 25th Anniversary Edition - PC https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01KP4ZYGK/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_apa_jgXHAb991HPS1

And it's on sale!

To the pricing of the game in general, as I said previously I don't think it's out of hand. We play hundreds if not thousands of hours of what is arguably our favorite game--we're all here ain't we?--and even the $90 I paid for the Anniversary Edition linked above is a pittance compared to the cost of a two hour movie. Or a beer, if comparing it to a DLC pricing.

My only complaint about buying it on release was that I didn't have a system that could run it. I had to wait six months to build a minimum box for it.

Worth the wait, though....and the price.

 

[Gabhar]

Actually I think it was the opposite. BtS included all the new features of Warlords, like Great Generals and vassal states, but not the new civ/leaders. That's how I recall it.

Beyond the Sword lacked the scenarios, I'm pretty sure Warlords civs/leaders were included.

 

[historix69]

As am I which is why I made the plunge! Here it is:
Sid Meier's Civilization VI 25th Anniversary Edition - PC https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01KP4ZYGK/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_apa_jgXHAb991HPS1

And it's on sale!

To the pricing of the game in general, as I said previously I don't think it's out of hand. We play hundreds if not thousands of hours of what is arguably our favorite game--we're all here ain't we?--and even the $90 I paid for the Anniversary Edition linked above is a pittance compared to the cost of a two hour movie. Or a beer, if comparing it to a DLC pricing.

My only complaint about buying it on release was that I didn't have a system that could run it. I had to wait six months to build a minimum box for it.

Worth the wait, though....and the price.

I tried to pre-order this version in europe 2 years ago but amazon did not receive enough copies and canceled my order. Funny that it is now on sale.
How is the book?

 

[Magil]

Beyond the Sword lacked the scenarios, I'm pretty sure Warlord civs/leaders were included.

Perhaps, it's been a while.

 

[Katakanja]

Imagine there are products A and B.
If product A costs 30 $ and a bundle of the products A and B costs 40$, what is a fair price for product B alone?
And what is a fair price for B if you know that the effort to produce B is around 20% (or less) of the effort to produce A?

Well, $6, if we treat this as a purely mathematical calculation. However you keep using nebulous terms like "fair" and "effort". For instance, what exactly do you mean when you're talking about the "effort" involved with making product B (obviously intended to represent a DLC in this analogy)? Are we talking about the combined financial and material costs of producing the product weighed against time it takes to produce, etc, etc or are we talking about effort in the sense of the amount of skilled work required from the employees making it? They aren't the same thing at all.

Furthermore, as others have pointed out above, what constitutes "fair" differs vastly from one person to another. How much profit do you personally think a company is entitled to make on the products it releases? 5%? 10%? It's going to differ from person to person.

I'd also point out that we're moving from a situation here specific to the Civ VI DLC into a debate about general business ethics.

 

[Jackanape]

I tried to pre-order this version in europe 2 years ago but amazon did not receive enough copies and canceled my order. Funny that it is now on sale.
How is the book?

it is a bit undersized and underwhelming, to be honest. It's about the size of the CD case, but bound on the short side, so it doesn't really sit well on a shelf--i would have loved to put it right next to the box--but that's a personal preference, if not a curious design decision. That said, much of the artwork we have seen here over time. But it is nice to flip through at times. I really like the coins, though. A really nice touch for a Civ fan.

I sometimes look at both while Im waiting for the next turn, and have flipped the coins for other decisions...LOL

 

[pgm123]

There are effectively "punishing" early adopters who bought only the vanilla game. New adopters often get the benefit of buying the deluxe game at a reduced rate with full knowledge of what is included, the only people who are being gouged for full price DLC are people who bought the basic game which will overwhelmingly be early adopters.

I don't see that at all. I see that as rewarding those who buy the deluxe. I think it's perfectly reasonable to only buy the base game, but I don't see it as reasonable to complain that DLC aren't yet on sale. There was an option to buy the DLC-included at the time people bought the base game. Perhaps you could make a case that the last two DLC should be discounted because those weren't advertised. I think that's splitting hairs a bit, though. A la carte should be more expensive because they want to incentivize buying the whole thing.

Many people would easily have skipped the Viking scenario pack, making the 3 DLCs they would have wanted come under the additional Deluxe price had they bought separately. Without the pricing problems in different regions it's not known whether they would have added the additional two packs.

They almost certainly wouldn't have added more. And that would have been fine. I would have bought the two extra packs and felt it was fair.

 

[historix69]

Well, $6, if we treat this as a purely mathematical calculation. However you keep using nebulous terms like "fair" and "effort". For instance, what exactly do you mean when you're talking about the "effort" involved with making product B (obviously intended to represent a DLC in this analogy)? Are we talking about the combined financial and material costs of producing the product weighed against time it takes to produce, etc, etc or are we talking about effort in the sense of the amount of skilled work required from the employees making it? They aren't the same thing at all.

Furthermore, as others have pointed out above, what constitutes "fair" differs vastly from one person to another. How much profit do you personally think a company is entitled to make on the products it releases? 5%? 10%? It's going to differ from person to person.

I'd also point out that we're moving from a situation here specific to the Civ VI DLC into a debate about general business ethics.

The example maybe got a little bit out of context, since Civ 6 originally costed 60 $ and is on sale these days. (So 20% of 60 $ = 12 $)
Still I think that most players who do not own the Deluxe Edition or a DLC would appreciate a SEASON PASS for 10 $ - 20 $ now after 1,5 years and would regard it as a fair price. DLCs 1-6 costing the same as the Deluxe Edition (on sale) which includes the base game and DLCs 1-6 is just nonsense.

 

[Gabhar]

I don't see that at all. I see that as rewarding those who buy the deluxe. I think it's perfectly reasonable to only buy the base game, but I don't see it as reasonable to complain that DLC aren't yet on sale. There was an option to buy the DLC-included at the time people bought the base game. Perhaps you could make a case that the last two DLC should be discounted because those weren't advertised. I think that's splitting hairs a bit, though. A la carte should be more expensive because they want to incentivize buying the whole thing.

Buying everything a la carte being more expensive makes sense, the issue many of us have is just how expensive it is especially in light of the deluxe edition sales price. If you are an early adopter of the original release you're asked to pay nearly 40€ for the DLC at all times. If you are a new player you get all the DLC packs for 20€ regular price, or 10€ on sale. A season pass type pack for vanilla game owners would be totally possible without undermining deluxe pricing. The previous poster was trying to say they weren't punishing early adopters but it's quite easy to see this as punishing of those early adopters - access to additional content is much more expensive for them than anybody else. It's perfectly reasonable to express dissatisfaction at a pricing model particularly because it can make a publisher realise they may stand to gain more through discounts. Not that it necessarily will but it's a free action so why not?

 

[Neia]

I didn't buy the Deluxe Edition, but that wasn't because I didn't want to take the risk, in fact I don't recall I was aware at that time that there was a Season Pass available. Perhaps I didn't pay attention to the Deluxe Edition, thinking it was just some pack of goodies, and not some in-game content. Looking at the Steam page, the info isn't that visible, you have to slide down and click to open the extra info, so that may be it. I think I realized there was DLCs in the Deluxe Edition when the first DLC was released. I would have bought the Season Pass afterward had it been available, but sadly you can't upgrade your game once you've bought it.

It's as if Firaxis wanted to punish those who are too quick to buy their products

 

[historix69]

I would prefer a product cycle (3 years) as follows :
- Base Game (60 $)
- Patches and 1-2 free DLCs to keep interest in the game high
- Expansion 1 (30 $) with an offer to get Base Game + Expansion 1 as a bundle (60 $)
- Patches and 1-2 free DLCs
- Expansion 2 (30 $) with an offer to get Base Game + Expansion 1-2 (Gold version) as a bundle (60 $)

I think it should be possible to finance the production with the sales from Base Game and 2 Expansions which usually are priced at 60 $ and 30 $ respectively, resulting in a total of 60 $ - 120 $ per player for those buying in the first years.

 

[thecrazyscot]

If you can't afford the DLC, I feel your pain, sometimes that means you have to forego splurge spending on entertainment products. But if you can afford 2 DLCs at 50% off then that means you can afford 1 at full price, so...where's the problem? You'll just have to wait until you have more splurge money for the rest, like we all have to do from time to time.

But if you want the DLC and finances are not an issue, Firaxis has no responsibility to set their prices based on your arbitrary perception of the DLCs' value.

To be quite frank it's ridiculous that so many people here somehow think that Firaxis owes them a sale on DLC. They don't.