Firaxis's grand conspiracy theory to fool us and rip us off!

[tokala]

so after reading all this thread, and being a civ player since the beginning, and lovin bts, should i buy V and be let down?

Or do i stick with BTS?

If you could resist buying Civ5 so far, you should be able to hold out until the first "big" patch or the first discount sale, whichever comes first.

 

[Zogar]

Makes sense. I must say it makes sense. Except that a LOT of players will be wary with Civ 6, and won't pre-order it. Still, if civ6 is good, they will sell it a lot.

 

[Dermo]

so after reading all this thread, and being a civ player since the beginning, and lovin bts, should i buy V and be let down?

Or do i stick with BTS?

I would not recommend basing your decision to purhase solely on the basis of one thread. I've also been a Civ player since the begining, love BTS and have had no regrets buying Civ 5.
Check out a bunch of threads (pro and con), and try the demo.

 

[lordsurya08]

I can't believe it took until this post before someone pointed out how guano insane the OP was =/

Yes, they want to make more money by making a crappy game that kills franchise loyalty, then making a better game and trying to sell it to the people they pissed off. How could that plan fail?

That's exactly what my thread is trying to prove! That Firaxis can sell a crappy game and still manage to hold on to its fanbase! Did you not read my post? Here, I'll repeat it for you:

" In production, Civ V is a much better game than it is now. Before releasing, Firaxis purposefully removes several nice features from this game and dumbs down the AI. Of course, people are unhappy about this. They say "What a crappy game. I'm never getting Civ VI!"

The release date for VI approaches, Firaxis woos us with "new features" that are promised in VI. They tell us, "Yes, we studied customer reaction for Civ V and we've decided to implement so-and-so NEW AND IMPROVED features" (which we secretly removed from Civ V) "so this game will be the best Civ ever released". THis Civ VI is nothing but what Civ V was supposed to be plus a few changes and a different look. "

If you still disagree, post a valid argument. Or don't reply at all, because another pointless comment will mark you as a class-A idiot.

 

[Anthropoid]

Well they don't have to wait till Civ 6 to capitalize on such a scheme. They can just do like they did with Civ4 Vanilla. Take out parts, then sell them as expansion packs (Warlords and BTS), then later sell the whole thing as "Complete."

So basically Vanilla was "Incomplete?" Everybody is doing it it seems.

 

[cccv]

That's exactly what my thread is trying to prove! That Firaxis can sell a crappy game and still manage to hold on to its fanbase! Did you not read my post? Here, I'll repeat it for you:

" In production, Civ V is a much better game than it is now. Before releasing, Firaxis purposefully removes several nice features from this game and dumbs down the AI. Of course, people are unhappy about this. They say "What a crappy game. I'm never getting Civ VI!"

The release date for VI approaches, Firaxis woos us with "new features" that are promised in VI. They tell us, "Yes, we studied customer reaction for Civ V and we've decided to implement so-and-so NEW AND IMPROVED features" (which we secretly removed from Civ V) "so this game will be the best Civ ever released". THis Civ VI is nothing but what Civ V was supposed to be plus a few changes and a different look. "

If you still disagree, post a valid argument. Or don't reply at all, because another pointless comment will mark you as a class-A idiot.

No, of course it wouldn't make more sense to make a good game so that the next one sells well due to the company having a great reputation for making awesome games >.>

I don't need a sarcasm tag there, do I? God I hope not.

I guess I need to spell it out for you without sarcasm? K. Firaxis is better off releasing good games that a loyal fanbase buys without question than inconsistent games that people are wary of. Tossing your reputation in the toilet is not something any intelligent person would deem a good marketing strategy. Most of the people who feel they were burned with V won't buy VI in droves without at least reading a week's worth of reviews from fellow fanatics, no matter what "features" are promised. How many core fans, aside from an anti-steam minority, do you think weren't going to bother buying this game or the next if they were good? I'm not into math, but let's give it a shot.

If V was everything we hoped for--
Core fans who would buy immediately rather than see the reaction-- let's say 80%
Core fans who waited for reviews and saw the favorable reaction, then bought-- let's say 10%
Core fans who won't buy the game because of steam-- let's say 5%
Core fans who won't buy for other reasons-- financial, whatever-- let's say 5%.

They sell to about 90% of the core fans. The fans are happy.
When VI comes around, these numbers should be just about exactly the same.

Now let's put on the tin foil hat and imagine the conspiracy is true.
The same applies for V as above, only this time Firaxis is crazy so they made the game awful and the reaction is split. Therefore, the 10% that waited for the reviews is now divided between those who buy the game and those who don't, so they sell to about 85% instead.

now let's look at the numbers for VI.
Let's say 30% of the core fans feel cheated from V. Now only 70% are buying VI immediately.
20% wait for reviews. The same 5% won't buy it because of steam, and another 5% still won't buy for other reasons, financial or whatever. Of the 20%, you can go ahead and be generous and say all of them buy. It doesn't matter, you're still just breaking even, minus the 5% of people who didn't buy the set-up game because they heard it was crap.

No I'm sure those numbers aren't exact, the numbers are only there as examples to demonstrate the logic, since your reading comprehension is terrible. Point is, there's nothing to be gained by alienating your core audience then winning them back, because either way it's your frickin' core audience and they would've bought the good game anyway.

Also, calling me an idiot twice now after either misunderstanding or not reading my posts is only making you look stupider with each post. I don't know if you're 12 or if you just act like it, but either way we can do without you here.

Hugs and kisses, stars and wishes,
--cccv

 

[Slowpoke]

the even-numbered games. And ditch the rest...the odds are against the odd games being any good at all.

Ah, the rule of star trek movies.

 

[Anthropoid]

I guess I need to spell it out for you without sarcasm? K. Firaxis is better off releasing good games that a loyal fanbase buys without question than inconsistent games that people are wary of. Tossing your reputation in the toilet is not something any intelligent person would deem a good marketing strategy. Most of the people who feel they were burned with V won't buy VI in droves without at least reading a week's worth of reviews from fellow fanatics, no matter what "features" are promised. How many core fans, aside from an anti-steam minority,

You're assuming customers are rational, and I think a key aspect of the idea the OP was expressing is that they are NOT rational, but indeed are quite gullible.

 

[cccv]

You're assuming customers are rational, and I think a key aspect of the idea the OP was expressing is that they are NOT rational, but indeed are quite gullible.

I'm assuming the customers are pissed off and very capable of holding grudges. I'm sure there's even a minority who will flat-out never consider buying a civ game again, though I'm sure not enough people go that far for them to be worth mentioning toward my point. But even if 100% of the customers are gullible and will buy VI, you still break even exactly with the other approach of "make good games consistently." You're still not earning new customers by making crap games followed by good ones, you're only bringing back the old ones that you scared off, which you could have just not scared off to begin with.

 

[Slayan]

If only Firaxis would take a page out of Impulse's book, When they put out Elemental they soon found out from players that it was an unfinished game, so they have put out a number of patches and then anounced that everyone that got the game before Nov 1 will get the next 2 expantions free as a way to make it up to the players for getting an unfinished game.

 

[goodolarchie]

This sums up the reason I bought without testing, and eventually won't regret buying Civ V. At some point, it will be good. It may take years of expansions and mods, but eventually I will cash in on my $50.

I like the comparison made to the Sims franchise (too lazy to find and quote), but I think there is one major difference. While Sims does strip off additional game features, objects, art etc., it is still an extremely polished game RTM. The expansions make it more fun, or continually fun. Civ isn't the kind of game where you need to add a ton of new stuff to make it good(afterall, how many rehashings of civ traits and UU's / UB's make for truly unique gameplay?). It's a shame really that Firaxis didn't release a polished product. If it's fun for you, great. I've been gaming for a good 20 years now, so I just have higher standards and less time. I'm not going to waste it on a game that might be fun, depending on game circumstances. When they expac, patch, mod it to BTS quality I'll play it, and even shell out more money. Afterall I put in hundreds of hours into BTS, Civ I and II, it's well worth it.

 

[lordsurya08]

I guess I need to spell it out for you without sarcasm? K. Firaxis is better off releasing good games that a loyal fanbase buys without question than inconsistent games that people are wary of. Tossing your reputation in the toilet is not something any intelligent person would deem a good marketing strategy. Most of the people who feel they were burned with V won't buy VI in droves without at least reading a week's worth of reviews from fellow fanatics, no matter what "features" are promised. How many core fans, aside from an anti-steam minority, do you think weren't going to bother buying this game or the next if they were good? I'm not into math, but let's give it a shot.

If V was everything we hoped for--
Core fans who would buy immediately rather than see the reaction-- let's say 80%
Core fans who waited for reviews and saw the favorable reaction, then bought-- let's say 10%
Core fans who won't buy the game because of steam-- let's say 5%
Core fans who won't buy for other reasons-- financial, whatever-- let's say 5%.

They sell to about 90% of the core fans. The fans are happy.
When VI comes around, these numbers should be just about exactly the same.

Now let's put on the tin foil hat and imagine the conspiracy is true.
The same applies for V as above, only this time Firaxis is crazy so they made the game awful and the reaction is split. Therefore, the 10% that waited for the reviews is now divided between those who buy the game and those who don't, so they sell to about 85% instead.

now let's look at the numbers for VI.
Let's say 30% of the core fans feel cheated from V. Now only 70% are buying VI immediately.
20% wait for reviews. The same 5% won't buy it because of steam, and another 5% still won't buy for other reasons, financial or whatever. Of the 20%, you can go ahead and be generous and say all of them buy. It doesn't matter, you're still just breaking even, minus the 5% of people who didn't buy the set-up game because they heard it was crap.

No I'm sure those numbers aren't exact, the numbers are only there as examples to demonstrate the logic, since your reading comprehension is terrible. Point is, there's nothing to be gained by alienating your core audience then winning them back, because either way it's your frickin' core audience and they would've bought the good game anyway.

Also, calling me an idiot twice now after either misunderstanding or not reading my posts is only making you look stupider with each post. I don't know if you're 12 or if you just act like it, but either way we can do without you here.

Hugs and kisses, stars and wishes,
--cccv

So you're a hard nut to crack, eh? I'll try anyway. For once, try and read my whole post slowly and try to be open-minded (in case you don't know what that means, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/open-minded). Now let me take apart and examine your argument part by part...

"Firaxis is better off releasing good games that a loyal fanbase buys without question than inconsistent games that people are wary of." -
Yeah, but it takes half the money and effort to make two games, one crappy and one good. The whole point of my thread is to show how Firaxis can do two games - one crappy and one good - yet still manage to maintain a fanbase and make nearly as much profit on the "good" game and gain a few extra $$ from the crappy one.

Let's say 30% of the core fans feel cheated from V. Now only 70% are buying VI immediately.
20% wait for reviews. The same 5% won't buy it because of steam, and another 5% still won't buy for other reasons, financial or whatever. Of the 20%, you can go ahead and be generous and say all of them buy. It doesn't matter, you're still just breaking even, minus the 5% of people who didn't buy the set-up game because they heard it was crap.

So making consistently good games, according to you, gives a 90% purchase rate while following my conspiracy theory results in 85%. I'll be generous to you and make that "Now only 70% are buying VI immediately." into a 50%, a more realistic number.

Now from 85% it's a 65%, which is a lot less than 90%. But what about the profit from Civ V? If Firaxis was only releasing good games, then there would be no V - and no profit from V either. So let's add everything up:

____________________________________

Let there be 1000 core fans (say). Civ VI has been released two months ago. How much profit does Firaxis make total?

Assuming that Firaxis plays the honest way - which you claim is the better way - there is no Civilization V. People are so impressed with IV that they line up to buy VI. Taking your first calculation and applying it to this situation, Firaxis has a 90% sales turnout. So that's 900 sales
____________________________________

Assuming the conspiracy theory - which you claim is "guano insane" (whatever that means) -

Core fans who would buy immediately rather than see the reaction (because they were so impressed by IV)-- let's say 80%
Core fans who waited for reviews and saw the mixed reaction- 10% Of those, half buy and half don't
Core fans who won't buy the game because of steam-- let's say 5%
Core fans who won't buy for other reasons-- financial, whatever-- let's say 5%.
And another 15%, having heard of this whole hubbub, become new Civilization fans (me being one of those 15%).

So you have 100% from Civ V, which is 1000 sales. But we're not done yet - remember Civ VI? Firaxis has hardly any work left for VI, so we can include that in the calculation as well.

Let's say 50% of the core fans feel cheated from V. Now only 50% are buying VI immediately.
40% wait for reviews.
The same 5% won't buy it because of steam, and another 5% still won't buy for other reasons, financial or whatever.
Of the 40%, I can go ahead and say all of them buy (because the game turns out awesome, as I mentioned in the original thread.)
Add in the 15% who have become new Civ fans. Blissfully ignorant of how good Civ IV was and convinced that V is the best damn thing, they all charge for VI.

That's a 105% turnout, which results in 1050 sales. 1050 plus 950 (from Civ 5) is the grand total. Can you do it in your head? Hint: It's 2000 sales, which is over double of the 800 sales obtained if Firaxis releases games the honest way.

____________________________________

And what happens in the end? By your method, Firaxis retains all of its core fans and turns a good profit. Using the conspiracy theory, they lose a lot of fans after V, but they also gain a few new fans who don't have anything to compare V to. The awesomeness of Civ VI draws back the lost fans, (who, being hardcore fans, never have really given up hope on Civilization) and in the end Firaxis not only makes a phat load of profit but gains a even more fans as well.

Make sense now? I hope I don't have to see your face anymore then. (That's just an expression, in case you didn't realize.)

 

[cr0ws]

The troll is week in this one.
Moderator Action: Trolling. This post adds nothing to the discussion.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[cccv]

So you're a hard nut to crack, eh? I'll try anyway. For once, try and read my whole post slowly and try to be open-minded (in case you don't know what that means, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/open-minded). Now let me take apart and examine your argument part by part...

"Firaxis is better off releasing good games that a loyal fanbase buys without question than inconsistent games that people are wary of." -
Yeah, but it takes half the money and effort to make two games, one crappy and one good. The whole point of my thread is to show how Firaxis can do two games - one crappy and one good - yet still manage to maintain a fanbase and make nearly as much profit on the "good" game and gain a few extra $$ from the crappy one.

Let's say 30% of the core fans feel cheated from V. Now only 70% are buying VI immediately.
20% wait for reviews. The same 5% won't buy it because of steam, and another 5% still won't buy for other reasons, financial or whatever. Of the 20%, you can go ahead and be generous and say all of them buy. It doesn't matter, you're still just breaking even, minus the 5% of people who didn't buy the set-up game because they heard it was crap.

So making consistently good games, according to you, gives a 90% purchase rate while following my conspiracy theory results in 85%. I'll be generous to you and make that "Now only 70% are buying VI immediately." into a 50%, a more realistic number.

Now from 85% it's a 65%, which is a lot less than 90%. But what about the profit from Civ V? If Firaxis was only releasing good games, then there would be no V - and no profit from V either. So let's add everything up:

____________________________________

Let there be 1000 core fans (say). Civ VI has been released two months ago. How much profit does Firaxis make total?

Assuming that Firaxis plays the honest way - which you claim is the better way - there is no Civilization V. People are so impressed with IV that they line up to buy VI. Taking your first calculation and applying it to this situation, Firaxis has a 90% sales turnout. So that's 900 sales
____________________________________

Assuming the conspiracy theory - which you claim is "guano insane" (whatever that means) -

Core fans who would buy immediately rather than see the reaction (because they were so impressed by IV)-- let's say 80%
Core fans who waited for reviews and saw the mixed reaction- 10% Of those, half buy and half don't
Core fans who won't buy the game because of steam-- let's say 5%
Core fans who won't buy for other reasons-- financial, whatever-- let's say 5%.
And another 15%, having heard of this whole hubbub, become new Civilization fans (me being one of those 15%).

So you have 100% from Civ V, which is 1000 sales. But we're not done yet - remember Civ VI? Firaxis has hardly any work left for VI, so we can include that in the calculation as well.

Let's say 50% of the core fans feel cheated from V. Now only 50% are buying VI immediately.
40% wait for reviews.
The same 5% won't buy it because of steam, and another 5% still won't buy for other reasons, financial or whatever.
Of the 40%, I can go ahead and say all of them buy (because the game turns out awesome, as I mentioned in the original thread.)
Add in the 15% who have become new Civ fans. Blissfully ignorant of how good Civ IV was and convinced that V is the best damn thing, they all charge for VI.

That's a 105% turnout, which results in 1050 sales. 1050 plus 950 (from Civ 5) is the grand total. Can you do it in your head? Hint: It's 2000 sales, which is over double of the 800 sales obtained if Firaxis releases games the honest way.

____________________________________

And what happens in the end? By your method, Firaxis retains all of its core fans and turns a good profit. Using the conspiracy theory, they lose a lot of fans after V, but they also gain a few new fans who don't have anything to compare V to. The awesomeness of Civ VI draws back the lost fans, (who, being hardcore fans, never have really given up hope on Civilization) and in the end Firaxis not only makes a phat load of profit but gains a even more fans as well.

Make sense now? I hope I don't have to see your face anymore then. (That's just an expression, in case you didn't realize.)

ffs, now I have to waste my morning arguing with a 12 year old some more =/

First of all, try using your dictionary.
guano (gwä'n&#333 Pronunciation Key
A substance composed chiefly of the dung of sea birds or bats, accumulated along certain coastal areas or in caves and used as fertilizer.

I won't spell it out for you more, let's see if you can figure it out on your own from my clues.

Now your next error-- you tack on another 15% sales for the "bad" game, but not the "good" game. So you think a negative reaction from the core fans is worth an additional 15% sales, but a favorable reaction is worth nothing. See the mistake?

Knowing you, probably not.

Moderator Action: Please don't insinuate that the person you are responding to is a 12 year old, it isn't helpful to the discussion.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Moss]

Moderator Action: Thread closed. If someone wants to give me a good reason as to why I should reopen it, please send me a PM and I will consider it.