[NFP] Frontier pass - Paying in advance and quality

[mitsho]

What irks me more is that my Computer Purchase of the Rise & Fall expansion pack didn't get transferred to the Switch, this just means paying double... Maybe they'll start with every platform at the same time with civ7...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It doesn't bother me. I've been doing it with Super Smash Bros. over the last year and I've been quite content (and ecstatic) with what we've got.
At least I know in advance that I'm getting 3 of the civs on my wish list so that's even more of an incentive for me to purchase.

Besides I'm usually a completionism when it comes to many games and this is no exception. Unless you count the scout cats, which I don't.

 

[ehecatzin]

I don't mind paying in advance either, I would have liked to know for sure what other civs we are getting tho.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I'd say that their releases up to this point have been pretty consistent. If you like what you've seen so far you're probably fine, and if not then not.

 

[iammaxhailme]

Generally I don't pre-order, as I agree that it creates an incentive to half-ass a product.

But I've gotten more than my money's worth out of civ things, even expensive packs like gathering storm, so civ is one of the few things where I do.

 

[jasper]

Theres like zero reason to preorder. Putting your money down before you even see the product, Why would you ever do this.

 

[Kibikus]

There are no advantages for the user in that kind of model, it's all about how many are willing to go along with it.

 

[ghost88]

There are no advantages for the user in that kind of model, it's all about how many are willing to go along with it.

At a 90% discount from launch day would be an advantage.
As that is not going to happen and typical of 2K this content will be overpriced and buggy everyone should wait til it goes on sale for 75-90% off.

 

[Sostratus]

There are no advantages for the user in that kind of model, it's all about how many are willing to go along with it.

Usually season passes represent a decent savings over buying separately, so that “fanatic” players can get some value out of committing to all the items. It sounds like with these next five items it’s gonna be more like saving $2 instead of something like 7-10$, which I find a little surprising.

As an example, fallout 4’s season pass was $50 for $70 worth of DLC.

 

[DWilson]

I think part of the reason they're switching to this model is for those users who wish they could have chosen to buy only certain pieces of the expansion, and a survey result review that suggested civ fans wanted more frequent content additions.

I think we've heard that single civ packs will cost $6 and multi civ packs will cost $9. That seems rather low to me, given the amount of included content vs previous DLCs.

 

[Sostratus]

I think we've heard that single civ packs will cost $6 and multi civ packs will cost $9. That seems rather low to me, given the amount of included content vs previous DLCs.

There's also some unknown level of free content with each one. Beyond balancing and adding any needed underlying mechanics to all editions so things don't break, I'm not sure what.

 

[WillowBrook]

Theres like zero reason to preorder. Putting your money down before you even see the product, Why would you ever do this.

If you like how Firaxis makes civs and know you'd end up buying it all anyway and you want to be able to play on release of each pack and save a few bucks off full price, then it makes sense. Of course, if any of that doesn't apply to you, you buy what you want piecemeal and/or wait until later.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I will if there are perks to it.

Otherwise, I don't get it. Why would I let them hold my money just because?

 

[Atlas627]

I understand why most people view this business model from a consumer's perspective, because most people are consumers. However, this isn't about the consumer at all, and not in the "screw the consumer" sort of way people seem to think.

This particular business model (DLC) is not about the money earned, it is about the costs saved. Quicker production and release cycles means less wasted effort on making something people don't want, making something later (so the risk of investment is higher), and changing the makeup/usefulness of their production team. As different portions of the team are done with DLC 1, they can move on to DLC 2 and, because there is always something down the pipeline, they can keep doing this for a long time. This is way less costly. There's a reason why not only the entire gaming industry has moved to this model, but tech companies in general.

If they already have several months of production mapped out, then why should they make you wait to buy it? You can buy it now if you want. It is an extra option available to you. Because they are happier to get the money up front, they would prefer if you buy sooner, so they will give a discount.

If you don't want to buy upfront, don't. It doesn't change the fact that *this production model is cheaper and safer for them in the first place*. They are not trying to scam you out of your money by making you pay before you see the product. They are giving you the option to buy it early if you want to, and giving you a discount so you are willing to undertake that risk.

 

[clapyourhands]

There are no advantages for the user in that kind of model, it's all about how many are willing to go along with it.

I definitely agree for the most part, but will point out that there is the advantage of getting content faster/more frequently and with consumer feedback playing a larger role along the way. I like the Smash Bros DLC passes, for instance, because the game dev talks about how the release of the previous fighter affects how they approach the fighter they're currently working on. They use the statistics and feedback from previous releases on the pass to tweak future ones. He also talked about a pass system allowing for fewer devs to work on the content at a time without affecting quality or timeframe. It basically boiled down to expansions always having much fewer sales than the base game for almost any type of content, so it wouldn't make sense to work on DLC with a full dev team costing the same amount of resources for content that won't have the same sales. Fewer devs working on the expansion pass of course makes the content take more time, so either all the content is released at once at a later date (presumably as Civ expansions traditionally work), or it is released expansion-pass style. IMO, one reason why Civ is doing an expansion pass this time around is because they're likely still working on the next Civ iteration as they usually do around now. A large dev team working on a Civ VI third expansion might be stretching resources too thin at this point, but a small team working on a Civ VI pass would be more feasible while switching gears towards Civ VII. A pass system would let them turn out quality content on a reasonable timeframe while utilizing fewer resources.

Like Smash, I've been satisfied with the quality of new civilizations and leaders in previous entries, and the number of each as well as the number of new features have been detailed. Personally I will probably wait to see the first few civilizations before purchasing the pass, but I am willing to pay in full ahead to be able to play with the new content earlier. It's priced the same as DLC, so if the model is not your cup of tea waiting until all the content is released before buying makes it essentially identical to a third expansion.

 

[durfal]

I would buy it all the day it came out otherwise, cause I love this game and want it anyway. So it's easier for me and I get a nice extra with the persona pack.
You don't want to buy it up front then just don't. Want to see what you get first, then wait until you do. Buy only the packs you want or not. Want to wait a year for a discount? Then do so.
It's very simple, nobody is forcing you to buy anything you don't want.
And it's only 30 € or $ or whatever equivalent money you pay in advance (40 - +/- 10 for the first pack) anyhow, which pays back over the rest of the year.
For those people for whom 40 €/$ is to much at once they can buy the single packs when they come out. It's not that you miss a hell of a lot if you do.

 

[_hero_]

Theres like zero reason to preorder. Putting your money down before you even see the product, Why would you ever do this.

I don't know. Why would you ever pay to try a new food item at the store without having tasted it first? Why would you pay to go see a movie without having seen if it's good or not yet? Why pay to go to a sports game without knowing your team is going to play well that day? Why pay for insurance without knowing if you're ever going to need it?

It's actually pretty common to pay for something based on hope of quality rather than knowledge of it. It's only in the video game industry where people seem to have a big problem with it.

 

[Kibikus]

I don't know. Why would you ever pay to try a new food item at the store without having tasted it first? Why would you pay to go see a movie without having seen if it's good or not yet? Why pay to go to a sports game without knowing your team is going to play well that day? Why pay for insurance without knowing if you're ever going to need it?

I'm paying for the food item because I know it's already there and I can see it and touch it. I pay to see a movie because I know it's a complete piece of entertainment (same as buying a video game traditionally btw). It's not like I'm buying to see a movie, but they're still shooting it, and I'll have to wait a year to see the final product. That is effectively crowdfunding the movie. And I go to live sports for the atmosphere and social experience, not just so I can see my team win.

It's actually pretty common to pay for something based on hope of quality rather than knowledge of it. It's only in the video game industry where people seem to have a big problem with it.

Looking at the success of loot boxes, I think a lot of people in the video game industry are OK with it.

If you don't want to buy upfront, don't. It doesn't change the fact that *this production model is cheaper and safer for them in the first place*. They are not trying to scam you out of your money by making you pay before you see the product. They are giving you the option to buy it early if you want to, and giving you a discount so you are willing to undertake that risk.

Exactly, that's basically shifting the risk to the consumer, because they can get away with it. Civ VI has been in the top 12 best sellers on Steam for 3 of the last 4 years (and pretty high on the list for the other one), Take Two is the third largest video game company in the US, that's why I find it hard to believe that they are in such dire straits financially that we need to crowdfund their development.

Now that I think about it, this is basically releasing an expansion, except it's in an Early Access form. But it's been 3 and a half years since the game came out. We'll see, if this is a success, this might be the way content is released for Civ in the future, rather than with expansions.

 

[Sostratus]

Exactly, that's basically shifting the risk to the consumer, because they can get away with it. Civ VI has been in the top 12 best sellers on Steam for 3 of the last 4 years (and pretty high on the list for the other one), Take Two is the third largest video game company in the US, that's why I find it hard to believe that they are in such dire straits financially that we need to crowdfund their development.

Now that I think about it, this is basically releasing an expansion, except it's in an Early Access form. But it's been 3 and a half years since the game came out. We'll see, if this is a success, this might be the way content is released for Civ in the future, rather than with expansions.

It’s not really due to lack of money for 2k. They have to pay developers like Ed and Anton every month to work on civ6. They’d really prefer a source Civ6 tied income that has similar characteristics.
This is only beaten by getting money upfront; hence the season pass.
Upfront or constant monthly income- both are vastly preferable to “do all the work for a year, then release an xpac.” That’s a terrible plan for budgeting. In the same way science is king in civ6, cash is king for businesses.

At this stage in civ6 though, adding extra civs is probably the one thing that really makes sense as a monetization option. We can buy them a la carte rather than pay 30-40$ for the whole Xpac (some of which you may not like.)

Stellaris has something analogous to this model, but even they tend to alternate “meaty” dlc that has substantive changes/reworks and lighter fare that adds a little new content like these packs.

 

[Melliores]

I think Firaxis is just going for the natural evolution of the strategy games market. Paradox has been supporting their main games for years after release. Crusader Kings 2 is the prime example of too many overpriced DLC, but City Skylines is my favourite game that shows the way they do business.

They not only release a small gameplay expansion for Cities Skylines once or twice a year, but also offer an asset pack and a radio pack. Do you really need those ? Not really, but they offer additional content that complements the gameplay one. This keeps the income for the team and allows them to actually try new things when checking what the community wants. Moreover the asset packs lately have been created by modders, so they are actually working alongside the community to develop the game.

Quality is in general good for all DLCs, it just depends whether the content appeals to you. If they provide a small discount on release, like XCOM Chimera Squad did, I would say they have a good platform for future releases. Instead of a big expansion every 18 months, provide small releases and judge how the community is taking them in. Then you can adjust and add/ adapt future content to work better for the community.

On the money side, it is always better to have some money in advance, especially during a world crisis. I do not blame them one bit on this.