I pledge to not buy Civ 6 until it is released

[spfun]

Civilization will give enough enjoyment to justify it's price, of that I have no doubt. Further, this may be the best civilization of all time, based on the previews.

However, the Aztec thing is nonsensical to me and really, really will or make or break my decision. If there are 18 civs at release AND the Aztecs come either at release if you pre-ordered or for free later if you did not, I may still pre-buy.

However, if Aztecs are one of the 18 and they are holding them for ransom for three months unless you preorder I will not preorder: to me, it is rewarding terrible practices.

In general I like to see reviews before I buy, and usually that works out well.

Yeah if its 18+1 then there's nothing wrong with it, its an extra civ probably was going to end up as a paid DLC but given for free as a pre-order incentive. That's optimistic thinking though, the pessimistic view would be its 17+1 and Ed has said there will be 18 civs at release it feels extremely bad/desperate and I just hope that's not the case, it would be a terrible decision and absolutely not worth doing as it pisses off a lot of people, is it really worth the reputation hit?

 

[Alphons Rodulfo]

But to be fair, that's a bit of a chicken vs. egg problem - did the bad multiplayer experience and the fact that just joining a lobby to play a quick match is almost impossible make it so that most people lost interest, or was there little interest to begin with.

I wanted to play multiplayer. Playing real intelligence instead of artificial intelligence seemed like fun to me. But it did not take off and I lost interest.
Probably more people would be interested in multiplayer if it was fun to do.

 

[Ryika]

Unless the consumer in question has no issue with this principle. In other words, the principle is the same but this particular principle is entirely insignificant to some people.

I'd argue that everybody has a problem with the principle. I don't think there's a single person who would, if we turn it up to the max, be okay with them putting all but one Civ into the pre-order bonus. Even those who are 100% willing to pre-order no matter what would look at that situation and wonder what's going on.

Well, maybe there's some sociopaths who would be like: "Hah, that's what you get for not pre-ordering!" - but in general, I highly doubt that many people would look at that situation and think it's "fine".

But don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's "bad" to not follow the principle in this situation. I'd argue that it's quite normal to leave a principle behind once the impact is small enough. I care about the law in principle, but when the traffic light is red at 5 am in the morning and I see no car is around I'm perfectly fine with crossing the road while the light is red.

I merely pointed out that the principle is the same because DeutschDachs wondered why it's a problem for some people. I increased the numbers to something that I was sure he would also find questionable, to show him why people more sensitive to that sort of thing would have a problem with the smaller thing.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Obviously Firaxis would not do that, and they did a good job choosing a part of the game that is both, interesting enough to make people consider pre-ordering and not important enough to make it a "big deal", but on principle it's the same thing. There is content. It is delayed for everybody who is not willing to pre-order for the simple reason that they want to get people to pre-order.

Even the most money grubbing publisher would not do that.

Why? Because they also want the money from first couple of weeks in sales, and sale numbers at release would greatly diminish if 66% of content is delayed for "non-VIP members". Not to mention that it would mean that more then half of the game is essentially in the early access, where access is given to those to preordered.

The sales after the release are still much bigger then preoders in order to risk it like that.

On the other hand, delaying 5% of content would not reduce enjoyment of the game that much for most mainstream audience (one extra civ later, who cares...), exempt for most of hardcore fans which are the main target group that preoders.

So essentially, this preorder preys on those fans that want it all NOW, while on the other hand, it does not punish other customers, since they will get the extra content later after release anyway for free.

 

[Ryika]

Well again, it was an example to show why some people care. However, you're saying it's "extra content", others say it's a Civ that is obviously done at release and is thereby content that was cut from the game at release. Reality seems to lie somewhere in-between, it's probably content that could have been created anyway, but they decided that 18 Civs is "good enough", and that 19th sponsor was created to have something as a pre-order bonus.

Either way, I'm just happy it's 18 and not 8 like in Beyond Earth. >.> And unlike other Companies we usually get tons of pre-release footage from Firaxis, so buying shortly before release isn't a huge risk.

 

[LDiCesare]

I'd argue that everybody has a problem with the principle. I don't think there's a single person who would, if we turn it up to the max, be okay with them putting all but one Civ into the pre-order bonus. Even those who are 100% willing to pre-order no matter what would look at that situation and wonder what's going on.

You are not taking this to the max.
The max is NO civ is available on release day. Otherwise said, preorder lets you play the game 3 months before other people can buy it.
And, you can't buy it and play during these 3 first months.
Put this way, the 3 months embargo looks really ridiculous from every point of view.

 

[JosEPh_II]

You are not taking this to the max.
The max is NO civ is available on release day. Otherwise said, preorder lets you play the game 3 months before other people can buy it.
And, you can't buy it and play during these 3 first months.
Put this way, the 3 months embargo looks really ridiculous from every point of view.

Only to a person that has the means to throw their money around as if it were confetti. To everyone else it is not ridiculous.

And so what if others can play it for 3 months before the rest becuase money does nor matter to them. Is those that wait really hurt by not playing 3 months early? The answer is No. I certainly won't be, but maybe you will?

JosEPh

 

[Suho1004]

I will not be pre-ordering Civ 6. This is not because I am taking any sort of principled stand (although I do understand and sympathize with those who are). This is because not only do I never pre-order games, I almost never order them at all until the game has some expansion packs under its belt.

I didn't start playing Civ 5 until after BNW. I'll probably still be playing Civ 5 a year after Civ 6 is released. In essence, the lifespan of games for me is offset by around a year.

Why do I do this? Well, partly out of laziness, but this is also sort of a general life philosophy for me. I am most definitely not an early adopter. I like to let things have their time out on the market so the developers can fix all the bugs and polish it up until it is the product that it probably should have been in the first place. I like to think of this first year on the market as the "gamma testing" phase.

I can of course understand why people might want to get the game on release day. Sure, it's exciting. For me, though, I can wait. I'll wait as long as it takes. And then when that Game of the Year edition goes on sale on Steam, I'll snatch it up and see what all the hoopla is about. Mind you, I will still be consuming all of those initial reviews and hanging out here just to see what everyone has to say about it. That's all part of the fun.

 

[rastak]

I will not be pre-ordering Civ 6. This is not because I am taking any sort of principled stand (although I do understand and sympathize with those who are). This is because not only do I never pre-order games, I almost never order them at all until the game has some expansion packs under its belt.

I didn't start playing Civ 5 until after BNW. I'll probably still be playing Civ 5 a year after Civ 6 is released. In essence, the lifespan of games for me is offset by around a year.

Why do I do this? Well, partly out of laziness, but this is also sort of a general life philosophy for me. I am most definitely not an early adopter. I like to let things have their time out on the market so the developers can fix all the bugs and polish it up until it is the product that it probably should have been in the first place. I like to think of this first year on the market as the "gamma testing" phase.

I can of course understand why people might want to get the game on release day. Sure, it's exciting. For me, though, I can wait. I'll wait as long as it takes. And then when that Game of the Year edition goes on sale on Steam, I'll snatch it up and see what all the hoopla is about. Mind you, I will still be consuming all of those initial reviews and hanging out here just to see what everyone has to say about it. That's all part of the fun.

You my friend, have the patience of a monk and I certainly admire that. I'm busy throwing my money around like it's confetti. I light cigars with 20 dollar bills. I eat out when bread and water is perfectly fine. I live in a house when a shack would provide the same shelter, given enough blankets.

Let us know what you think of it when you do finally take the plunge. You could do much worse than another year with BNW. I'm off to fritter away more cash.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It's often the case that people don't see the problem because it's only a small issue. So let's make it bigger:

Imagine the game shipped with 6 Civilizations and 12 more Civilizations for everybody who had pre-ordered, becoming available only 90 days later for everybody else. Same concept, just the part that is delayed has been increased - still don't see the problem?

I see the problem... for the publisher. In this case they'll loose significant share of the money. There will be more preorders, yes, but much more players will not buy game at all until discounts come in (that's usually not so far away from those 90 days). And if discounts will not come, they'll just not buy the game at all.

I understand what intellectual property is a form of natural monopoly and copyright owners shouldn't be allowed to do anything they want with prices and rules. But the trick with Aztecs is relatively small - I'd say the preorder bonus is smaller than it's considered "normal" in the industry.

 

[m15a]

But the trick with Aztecs is relatively small - I'd say the preorder bonus is smaller than it's considered "normal" in the industry.

I wonder if having the Aztecs as an "early access" bonus rather than charging people that don't pre-order for the DLC is a response to complaints of having to pay for "free" pre-order DLC in past games. I don't know what the opinion was about having to pay for pre-order DLC was with Civ V (with BE it was minor, but the bonus was minor as well). But with the response to the Aztec pre-order bonus being so negative, I'm wondering if 2k regrets not just making the Aztecs a DLC that's only free for pre-orders.

 

[Suho1004]

You my friend, have the patience of a monk and I certainly admire that. I'm busy throwing my money around like it's confetti. I light cigars with 20 dollar bills. I eat out when bread and water is perfectly fine. I live in a house when a shack would provide the same shelter, given enough blankets.

Well, I don't know if my asceticism goes quite that far.

Let us know what you think of it when you do finally take the plunge.

It is usually long after anyone cares about the opinions of someone playing the game for the first time, but I will indeed share my thoughts.

 

[Ryika]

I see the problem... for the publisher. In this case they'll loose significant share of the money. There will be more preorders, yes, but much more players will not buy game at all until discounts come in (that's usually not so far away from those 90 days). And if discounts will not come, they'll just not buy the game at all.

Yes, that would certainly be the outcome, but that outcome stems from the people having a problem with what is being done in the first place.

I understand what intellectual property is a form of natural monopoly and copyright owners shouldn't be allowed to do anything they want with prices and rules. But the trick with Aztecs is relatively small - I'd say the preorder bonus is smaller than it's considered "normal" in the industry.

Oh, I agree. Like I said: The bonus is small enough that I'm happy to ignore it. And Firaxis has a good Track Record of honestly showing the product they're about to release.

But all of these are "It's not that bad"-things, not "didn't do nothing"-things, so it's to be expected hat other people have different opinions on that.

 

[stealth_nsk]

But all of these are "It's not that bad"-things, not "didn't do nothing"-things, so it's to be expected hat other people have different opinions on that.

Yes, sure. I just have a feeling most people are ok with preorder bonus like this (especially if Aztecs are not one of 18 previously counted). And there's only small share of people loudly complaining.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Babylon for Civ5 had much higher uproar (needeing to buy special what I would call "gold plated" edition to get access). So all is good now, compared to then.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Even the most money grubbing publisher would not do that.

Why? Because they also want the money from first couple of weeks in sales, and sale numbers at release would greatly diminish if 66% of content is delayed for "non-VIP members". Not to mention that it would mean that more then half of the game is essentially in the early access, where access is given to those to preordered.

This might be a good opportunity to remind people that Firaxis is a wholly owned subsidiary of Take2, the people who threw Evolved on the market with over 100 $/€ "worth" of microtransactions and DLC.

Babylon for Civ5 had much higher uproar (needeing to buy special what I would call "gold plated" edition to get access). So all is good now, compared to then.

People got used to it. I was even considering to buy a special edition because I spend so much more time playing Civ than almost any other game, but this new pre-order blackmail scheme triggered something in me and brought all of my base annoyance at the the video game industry to the surface.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Nothing wrong with that. If you do not want all game content at release and also do not want to risk buying game that could be bad, then wait 3 months and buy then if reviews are good.

Nothing wrong with that choice.

 

[Skulbow]

I have preordered the deluxe edition because I have over 100 hours in CivIV, 350 hours in BERT and 860hrs in CivV. Never played the first 3 but my dad put in 100's of hours to all those games so it is fairly obvious that Civ games are the games you will probably get your moneys worth.

I want to play CivVI as soon as possible and couldn't care less about imbalances and early bugs because they will probably be ironed out during the first few months as I start wracking up the hours!!

In all liklihood I will still be playing it still in 2020.

I buy other games and play thirty/fifty hours and consider it par for a game.

 

[Acken]

Yes, that would certainly be the outcome, but that outcome stems from the people having a problem with what is being done in the first place.

Buying a game is a trade. Both parties want something out of it. Of course everybody has an issue even small with the preorder. But thats the haggling part. The merchant will try to squeeze you as much as it can.

You cannot simply imagine that they could go to the extreme. They also could put a price tag of 500$ or a monthly subscription. Nobody likes paying money. But the same phenomenon would happen as putting everything in a preorder bonus : the trade is no longer balanced and some customer will walk out of the deal.

 

[Ryika]

Buying a game is a trade. Both parties want something out of it. Of course everybody has an issue even small with the preorder. But thats the haggling part. The merchant will try to squeeze you as much as it can.

Yeah, exactly. Although I'd still argue that Firaxis is going really light at it compared to the gaming industry as a whole - which is good as it helps their image and will, I'd assume, benefit them in the long run, while certain other companies seem to be aiming to maximize their short-term income.

You cannot simply imagine that they could go to the extreme. They also could put a price tag of 500$ or a monthly subscription. Nobody likes paying money. But the same phenomenon would happen as putting everything in a preorder bonus : the trade is no longer balanced and some customer will walk out of the deal.

Again, my argument was about the principle, to show why some people have a problem with the smaller bonus, not about price maximization for Firaxis, that's why I'm perfectly fine with exaggerating over what would be reasonable in real life, it's just to put the principle under a magnifying glass.

I mean, the principle-example even holds true for the $500 per Month price tag. Even assuming I could afford it, I would obviously not pay it. You wouldn't either. But some billionaire may very well not care about the principle and just like the game. And if he's sufficiently alienated from the world of the people who have to think about what is a fair price and what isn't he may not understand why I wouldn't want to pay that amount of money, even though in that example I'd be rich enough to afford it. It's the same situation. One person says "That's not okay!", and the other one says: "What's the big deal?".

And none of them is really wrong, because the morality behind the issue really depends on your viewpoint - both arguments are understandable from their position.