I pledge to not buy Civ 6 until it is released

[Acken]

Well maybe its because I dont understand why there is a moral argument around it.

 

[Ryika]

Well, we're getting a bit off-track here. Morality was not part of the original argument, that last sentence was more of an afterthought of the $500-argument.

Because it's easy to see how some people who can't afford spending $500 per Month, or who could but have learned to not give in to that sort of price gouging, would find the act itself and those who enable it by spending that amount of money, immoral. They're kept from something they'd enjoy just because some insanely rich people don't have to think in such "small numbers" and maybe even enjoy paying that money for the exclusivity.

But from the point of view of somebody who spends that amount of money that argument probably doesn't even come up, and in the end it's just market economics.

The original argument was still meant to work something like this:
"I don't see why you'd think there's anything wrong with this."
"Well, let me increase the numbers to something that you wouldn't feel comfortable with."
"Oh, yeah, the principle is the same. I still don't think it's a big deal, but I see why somebody who is interested in standing in for the principle even on this small level would find it an unacceptable deal."

 

[Acken]

But they dont do it not because its too immoral but because its not profitable.

My point is just that there is no morality here as videogames are a luxury good. When someone refuses to buy it is because what he has to give is not worth it.

Taking the risk of getting a poor game for the preorder bonus will be worth it for some and not for others. Even if he could afford it he refused to buy because the price does not match the value. The fact that you introduce an element of subjectivity based on wealth here I think shows that its more about trading than morality.

When it comes to preorders i still think its the same because while i dont think about the morality of it there is a moral hazard asociated with the practice. That is while I dont think its a morality issue many biyers do.

But really i feel im mostly arguing semantics here 😉

 

[Jarru]

Doesnt't that funny stuff with Aztecs tell us something? Maybe it tells us that the game is not that great so publisher wants to cash on preorders as much as possible instead of waiting for bad opinions about the low quality of the title and low sells. I hope not...

 

[Ryika]

But they dont do it not because its too immoral but because its not profitable.

My point is just that there is no morality here as videogames are a luxury good. When someone refuses to buy it is because what he has to give is not worth it.

Taking the risk of getting a poor game for the preorder bonus will be worth it for some and not for others. Even if he could afford it he refused to buy because the price does not match the value. The fact that you introduce an element of subjectivity based on wealth here I think shows that its more about trading than morality.

When it comes to preorders i still think its the same because while i dont think about the morality of it there is a moral hazard asociated with the practice. That is while I dont think its a morality issue many biyers do.

But really i feel im mostly arguing semantics here 😉

Not really semantics, there is a difference in the nuances, but for some reason the fact that I very much agree with you doesn't seem to come through. It's like I'm saying: "Let's imagine tomorrow Aliens attacked the planet, could the human race survive?" and you say: "Aliens wouldn't attack our planet, because species sufficiently advanced to have space travel are peaceful." And then I say: "Yeah, that's fine, it's a hypothetical. Could we survive?" "Well, it doesn't matter if we'd be able to survive, because it wouldn't happen." "Yeah, I know, I know. It's just a fun thought experiment." "One that couldn't happen."

Like I said, it's a hypothetical that I made up purely to put a magnifying glass on the smaller issue.

And the argument isn't about Morality, I only brought in Morality because it came to mind after I had put myself into the shoes of the person who would want to play the game but can't afford it. I totally see why that person would _feel_ like the rich guy is acting "immorally".

But like I said, from an "outside view" it's just market economics.

Although I wouldn't take much too take it into more sketchy territory. Let's say tomorrow a rich person would offer Firaxis a huge sum of money simply to not release the game and instead delete it from their hard drives. Would that person be acting immorally? Would accepting that deal make the people @Firaxis immoral?

After all, the only goal of that deal would be to make sure people can't play the game.

Anyway.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'd say that the fact that the amount of multiplayer groups is small, the fact that multiplayer-based threads are few strongly point into that direction. The only person who ever got some serious success with making Civ V Multiplayer videos is Filthy Robot (as far as I know at least), and his success is easily towered by many of the big Civ V Singleplayer Youtubers - which I would expect to be the other way around if Civ V Multiplayer were a big thing, because people who play Multiplayer generally have the bigger interest in watching content to get better at the game. The same goes for Theorycrafting, which is basically nonexistent for Multiplayer outside of the NQ-Scene - which also isn't that big.

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.

From a *design* perspective, it's almost impossible to make a good competitive MP setting in civ. You would need pre-made maps for balance, constrained civ choices, and even then you have a time barrier that makes showcasing it like FPS, MOBA or RTS problematic. That's how bigger youtubers on MP games tend to succeed.

However, making the MP experience more playable is realistic.

The chicken vs egg problem is real too. Civ 4 and 5 have had nigh-completely broken MP experiences on release, and 5 was never truly fixed since putting more than 4 people in a game melts it, no matter which 5 we used in the experiment. 4 was pretty good at the end of its cycle. Broken-release MP that doesn't get better fast can nosedive the MP community fast. It's hard to have a MP community when you can't play it, and civ 4 and 5 combine for over a decade of main-line civ, with only a few good years in 4 where it was a viable option.

To attract interest from nothing, the experience has to be really good. No main-line civ title ever created made serious, period-competitive effort at creating a good MP experience. Its UI, net code, basic functionality, design balance, even removal of basic features like scaling turn timer have done no favors. Many of these are strictly negative.

In this case, we're lacking the egg that mutates into the chicken. The series has never had a strong MP setup, so why would we expect much MP interest? Is there MP interest for fallout? Minesweeper?

Mass effect had no MP experience initially, then they built it in pretty well for 3 (maybe they should have built in an ending too, can't have everything I guess). Maybe if civ builds in a halfway decent MP experience where players don't hit start already anticipating it to fail, the MP community will look different.

When it comes to preorders i still think its the same because while i dont think about the morality of it there is a moral hazard asociated with the practice. That is while I dont think its a morality issue many biyers do.

This is definitely not a moral issue. Having low or high standards as a market isn't inherently moral, and there's nothing morally wrong about making a game that is good or terrible for its pricing (the market tends to let you know about pricing effectiveness, with some noise factors).

Anything said here isn't even going to be a blip on the market's standards for civ 6. I find that unfortunate, but I can't pretend I'm doing anything but discussing the issue here without lying to myself. I don't anticipate these any of these arguments making a difference, much as I wish that anticipation were wrong .

 

[Ryika]

Well, I personally wouldn't be against Pre-Made Maps, and a Starcraft-Style Multiplayer as an Option. Make it pseudo-Real Time (Units have a Cooldown between Moves, all Yields and Production Queues tick regularly), find a balance between action and strategy, and there you go, you have a viable Multiplayer-Game that would probably be fun watching as an eSports.

Obviously that's not the Multiplayer-Experience people are looking for, but still. I think it would be freaking amazing. ^_^

But yeah, let's hope the actual MP is stable this time around, and maybe, some proper Multiplayer Tools while we're at it.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Well, I personally wouldn't be against Pre-Made Maps, and a Starcraft-Style Multiplayer as an Option. Make it pseudo-Real Time (Units have a Cooldown between Moves, all Yields and Production Queues tick regularly), find a balance between action and strategy, and there you go, you have a viable Multiplayer-Game that would probably be fun watching as an eSports.

Obviously that's not the Multiplayer-Experience people are looking for, but still. I think it would be freaking amazing. ^_^

But yeah, let's hope the actual MP is stable this time around, and maybe, some proper Multiplayer Tools while we're at it.

We had pseudo-realtime before. It's awful, IMHO. I'd prefer Civilization multiplayer to be something you do with friends for fun, half of multiplayer to be hotseat. Not some cybersport crazyness.

However, Civ6 direction seem to be against even light multiplayer. Both diplomacy and espionage don't look like they'll more or less work in MP.

 

[Ryika]

We had pseudo-realtime before. It's awful, IMHO. I'd prefer Civilization multiplayer to be something you do with friends for fun, half of multiplayer to be hotseat. Not some cybersport crazyness.

Hey, I'm not against traditional Civ Multiplayer. We can have both.

You can play along with your friends, and I do proper eSports.

 

[LDiCesare]

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

I think we have a communication problem here.
By ridiculous, I ment that being unable to play for 3 months unless you preorder is nonsensical.
It is nonsensical because it provides benefit to noone.
The buyer has no incentive to buy during 3 months, thus the seller loses sales, so it does not make sense to push this to the extreme.

 

[King Rad]

As I stated quite a few pages back, I preordered because I got a discount for doing so. Also, my credit card does not get charged until the delivery date (10/21), so I'm saving 20% on a game I can't imagine not enjoying (so far I really like every new feature I've seen, and I love Civ BNW so it seems minimal risk to me).

I mention that my credit card doesn't get charged because in many (if not all) cases, the developer doesn't actually get the money until the game "ships." Also, I spent some time with my son (who is a computer game designer and has worked on projects for various systems [PC, Playstation, Wii, etc.] and for various companies, and he confirmed what I understood to be the case, that the preorders are minimal from virtually any perspective to the major developers, except for possibly giving them an idea of how popular the game will be [which for Civ probably isn't much of a question anyway]. The only place where the preorders have a major impact on game development is on Kickstarter games where funds are needed to complete a project. Gaming is a business like any other and I'm pretty familiar with how businesses operate (I've worked in the financial consulting arena advising companies from small "mom and pops" to multinational giants for over 40 years) - and the developers, designers, etc. have both deadlines which they have to meet and a requirement to produce a decent product or they will lose people's business. Trying to balance those demands is always difficult and usually results in some compromises. They are not always successful - just look at the persons on this forum who are stating they won't preorder - or order at all - until xxx conditions are met because of their experience with V, BE, etc. It is in every business's best interest to keep its customers loyal and happy. They, including gaming companies, don't always succeed. But the preorder impact on the company and its attempts to make money (which ultimately involves keeping customers happy) has little to no effect on this. But as succinctly stated by someone earlier in this thread, the decision of whether or not to preorder basically boils down to whether someone thinks they're getting a benefit that is worth their assessment of the risk.

 

[comatosedragon]

Too late. I just pre-purchased.

 

[Civ5Play]

Unless the late game turn issues are addressed, I will be skipping this one. :-\

 

[kingchris20]

Intentionally supporting lower release standards leads to lower release standards. Paying to be a beta tester is not a reasonable expectation of the end consumer.

In your opinion... For me I like the current model. Whether I pay for it now or pay for it later, I am going to be paying for it.

I mean, are you expecting them to release it and then abandon it completely?

I'd rather have the game now, and work through the bugs as a community (if any are present, we are just assuming {granted with high probability} that there will be bugs). There are so many variables in different player's systems etc. that it is nearly impossible to release a game without bugs anyway. So your argument in my opinion is kind of weak.

Its not supporting lower release standards, the standards are not lowering for release (in fact with Civ VI, it appears as though they are increasing IMO. And "paying to be a beta tester" is a bit of a stretch. They are releasing a finished game, it's really just going to be tweaks based on the aforementioned variables.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

In your opinion... For me I like the current model. Whether I pay for it now or pay for it later, I am going to be paying for it.

I mean, are you expecting them to release it and then abandon it completely?

I'd rather have the game now, and work through the bugs as a community (if any are present, we are just assuming {granted with high probability} that there will be bugs). There are so many variables in different player's systems etc. that it is nearly impossible to release a game without bugs anyway. So your argument in my opinion is kind of weak.

Its not supporting lower release standards, the standards are not lowering for release (in fact with Civ VI, it appears as though they are increasing IMO. And "paying to be a beta tester" is a bit of a stretch. They are releasing a finished game, it's really just going to be tweaks based on the aforementioned variables.

No reach. Civ 5 vanilla release was a paid beta. Calling that a finished game when it didn't meet it's own advertising doesn't work.

Civ 6 might be better. I hope it is. Track record suggests betting on it is not wise.

 

[malekithau]

Ahh thank you I forgot to pre-order. Will do so now.

 

[rastak]

No reach. Civ 5 vanilla release was a paid beta. Calling that a finished game when it didn't meet it's own advertising doesn't work.

Civ 6 might be better. I hope it is. Track record suggests betting on it is not wise.

I was able to finish every game I started in 5, I certainly considered it a released game despite the AI issues. Sid Meier's Sim Golf is the only game I ever remember by Firaxis that was literally unplayable until it got patched.

I wouldn't expect 6 to be perfect, far from it. It seems almost every one of these releases from 3 on up get's re-balanced and bugs fixed.

 

[Onemorecivfan]

I was able to finish every game I started in 5, I certainly considered it a released game despite the AI issues. Sid Meier's Sim Golf is the only game I ever remember by Firaxis that was literally unplayable until it got patched.

I wouldn't expect 6 to be perfect, far from it. It seems almost every one of these releases from 3 on up get's re-balanced and bugs fixed.

You were an exception then because it crashed constantly it was part of the reason I didn't buy Civ 5 until after G&K came out. And Civ 5 still has that weird memory leak issue if you play it too long in one sitting.

 

[rastak]

You were an exception then because it crashed constantly it was part of the reason I didn't buy Civ 5 until after G&K came out. And Civ 5 still has that weird memory leak issue if you play it too long in one sitting.

I didn't know that was a widespread thing. Yea, I had no crashes that I recall.

 

[King Rad]

I didn't know that was a widespread thing. Yea, I had no crashes that I recall.

Same here. Never crashed; never failed to finish a game from vanilla to now.