Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by ash88, Jul 18, 2016.
Amen my friend.
With less than 6 months until release, I see no connection between not pre-ordering and Civ6 becoming "the best Civ ever". If anything, without any pre-order income the publisher might push even harder for a rush release because "I want to see money NAO!!!"
Also, "the best Civ ever" is not necessarily what those who pre-ordered are going for. They pre-order because they know they will play the game, with glitches or not. Granted, a game swarmed by bugs and crashes will be a huge let-down, but that's what refunds are for (and if you got the game without refund policy - why did you do that?). And if the game ends up with some tolerable bugs, these customers are most likely fine with waiting for them to get patched while still playing the game. It's a difference in perspective. What you see as an apocalypse that will ruin the dream of having "the best Civ ever", others see as a minor setback in a game they enjoy that will be fixed eventually.
At the end of the day, it's really a discussion with no much point - at least when talking specifically of Civ6. Team No-preorder says: "Hey, you can get the game anytime you want with no risks, why not just wait a bit?", and team Preorder replies: "Right, I can get the game anytime I want with no risks, why SHOULDN'T I get it now?"
Also, video-game journalism is a joke these days. That "article" just proved this point.
I really hope your statement was sarcasm, but if it wasn't, then... if that is your measure of superiority, then... no words.
Moderator Action: Please cease the personal jibes.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Definitely sarcasm. Don't be so serious
Nowadays you can even pre order to get the bonuses and if reviews says it's a pile of crap that you wouldn't have bought just ask for a refund without playing the game.
Well, the game will not be out in almost 3 months anyway, so it's no "instant gratification". I preordered to get the Aztec bonus, because I'm confident the game will be worth it for me anyway, like all previous games in the series (even the worst, BE, gave me 200 hours which is far more than most games). And to be fair, the price is less than Sega Megadrive games I bought 20 years ago (even before adjusted for inflation). So it's not like it's a huge investment.
If I would want "instant gratification" I would go to Steam and buy another game instead, not pre-order something I can't play for 3 months
I pledge not to pre-order unless it starts with Poland as non-DLC base game content.
If however Poland is not included, I'm not going to be foolish enough to risk getting a buggy, flawed product when I could be playing something like Vox Populi or any game from my backlog instead. The district idea, I feel, might make the game bad if even a single thing is done wrong, and the leader screens do look pretty awful with all of them looking like abominations that escaped the wrathful operations of Dr Frankenstein. Very sceptical about the city centre not traditionally having all the buildings while the rest is meant to be improvements - this can backfire pretty badly.
Clearly we don't get anything by not pre-ordering this one specific game.
And we might not get anything for not pre-odering any games at all. Ultimately it depends on how people who decide policy for these companies would react to such a move, and it is not something we'll ever to able to empirically prove will pay dividends.
But what is the cost of the attempt? Waiting a few days or even a full month to buy a video game, or to have all of the extras.
And yeah, obviously we're not talking about buying a house here, this is just about the most frivolous of the frivolous goods...which is just another reason why it shouldn't be so hard to just take a step back, take a breath, and just wait a little while to -maybe- make the next product better and improve the industry.
Not preordering means you may wait a long time and pay less. For instance, I'm far from convinced that Civ VI will be a game to my taste, and the refund policies are a joke considering how long I need to actually appraise the game, so peer reviews may be the best source of info about the game. They may help me avoid wasting time and money the way I did with Civ V.
Not prordering means other people take risk on blindly buying tha game instead of you.
On the other hand, if game is good and you want to get it after release, you will be able to play Aztecs only 3 months later.
If the game sells poorly it will not be patched which could turn it into a good game. If the game is poor at release but sell well it will be patched and the release issues may be fixed.
I almost preordered today. I don't do it much because I do think that the quality of games nowadays at release is pretty poor, but lets face it, unless when I put the disk in my computer explodes I'll be happy. It's a Civ game, it can't be bad.
It is more that the expected quality have been increased from the 90s then that the quality have dropped since the 90s. Actually thanks to patching, I would say the quality of games have been significantly improved since the 90s and 00s.
I dunno, I remember playing The old Police Quests and stuff. I spent so much time playing those games. I can't remember to many problems with them, they sorted out the problems prior to release, there was no need for patches...
maybe I'm just old and remember the good ol' days with rose coloured glasses though.
Fallout 1 and 2 were a mess. The community patch on Fallout 2 couln't fix all the bugs even with many years and a lot of releases. Also Planescape Torment, Vampire: The Masquerade and Arcanum were quite buggy.
When games became more complex, it was harder to fix all the bugs. Point and click adventures typically had less complex scripting, so they were never that buggy.
Also, nearly all DOS games had minimum system req that made the game nearly worthless on said computer, you always had to go at above even the recommended specs.
Yeah, and the next release will be poor and buggy at release again. In that situation, wouldn't it make more sense to not buy the game while it's a mess, send a signal and make them release their next game in a better stage?
Civ fans (I've been playing since Civ I) will buy the game immediately and wait for any needed fixes and rebalancing. Any new Civ is better than no new Civ.
Absolutely agree, I have been playing cince Civ 1, I won't be waiting.
Good old days, where the bugs were small, only happened in one condition the developers didn't foresee (that you could fix by going back a save, or messing with fix-cheats) or at least very late in the game.
Nowadays only Nintendo can be trusted to release a finished product. Or most of other Japanese companies, they can typically be trusted... unless of course it's their first PC port (because now every single one of them wants in on Steam), in that case expect it to be very flawed and 30 fps. There's exceptions though, like that new EDF port.
In general console games are far more bug free than PC games, and that's perfectly reasonable. Nintendo is nothing special in that regard.
Separate names with a comma.