nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
If you saw my post somewhere above, the game with all additions is currently costing me 11 cents an hour at full retail price 
That will fall of course.
That will fall of course.
New DLCs?
- Thread starter AvianBritish
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dlc rise and fall
MooFreaky
Meatbag Destroyer
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2003
- Messages
- 335
11 cents! What a rip off. I can pay like $25 to go to a cinema for 90 minutes. Plus $7 for a bottle of water to drink while I'm there. Value!If you saw my post somewhere above, the game with all additions is currently costing me 11 cents an hour at full retail price
That will fall of course.
nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
I mean I get it...not everyone will value playing Civ VI as much as we do, so they won't put the significant kind of hours in that I am. But if that's the case...it makes sense for them to not buy the DLC if they would rather spend money elsewhere. Win/win 
God of Kings
Ruler of all heads of state
Don't forget that we CivFanatics are only a very small, but vocal minority.
Most people who play Civ VI play Civ games on the side.
Most people who play Civ VI play Civ games on the side.
Scaramanga
Brickhead
Byzantine Empire: 100% more awesome for 10 turns after declaring Reconquest war.
False. Not possible for Byzantines to get more awesome.
Alexander's Hetaroi
Deity
Declare a early Reconquest War could certainly be Isabella's UA.
Scaramanga
Brickhead
They should add a new civilization before a leader if they're able.Declare a early Reconquest War could certainly be Isabella's UA.
nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
I see no reason that they cannot do both. New leaders take less work than a new civilisation. Though, sure, I get that a large chuck of the work in any civ is the leader themselves. Bygones...they can still do both if the demand is there.
Scaramanga
Brickhead
If an ability like "Reconquest bonus" is good for both an existing civ and a new one I think they should make a new one, especially if it's the Byzantines because it works so well.
nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
There is a huge issue in trying to find the sweet spot of maximum profit based on pricing for a dlc - if they go too low on the price, they will catch hell if they try to raise it back up a little.
They seem to have found a price that gives them enough profit to keep them happy and willing to produce more dlc. This leads me to believe more dlc will come, because they will want some profit while working on the next expansion.
As pointed out, a dlc is cheaper than most entertainment, or about the same cost as a pint or couple of sodas.
No, not everyone can afford them. And that is a shame. Economies differ, GNPs differ, standard of living differs. But they are a great deal.
I bet we see one end of May - end of June.
They seem to have found a price that gives them enough profit to keep them happy and willing to produce more dlc. This leads me to believe more dlc will come, because they will want some profit while working on the next expansion.
As pointed out, a dlc is cheaper than most entertainment, or about the same cost as a pint or couple of sodas.
No, not everyone can afford them. And that is a shame. Economies differ, GNPs differ, standard of living differs. But they are a great deal.
I bet we see one end of May - end of June.
nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
Sure...then computer games are a luxury item (to be added in the next expansion
) so we all pick and choose what we can afford in that regard, even in the West.
Morningcalm
Keeper of Records
What I find amusing is that you erroneously refer to Civ5 as my "beloved". Even a cursory glance through my posts would show I favor Civ IV above all other incarnations of Civ thus far. Civ V simply does some things better than VI, as I mentioned. Aesthetics, UI, scenarios, leader backgrounds etc among them. There are flaws and virtues for IV, V and VI, and nothing I said indicated otherwise. But for the sake of making an argument you've stooped to putting me into the "Civ V lover" camp simply because I pointed out areas where V was stronger than VI. Your tribalism is not welcome or productive.
And your URL, btw, shows V outperforming VI in virtually every metric, including sales, so I don't see how it helps you. As far as number of users being about equal, rather than reflecting poorly on V that reflects poorly on VI, a much newer game with similar numbers of gameplay features to V now. Over a year and an expansion after VI's release it's still only near equal Civ V's number of players. The large number of negative reviews of VI probably dissuade people from bothering.
$5 per Civ means a game with 18 civs costs $90. Civ VI's base game doesn't cost $90. Pound for Poundmaker, expansions are proportionally cheaper than individual DLC.
As I have repeatedly said, I don't hate the idea of paying Firaxis for work (otherwise they wouldn't exist). I don't hate paying a burger company for burgers, I just resent the new prices. Simple distinction and easy to understand.
How is it "entitled" to point out that high prices are high prices? Does anyone who criticizes a price in your view merit Communist castigations? So you would view all those who liked the DLC civs but criticized the price as Communist? (see Khmer/Indonesia DLC reviews for more "bolshy" reviews)
No one contests that, but that isn't relevant. Civ VI has an expansion and much DLC now so it's more at the Gods and Kings stage than the vanilla "satellites don't reveal the world map and archers can take cities almost single-handed" phase.
Last edited:
MP | Moongazer
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2018
- Messages
- 68
I am just afraid of in-app purchase or any kind of microtransaction in a Civ game. Because of the fact that Take-two Interactive owns 2K, I guess.
DLC is a way better approach.
DLC is a way better approach.
Similar threads
