New DLCs?

[Morningcalm]

Which they have the right to do. It is their product! What part of this are you not wanting to understand?

They have the right to do that, yes. And I have the right to point out how overpriced the DLC remain.

 

[Kurnn]

They have the right to do that, yes. And I have the right to point out how overpriced the DLC remain.

The thing with business is that, value stuff that sells, has just the correct price that it sells for.
Overpriced products does not get sold until the price is corrected to exactly the price its worth, which someone is willing to pay.

 

[Jackanape]

I will buy any DLC Firaxis chooses to release. I'm not a big fan of scenarios, outside of the achievements, and even then, not so much, but I love new civs, and will always support their continued release.

Besides, they only cost me the price of a beer...I can always have one less at my local.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

Negative reviews alone don't show most players didn't buy the DD, but common sense does. Preorders for most nearly any game are hardly the majority of people who pick up that game (and I suspect even when the DD became available for non-preorders, that was barely 20% of all purchases). The bulk of Civ's fan base lies outside these threads, and not all are fanatics about Civ who love DLC. (And some fanatics like me generally despise the DLC pricing model).

Obviously if you love Civ a HUGE amount then $5 for a Civ and scenario pack isn't a big deal. But in the long run that's a lot of money compared to the value of the base game or any expansion, and the game right now needs improvements to AI and new maps more than it needs new civs, especially in the wake of Rise and Fall's release.

You don't have to be a HUGE fan of the series to find value in the DLC for $5. But looking at them as a function of just the base game doesn't make sense. For reference here are some other examples of DLC:
$4 Ken Jeong or (not and) Ozzie Man Reviews Voice Overs for Multiplayer (7% of base game)
$7 The Elven Union race (35% of base game, comes with 8 races)
$1 "some useful items to help start you off on your journey" (10% of base game)
$2 The survivor quest (infinity% more than base game FTP)
$10 The Grunes Tal map with new vehicle Ebon Sports UV (40% of base game, no clue how many base maps, but they did release the potato pack for free, so there is that)
$2 The Samurai character pack (25% of base game which comes with 14 characters)


DLC adds more flavor to a game, while totally unneeded, for some, it completes it. I mean if you are eating out and add a scoop of ice cream to a slice of pie. The incremental price of the ice cream probably more than you would normally pay, but since it 'completes' the dish you are after, totally worth it.
​

But I would say common sense says many are buying the DD, either via preorder or after launch (I don't think it was ever not for sale). As I have mentioned the general gaming population is pretty OK with the season pass mechanism, not just hardcore fans of a game. As for the "fanatics", I would imagine this forum would be where you would run into the most people that don't buy the DLC. While the civ series likely skews a bit higher on the median age than most games, this site has to skew way higher on median age for players. I mean its a fan site dedicated to a single game (what is this hosted on, GeoCities?). And if there is one thing older people hate, its skateboarding, also the rap music, also, and in particular, kids on their lawns, but if there is something else they hate its change. Its harder to get the older gamers to be accepting of the DLC model, but most games moved onto this model (some more successfully than others), but season pass models do well overall (they work better than DLC since its only 1 purchase in the mind of the consumer, therefore easier to justify). If only hardcore fans were buying them they wouldn't last, the general populace of gamers are buying them. Firaxis must be seeing similar trends as they tried it with XCOM 2, had that not worked it is very unlikely they would have rolled it out for Civ VI.

 

[nzcamel]

And I'll take the DLC model over the season pass model any day of the week, from a "what's good for my wallet" perspective.

 

[Jackanape]

Have to agree with Tanner on that. All good points. But:

As an older gamer myself--is 50 older?-- I read most of the complaining as "sounding" like "kids wanting something for nothing"...I'm not saying I'm right, just sharing my opinion. I find that usually older consumers have an innate understanding that "making" something costs money, and needs to be "paid for"...

So, is it an age based view?

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

All companies have an incentive to try and match the price of their product to meet the specific means/willingness of individual customers to buy it. They know some people would pay 80 for their product, but others can or will pay only 60. How do they charge the former 80, and the latter 60?

You can see some techniques at the coffee shop: a basic coffee costs 1.5, a fancy coffee 4. Or at the grocery store: 3 is the price (but it's only 2 if you've hunted down and clipped a coupon).

I view the DLCs in this light. Do you want just the basic game? Its 60. Do you want all the bells and whistles? Buy the DLCs and pay 80. Do you get 33% more game with all the DLCs? Nope, but would you like to buy them anyway? Can't / don't want to pay even 60? Wait for a bit of time to pass, and the price will be lower.

 

[Morningcalm]

The thing with business is that, value stuff that sells, has just the correct price that it sells for.
Overpriced products does not get sold until the price is corrected to exactly the price its worth, which someone is willing to pay.

Incorrect and far too theoretical. Real-life sales do not work like that, and the correct "worth" of any product at any given time is usually subjective.

You don't have to be a HUGE fan of the series to find value in the DLC for $5. But looking at them as a function of just the base game doesn't make sense. For reference here are some other examples of DLC:
$4 Ken Jeong or (not and) Ozzie Man Reviews Voice Overs for Multiplayer (7% of base game)
$7 The Elven Union race (35% of base game, comes with 8 races)
$1 "some useful items to help start you off on your journey" (10% of base game)
$2 The survivor quest (infinity% more than base game FTP)
$10 The Grunes Tal map with new vehicle Ebon Sports UV (40% of base game, no clue how many base maps, but they did release the potato pack for free, so there is that)
$2 The Samurai character pack (25% of base game which comes with 14 characters)

DLC adds more flavor to a game, while totally unneeded, for some, it completes it. I mean if you are eating out and add a scoop of ice cream to a slice of pie. The incremental price of the ice cream probably more than you would normally pay, but since it 'completes' the dish you are after, totally worth it.
​

But I would say common sense says many are buying the DD, either via preorder or after launch (I don't think it was ever not for sale). As I have mentioned the general gaming population is pretty OK with the season pass mechanism, not just hardcore fans of a game. As for the "fanatics", I would imagine this forum would be where you would run into the most people that don't buy the DLC. While the civ series likely skews a bit higher on the median age than most games, this site has to skew way higher on median age for players. I mean its a fan site dedicated to a single game (what is this hosted on, GeoCities?). And if there is one thing older people hate, its skateboarding, also the rap music, also, and in particular, kids on their lawns, but if there is something else they hate its change. Its harder to get the older gamers to be accepting of the DLC model, but most games moved onto this model (some more successfully than others), but season pass models do well overall (they work better than DLC since its only 1 purchase in the mind of the consumer, therefore easier to justify). If only hardcore fans were buying them they wouldn't last, the general populace of gamers are buying them. Firaxis must be seeing similar trends as they tried it with XCOM 2, had that not worked it is very unlikely they would have rolled it out for Civ VI.

The problem is when the DLC for Civ VI are lesser in value than an indie game selling for low prices and charitable outcomes. DLC at large are widely reviled but companies pump them out as a way of a) updating content (makes more sense in an MMO, except many giant patches with massive content are free, with or without a subscription, b) making more money for less content (an objectionable objective and very transparent given the refusal of Firaxis to drop DLC prices), c) creating the illusion of customizability. In reality, unless the DLC is purely cosmetic (not the case here), the DLC either add to or reduce your ownership of the overall product content. If DLC in Civ were purely cosmetic (it isn't) I would object a great deal less as to pricing.

They would have rolled out DLC for Civ VI no matter what because they tried it with Civ V already. XCOM has less to do with it given that it's a different game in genre and content model.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

The problem is when the DLC for Civ VI are lesser in value than an indie game selling for low prices and charitable outcomes.

That sounds like choices. You can buy an indie game, someone else can buy the DLC. Different people will perceive value differently.

DLC at large are widely reviled but companies pump them out

Companies respond to the behaviour of their customers, or they go out of business and are replaced by companies that better serve the market. Behaviour in this case is primarily purchasing decisions of actual customers, which isn't necessarily reflected in the general tone of online communities.

making more money for less content (an objectionable objective ...

See my prior post re customizing price to individual customers. If they lower the DLC to a price that you see as fair, then they won't collect as much revenues from me or other customers who are less price sensitive. I don't view this as an objectionable objective, its how they stay in business. The gaming industry's a crappy business at the best of times. They have relatively little margin to avoid possible sources of profit.


I sympathize with your frustration about seeing something you want, priced at a level that you see as overpriced. I'm sure that at some point it will come down in price. I understand that it sucks to wait for that time, but in the meantime I don't think it's fair to vilify Firaxis or 2k for trying to run their business as a normal for profit enterprise.
​

 

[Trengilly]

Given how many hours we sink into these games - I find them to be a bargain compared to most other paid forms of entertainment (movie tickets, sporting event, dinner out, etc).

 

[nzcamel]

Given how many hours we sink into these games - I find them to be a bargain compared to most other paid forms of entertainment (movie tickets, sporting event, dinner out, etc).

I'm at 1751 hours in VI. I've paid full price for the whole lot and didn't get the deluxe (couldn't quite afford it at the time), which I make out to being $201.89 NZD

So that works out to about 11 cents an hour

 

[Duuk]

Can we not rehash and discuss whether or not the concept of DLC is good or bad? DLC as a concept has been around 10 years. It's here, it's staying. Deal with it.

The question is: Will there be DLC post-R+F. And we don't know. So case closed until we know.

@Moderators, may as well close the thread since this is now a nattering of a 10 year old discussion of if DLC should exist or not.

 

[Ennio444]

It does seem very bizarre that they release alternate leaders for just two nations...

I can imagine a returning Napoleon making France steer away from spies and more into the military, the Catholic Kings with an expansion-related trait, Henry VIII could give a religious kick to England, as could Martin Luther to Germany, and Lenin or Trotsky could play with the loyalty mechanics nicely in Russia, making the USSR a dangerous enemy that can steal cities (the more hammers, the more instability). The possibilities are endless. I'd pay for it, so what remains is... why don't they do this?

The agendas seem to me an absurd concept (a civ will base their foreign policy on whether you were not at war with your neighbors, or some such crap?), and so they should be altered, but that's just me.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It does seem very bizarre that they release alternate leaders for just two nations...

I can imagine a returning Napoleon making France steer away from spies and more into the military, the Catholic Kings with an expansion-related trait, Henry VIII could give a religious kick to England, as could Martin Luther to Germany, and Lenin or Trotsky could play with the loyalty mechanics nicely in Russia, making the USSR a dangerous enemy that can steal cities (the more hammers, the more instability). The possibilities are endless. I'd pay for it, so what remains is... why don't they do this?

The agendas seem to me an absurd concept (a civ will base their foreign policy on whether you were not at war with your neighbors, or some such crap?), and so they should be altered, but that's just me.

They already said the idea of the way they wanted to give alternate leaders to Civs would help the modding community and it wouldn't be something they would really focus on. I doubt we will see more than 8 or 10 civs with an alternate leader in the end, and that's me being generous.

 

[nzcamel]

I'm hoping that feedback from the community persuades them otherwise.

 

[altayrneto]

I think that Firaxis/2K are apprehensive in selling alternative leaders as DLC. If are too few in the pack, the comunity could be unsatisfect (even more if the alt leader prove to be mediocre and not so interesting ingame) and could prefer another civ, even more with so many mainstream and waited civs lacking. If there are too much leaders in the pack, could be too expansive to be profitable with a reasonable price.
But if they balance this and release interesting and well made leaders, there's no reason to not be a success. Would be grate to have, for example, a pack of French leaders with Napoleon and Louis XIV, one of Germans with Bismarck and Frederich or one of Chinese with Taizong and Kangxi. (Remembering that Elisabeth I appeared in all other games in the series and is still missing in Civ VI).

 

[Morningcalm]

Can we not rehash and discuss whether or not the concept of DLC is good or bad? DLC as a concept has been around 10 years. It's here, it's staying. Deal with it.

The question is: Will there be DLC post-R+F. And we don't know. So case closed until we know.

@Moderators, may as well close the thread since this is now a nattering of a 10 year old discussion of if DLC should exist or not.

Nope. Once again you don't get my point. As I said repeatedly before, DLC isn't bad if it's free, or reasonably priced. $5 for a Civ/scenario pack is overdoing it. A lot.

I'm hoping that feedback from the community persuades them otherwise.

Feedback from the community at large on paid Civ DLC for VI has not been positive.

Given how many hours we sink into these games - I find them to be a bargain compared to most other paid forms of entertainment (movie tickets, sporting event, dinner out, etc).

Depends on how much you value each of those activities--someone unable to play Civ for more than a few hours each month may not see paid DLC at $5 per pop as a bargain.

I sympathize with your frustration about seeing something you want, priced at a level that you see as overpriced. I'm sure that at some point it will come down in price. I understand that it sucks to wait for that time, but in the meantime I don't think it's fair to vilify Firaxis or 2k for trying to run their business as a normal for profit enterprise.

Nothing that I've said has vilified Firaxis or 2K. Criticizing a company in their prices is not "vilification". Constructive criticism has a place, and it would do you credit to recognize such before "vilifying" those who engage in it.

 

[nzcamel]

Feedback from the community at large on paid Civ DLC for VI has not been positive.

1) I'm clearly specifically talking about feedback re alternative leaders.

2) You are in a vocal minority.

3) Actions speaks louder than words - are the stats available on how many of each dlc has been downloaded or purchased?

 

[Timothy001]

I'm also an older gamer (50 in April). I bought base game (not pre order), all the DLCs, and R&F. I have almost 1000 hrs in. I may have paid 50cents an hour, and it keeps decreasing every game I play. To me that is good value.
If they do more DLC, I'd like to see this model:
DLC 7: Mid Aprilish. 1 New Civ, 1 New Wonder (World or Natural, tied into civ), 1 scenario using new civ.
DLC 8: Mid Summer. 3 new Alt leaders for existing Civs, and a combo of 2 wonders (again World or natural) that ties the 3 leaders together
DLC 9: Fall: Same as DLC 7
DLC 10: Jan or Feb Next year. Double DLC, or 1 new civ, 1 alt leader. With tie ins.
Expansion 2: April 2019.

Even map packs, new wonders on there own, etc would still be a good buy for me. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Morningcalm]

2) You are in a vocal minority.

3) Actions speaks louder than words - are the stats available on how many of each dlc has been downloaded or purchased?

2) Actions speak louder than words--where is proof I am a vocal minority among the Civ community at large?

3) No, through no fault of my own. But the Steam DLC reviews are overwhelmingly negative. Not just mediocre, but overwhelmingly negative.

I'm also an older gamer (50 in April). I bought base game (not pre order), all the DLCs, and R&F. I have almost 1000 hrs in. I may have paid 50cents an hour, and it keeps decreasing every game I play. To me that is good value.
If they do more DLC, I'd like to see this model:
DLC 7: Mid Aprilish. 1 New Civ, 1 New Wonder (World or Natural, tied into civ), 1 scenario using new civ.
DLC 8: Mid Summer. 3 new Alt leaders for existing Civs, and a combo of 2 wonders (again World or natural) that ties the 3 leaders together
DLC 9: Fall: Same as DLC 7
DLC 10: Jan or Feb Next year. Double DLC, or 1 new civ, 1 alt leader. With tie ins.
Expansion 2: April 2019.

Even map packs, new wonders on there own, etc would still be a good buy for me. Just my 2 cents.

Not all of us have so much time or disposable income to see $5 per DLC as good value. But I'm sure Firaxis is glad some people like their DLC and play them a lot.