Settler's edition announced

[Crashdummy]

Its kind of a disrespect for those of us that cought the Founders edition as "exclusive" only to see it sold again and renamed it 6 months after release for a cheaper price

 

[Skojardu]

If it's just Antiquity, I am already fully kitted up with DLC for Soren's baby, Old World, so I will keep on enjoying it. Thanks Leuc

 

[Kwami]

Its kind of a disrespect for those of us that cought the Founders edition as "exclusive" only to see it sold again and renamed it 6 months after release for a cheaper price

The exclusives are still exclusive.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Its kind of a disrespect for those of us that cought the Founders edition as "exclusive" only to see it sold again and renamed it 6 months after release for a cheaper price

That's just sales. If you bought it at the higher price, you estimated it's value to you was worth that higher price.

Everyone in gaming knows sales happen and if you wait you can get money off, more waiting = more money off.

The exclusive part was 1) the early access, which was exclusive and always will be (and the highest value individual extra thing to players I suspect) and 2) the cosmetics, but they aren't any more valuable to you whether other people can or cannot still buy them.

There's many reasons I would criticise friaxis and 2K at the moment, but this settlers edition and sale is not one of them for me.

I think it's perfectly naturally now the 2nd pre-release DLC is starting to be available that they allow it to be bought as a package with the first pre release DLC, the pre-order DLC and the base game.

And I didn't realise just how insane that sentence would really sound until I typed it... Dlc model on this game is ludicrous - but the ludicrous part is the amount of it on launch, not the packaging of it so it can be bought post launch, or the discounted price

 

[Uberfrog]

I think it’s a poor showing that the Founders package has essentially been resold at a discount before the last piece of Right to Rule has even been released. I think we could have reasonably expected that the DLC actually be playable in its entirety before being repackaged and discounted. But it’s obvious that 2K is trying to generate more sales, so it’s probably not a bad thing for the game’s long term prospects.

Really the problem was in having three tiers of content at launch in the first place, this was always overpriced and exploitative.

 

[Pfeffersack]

Aside from the base game still lacking too much for me to consider investing in DLC for that price, I dislike the compliacted and convoluted way this is presented and offered. If I have to spend minutes to figure out what I will exactly get from the steam descriptions and then still head to a fan forum to confirm my findings...well, it isn't encouraging.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't think it's a straightforward answer. Civ7 still has a lot of rough edges, and as much as I complain about the game as a whole, they have got antiquity down perfectly, it's after that when things go downhill very fast. It is still the closest you'll get to early access without being early access, so are you ok with that?

I wouldn't buy the DLC in the current form Firaxis are releasng them, Civ switching makes them a very poor value proposition...

I'm not sure about the last part. Putting aside price questions, DLC content improves the game a lot. Both for variability of opponents in each era and for variability of your own games as most DLC civs are really distinctive. Carthage, who can't get more than one city in its era, Assyria which don't receive codices in a normal way or Bulgaria focused on pillaging are all really cool.

 

[McSpank01]

I wouldn't buy the DLC in the current form Firaxis are releasng them, Civ switching makes them a very poor value proposition...

I would think you would want 6 civs per DLC at a bare minimum, it really is the Civ that gives the DLC the sense of value. Leaders themselves feel like window dressing to me. Civ Switching does mean that each DLC needs a lot more content to pad itself out, otherwise it just looks bare bones.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I'm not sure about the last part. Putting aside price questions, DLC content improves the game a lot. Both for variability of opponents in each era and for variability of your own games as most DLC civs are really distinctive. Carthage, who can't get more than one city in its era, Assyria which don't receive codices in a normal way or Bulgaria focused on pillaging are all really cool.

Out of interest, what is the maximum amount you would be willing to spend on Civ VII and all dlc by the end of its cycle? Do you have a conception of a maximum you would spend, or a price per minute played you think is good value?

 

[stealth_nsk]

Out of interest, what is the maximum amount you would be willing to spend on Civ VII and all dlc by the end of its cycle? Do you have a conception of a maximum you would spend, or a price per minute played you think is good value?

I have generally 2 metrics - price per minute (where Civ is already winner) and expenses per year. Even if my current financial struggles, I could probably spend $500-600 on a Civilization game through the course 3 years (a usual timeframe for expansions) without much thinking.

 

[Niallism]

Why? Because it's cheaper when Steam is having a big 4X sale? Nearly every game on Steam goes on sale fairly often. I've been playing my Founder's Edition for about 6 months already. I'm not pissed off at all.

I wouldn't mind if they'd released all the things we paid for first. But they still haven't finished the DLC release.

I have zero problem with them selling these after they've delivered the product we paid early - and more - for.

Of course when I pay full price for something, I know it will be discounted later. But I expect the thing I've paid full price for to arrive before they start selling it at a discount. It would be the same even with donuts. You order some donuts in the store, they take longer than expected to give you them, there is some delay, and while you're waiting, they put the donuts on sale.

 

[sonicmyst]

Me with more than 1000 hours for Civ VII, any upcoming DLCs are still welcome, although I hope they make the pricing more approachable to us customers. I also hope they should at least bundle DLCs with at least one civ per age + 1 leader. Having an even numbered civs on a three-age game looks a bit... weird.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I have generally 2 metrics - price per minute (where Civ is already winner) and expenses per year. Even if my current financial struggles, I could probably spend $500-600 on a Civilization game through the course 3 years (a usual timeframe for expansions) without much thinking.

Appreciate you sharing! I'm certainly in a different bracket when it comes to spend expectations, so I can understand how the current Civ pricing (especially given price per minute) represents value to you.

Personally I don't think I've spent $500 on video games in the past 10 years combined, and it's only a little short of what I've spent on my PC in the last 10 years! But then I'm a europoor

 

[stealth_nsk]

Appreciate you sharing! I'm certainly in a different bracket when it comes to spend expectations, so I can understand how the current Civ pricing (especially given price per minute) represents value to you.

Personally I don't think I've spent $500 on video games in the past 10 years combined, and it's only a little short of what I've spent on my PC in the last 10 years! But then I'm a europoor

Well, I'm not rich too and my previous employer owns me tonns of money (which meant I had to go into debts), but $600 for 3 years is about $16 per month and I think I could handle this.

 

[MrRadar]

I'm in the market for a downgrade pack from my Founder's edition into the new Settler's one and getting back the difference. If the industry offers upgrade packs, there surely must be downgrade ones as well?

 

[Leucarum]

I'm not sure about the last part. Putting aside price questions, DLC content improves the game a lot. Both for variability of opponents in each era and for variability of your own games as most DLC civs are really distinctive. Carthage, who can't get more than one city in its era, Assyria which don't receive codices in a normal way or Bulgaria focused on pillaging are all really cool.

It puts Civ in an awkward spot where it needs more content but compared against, say the NFP for Civ6, I feel like we're getting less content from every Civ we purchase... I do think the price is reflective of what it costs Firaxis to make the DLC, I don't think it's worth that cost while you only get to play each Civ for 1/3 of a game. And it's mostly about how paying that feels compared to DLC Firaxis have released for other games before now...

 

[McSpank01]

Out of interest, what is the maximum amount you would be willing to spend on Civ VII and all dlc by the end of its cycle? Do you have a conception of a maximum you would spend, or a price per minute played you think is good value?

Personally I have never put a number on it. There are a number of games I have slammed down a load of money on DLC over the years, but it doesn't really bother me. The metric I am judging it by is whether that DLC adds new value to the game and that each bit of content feels worthwhile. Right now with CIv 7 DLC I don't get that sense. Everything feels like a flavour pack rather than truly new content.

I think partly it's ages, so each Civ is only relevant for some time. Also however, it's that each Civ feels very boilerplate, and not very unique. Even now I can only think of 1 or 2 civs who might be seen to play in any sort of unique way. Getting +1 bonuses here or there is so uninspired. There are also issues with some of the unit types, getting unique people or missionaries just feels very 'meh'. Every time I see new Civs in a DLC I don't get excited, something about it just feels like a reskin.

I wouldn't pay more than £5 for a reskin however.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It puts Civ in an awkward spot where it needs more content but compared against, say the NFP for Civ6, I feel like we're getting less content from every Civ we purchase... I do think the price is reflective of what it costs Firaxis to make the DLC, I don't think it's worth that cost while you only get to play each Civ for 1/3 of a game. And it's mostly about how paying that feels compared to DLC Firaxis have released for other games before now...

DLC never reflect their development cost, because they are part of the economics of the whole game.

For the rest, it's a matter of perception. I don't see those civilizations as 1/3 of what I got as a civilization in Civ6, because they greatly change how I play the game in their age.

 

[Leucarum]

DLC never reflect their development cost, because they are part of the economics of the whole game.

For the rest, it's a matter of perception. I don't see those civilizations as 1/3 of what I got as a civilization in Civ6, because they greatly change how I play the game in their age.

Given that they expect Civ7 to have a large tail they probably do expect DLC to be a large part of the expected income. While everything is subjective in this kind of value judgement, I doubt I'll buy the next XPAC until it's heavily discounted if it follows the same format.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Given that they expect Civ7 to have a large tail they probably do expect DLC to be a large part of the expected income. While everything is subjective in this kind of value judgement, I doubt I'll buy the next XPAC until it's heavily discounted if it follows the same format.

If we look at Civ5 and Civ6, they had roughly the same pattern:

1. First expansion pack coming in a year and a half after release (Civ6 faster, Civ5 slower)
2. Second expansion pack coming roughly a year after first one
3. The majority of civilization and leader DLCs coming before the first expansion pack, due to potential inconsistencies of making DLC compatible with both vanilla and expansion rules
4. Civ6 also had some additional content sold after the normal lifecycle, due to its large success

I generally expect the game to follow the same pattern with a twist: if the first expansion will be focused on 4th age, it won't prevent further civilization and leader DLCs to appear after this first expansion. Moreover, 4-civ packs will make much more sense as you'll get 1 civ per age with the last one only working if you have the expansion. My guess is that it was the original plan - to make 4th age expansion relative early and continue selling civ and leader DLCs before and after it.

However, I agree with you that selling more civilizations and 4th age could anger some people. So I assume to make it work, Firaxis will have to continue throwing significant gameplay improvements via free patches for months to come if they want people to buy more DLCs.