Next patch anticipation thread

[legalizefreedom]

So all this complete lack of communication and being seemingly unresponsive to customer needs (giving the appearance of an uncaring and ambivalent attitude that is more about money than product quality and the player experience) is the fault of 2K's policy of gagging their development studios?

Give that man a cigar!

 

[Silvtown]

I'm disappointed that there wasn't a patch - I was looking forward to firing up a new game with some new wrinkles!

However, I think some us of got ahead of ourselves and should have tempered our expectations. The last patch came out on, what, December 21st or December 22nd? I'm sure the staff took a week or two off for Christmas and New Year's. After getting back, that only left 3 weeks to create a new patch, test it, refine it, etc. Any patch we would've gotten yesterday would have been bare bones and likely not much on the AI. At the end of the day, I'm hoping that they are really digging in and trying to get some of the trickier things worked out. And probably a bigger-than-last-time DLC.

It would be nice to hear from someone every once in a while. Even a comment as vague, yet promising, as "we're trying to get something to you guys in the first part of February" would be nice.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I believe civ 4 and civ 5 were a good bit more problematic at launch. Not just with combat AI but considering all features.
Got enough confidence that the game will be in a very good state after 2-3 patches or release first expansion.
It is not ideal but it is what you expect from a game as complex as civ these days. I`m enjoying civ 6 at the moment but only when i dont punish the AI to much. Playing economically.

Exactly. I don't consider the game to be in a complete state until both expansions are done. Buying vanilla is a playable down payment on the finished product. I have patience.

 

[Zuizgond]

Exactly. I don't consider the game to be in a complete state until both expansions are done. Buying vanilla is a playable down payment on the finished product. I have patience.

So base game + 2 expansions (60$ + 30$ + 30$) = 120$ for the final product is quite expensive (+ multiple 5$ DLCs if you want some additional civs). And even there, you have to rely on mods for the game to be interesting. Sounds like a rip-off imo.

 

[Browd]

Value (including whether something seems like a "rip-off") is always a personal matter, depending both on individual financial resources and the amount of time/enjoyment you expect to derive from the game. For those players (and there are quite a few) who play only a few games and expect to sink 1,000, 2,000 or more hours into a single title, the investment you describe translates into pennies on the hour. However, if you are someone who plays many game titles, where sinking 200 hours into a game is a significant investment and you rarely sink more than 4-500 hours into any game, however much you enjoy it (because there are so many other attractive games to play), then the value proposition is probably very different -- in those cases, it can be very rational to defer buying a game until it is "complete" (2+ years after release?) and then only buy it from the bargain bin at a steep discount to the original retail price.

 

[demidyad]

So base game + 2 expansions (60$ + 30$ + 30$) = 120$ for the final product is quite expensive (+ multiple 5$ DLCs if you want some additional civs). And even there, you have to rely on mods for the game to be interesting. Sounds like a rip-off imo.

So don't pay it Take up checkers or knitting instead maybe. Meanwhile, I am happy to pay a day's wages for several years' worth of several dozen developers' time.

 

[Kwami]

So base game + 2 expansions (60$ + 30$ + 30$) = 120$ for the final product is quite expensive (+ multiple 5$ DLCs if you want some additional civs). And even there, you have to rely on mods for the game to be interesting. Sounds like a rip-off imo.

Consider that games today sell for approximately the same price that they sold for in the 90s ($50-$60). Then, consider that the costs of creating a AAA title have risen dramatically. Additionally, we've gone through a fair bit of inflation, such that $60 in 1990 has about the same purchasing power as $110 does today (according to the BLS, https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm).

You could argue that games in 1990 were more "finished" than they are today and I wouldn't entirely disagree. But, those games were also much less complex. And, if they did contain bugs, then those bugs rarely got fixed since distributing patches was rather difficult.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Value (including whether something seems like a "rip-off") is always a personal matter, depending both on individual financial resources and the amount of time/enjoyment you expect to derive from the game. For those players (and there are quite a few) who play only a few games and expect to sink 1,000, 2,000 or more hours into a single title, the investment you describe translates into pennies on the hour. However, if you are someone who plays many game titles, where sinking 200 hours into a game is a significant investment and you rarely sink more than 4-500 hours into any game, however much you enjoy it (because there are so many other attractive games to play), then the value proposition is probably very different -- in those cases, it can be very rational to defer buying a game until it is "complete" (2+ years after release?) and then only buy it from the bargain bin at a steep discount to the original retail price.

Exactly. I spent about $120 to $130 on Civ V, all told, and put in 2,500+ hours on it. That's an entertainment bargain. I would happily do the same for Civ 6.

 

[Zuizgond]

Actually I am OK to pay 120$ or even 200$ if I find the game entertaining and challenging, considering the level of wages these days. I am just pointing out in my previous post that Civ 6 currently has an extremely bad quality/price ratio imo. I find the base game very boring and I don't want to pay more in order to have a fun game at this stage (opinion).

 

[DWilson]

And I am also one who enjoys a massive return on my civ investment. If a game can be entertaining in good spurts, and I pick up at least an hour of entertainment per dollar of gameplay, plus memories of enjoyment, then it's as fair value. All told, I've probably spent about $100-110 on V, $50 on BE, >$10 on III and IV combined (barely played), and $15 on Rev 2, and >$65 for VI. In return I've gotten over 3000 hours or so (mostly V so far, with over 100 in BE, 20ish or more in Rev 2, and rapid rising in VI), minimum, for a total price of $250 (including all available expansions and DLC). At over 10 hrs/$1, there is a reason I am willing to pay for these products.

 

[Leyrann]

Exactly. I spent about $120 to $130 on Civ V, all told, and put in 2,500+ hours on it. That's an entertainment bargain. I would happily do the same for Civ 6.

20 hours for every dollar. That's, if you play 2 hours every day and 5 hours on each of saturday and sunday (which is basically all the free time an average person has, if not more), one dollar per week. Compare that to going to a concert, where one evening (maybe 2 hours) can cost as much as 80 dollars or even more. And I don't know about TV series, but I would not be surprised if watching them via an official channel is likely to be more expensive too.

 

[Kwami]

20 hours for every dollar. That's, if you play 2 hours every day and 5 hours on each of saturday and sunday (which is basically all the free time an average person has, if not more), one dollar per week. Compare that to going to a concert, where one evening (maybe 2 hours) can cost as much as 80 dollars or even more. And I don't know about TV series, but I would not be surprised if watching them via an official channel is likely to be more expensive too.

Comparisons like this aren't very helpful. I could argue that taking a trip to Japan is more expensive per hour than playing Civ VI, but that doesn't mean that going to Japan is a bad idea or not worth the money. Similarly, a concert might cost more $/hour than Civ VI, but if I enjoy it, then so what?

 

[Browd]

I don't think anyone is disputing that a person might derive great enjoyment from a high-cost-per-hour alternative (like your hypothetical trip to Japan), but it also isn't fair to dismiss the value that people might find in low-cost-per-hour alternatives. Just as I can think of many concerts I attended (or movies I went to theater to see) where I would, upon reflection, have paid good money to avoid attending or watching, there are games I've bought that remain either unplayed or played for less than 5 hours (GalCiv3 comes to mind -- in a burst of ill-considered enthusiasm I paid retail when it was still in beta and still haven't installed the game -- I might enjoy it, but I'm not inclined to spend even 2 hours to figure that out -- certainly a very bad purchase decision all the way around, but so be it).

 

[DWilson]

Well, IIRC recent research suggests people derive more happiness from memories than from possesions. Whereas the Japan trip would generate a multitude of new and interesting experiences to remember, and thus likely be a good value for most people, it's also completely unaffordable to most people. Meanwhile a complete Civ game will cost about the same (possibly more, but also possibly less) as a concert, but depending on the person may provide vastly more memorable moments. For those that get more out of a concert, I'd say they made the wrong choice. For those that get more out of the game, and I would presume that to be the vast majority here at least, I'd say they made the right choice.

 

[Kwami]

Right. My point is only that comparing two entirely different experiences and deciding that one is better because it has a lower $/hour cost isn't really useful. Value is about much, much more than $/hour of entertainment.

 

[DWilson]

Right. My point is only that comparing two entirely different experiences and deciding that one is better because it has a lower $/hour cost isn't really useful. Value is about much, much more than $/hour of entertainment.

The value of hr/$ is that higher values are a great past time, and provides much more opportunity for enjoyment long term. If something can hold your interest for 500-1000 hours (not uncommon for civilization games), that implies it's generating a lot of enjoyable experience. This in turn means memorable moments.

 

[Kwami]

The value of hr/$ is that higher values are a great past time, and provides much more opportunity for enjoyment long term. If something can hold your interest for 500-1000 hours (not uncommon for civilization games), that implies it's generating a lot of enjoyable experience. This in turn means memorable moments.

But a 3-hour concert can also generate memorable moments. That's why comparing them isn't useful.

If you want to compare two video games, then that makes sense. But comparing a game to a different activity is less helpful, unless the most important metric to you is cost per hour.

 

[V. Soma]

Oh, and a Bob Dylan song title comes to mind:

Tomorrow is a Long Time...

 

[DWilson]

But a 3-hour concert can also generate memorable moments. That's why comparing them isn't useful.

If you want to compare two video games, then that makes sense. But comparing a game to a different activity is less helpful, unless the most important metric to you is cost per hour.

But it is. The cost is near identical, and if you get more memories out of three hours than 500-1000 I would be more than a bit surprised.

 

[Kwami]

But it is. The cost is near identical, and if you get more memories out of three hours than 500-1000 I would be more than a bit surprised.

But why is the quantity of memories the important metric? What about the quality of the memories?