The BUY TWO COPIES of Civ 5 petition

[Aussie_Lurker]

Wow, you don't have to be so hateful. I was just letting the forum member know that you need to use Steam from store or any other method; because he thought you didn't. This way he knows ahead of time and can make an informed decision.

It's no big deal to me... please don't flame on me for no reason.

Hey, sorry about that tom, I misunderstood your post (twice in one day, must not have my head on straight ). Consider my flame 100% retracted-but my comment still applies to all these other people who're still complaining about having to log onto Steam-*once*-in order to register the game. Anyone would think that Firaxis was demanding the blood of their first-born child or something?!?!

Aussie.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

At Earthling- promotions are still here, units can pass through other units as long as they have a tile to go to, so no bottlenecking, navies are going to be way better/important, with ranged bombardment, ability to attack land units, however transports are out, making a good navy all the more needed. As has been said tiles are gained automaticly, just like in IV, I've heard at the average rate of 1 tile a turn(can't find source), also we can buy them if we'd like(sounds good to me). The only thing confirmed global is happiness, everything else is still produced in cities(gold culture hammers food). With no more stacks it's no longer quantity but quality. Sure you can make well rounded stacks in IV, but there was never a need to and/or you would only move them from city to city. Now we will have to place units carefully, and from the pics it doesn't look like one guy at a choke points going to cut it. Religion as in iv is out(for reasons mentioned), but the idea is still there in the social policies. I will miss them to, but as they were it wasn't really good(I guess they couldn't or didn't want to fix it?). Social policies are now gov/civics, and you get to mix and match, seems good to me. Map sizes and game lengths have not been confirmed, so your just guessing. I'll say they are the same as Iv, but I have no proof. I just love how we know nothing really about the game, but you know everything, and it sucks.

I actually think his whole "choke-point" rant is based on the fact that, during the GDC, one of the developers mentioned that a single unit could potentially hold off several individual units, wheras previously they could be steamrolled by a stack of units-so now he believes that the WHOLE GAME is based around CHOKE POINTS. All the developer was doing was giving an ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE of ONE of the benefits of 1upt, yet Earthling has run away with this & extrapolated it out to apply to THE ENTIRE GAME.
Also, whilst we're on the subject of how the game *won't* be dumbed down-what about City-States? For the War-Monger/Rush player, these City States throw a significant spanner in the works. Sure they could still rush attack them, but this might actually *hurt* their long-term game plan! They also add interesting complications to the diplomatic side of the game. So another point where Earthling's argument falls to pieces!

Aussie.

 

[Tee Kay]

Firaxis has lost my respect with regards to Civ5. They'd be lucky if I even buy a copy.

 

[LaRate]

I think I will buy the first copy after the first price drop (although it will be hard to wait...). That strategy usually leaves me with the better experience (initial bugs fixed, lot of information available), while I am able to save a bit of money.

Chances are though that I will buy a second copy shortly after, since I like to play Civ cooperatively with my girlfriend. I hope Firaxis makes a damn good job so that she will like ciV (which is not guaranteed - e.g. she didn't like the new colonization at all...).

 

[Commander Bello]

Chances are though that I will buy a second copy shortly after, since I like to play Civ cooperatively with my girlfriend. I hope Firaxis makes a damn good job so that she will like ciV (which is not guaranteed - e.g. she didn't like the new colonization at all...).

Don't forget to open a second account then (guess, how Steam got that many users?) as otherwise you won't be allowed to play with her online.

 

[CornPlanter]

I don't need two copies. One is enough. Even if I felt charitable, gaming industry surely wouldn't be the one receiving my extra money. I would think more along the lines of giving it to fight malaria in Africa or something like that. But oh well, to each his own priorities.

 

[Honorable_Pawn]

Sorry, but you're adressing the wrong persons.
It was 2K's/Firaxis' decision to make Steam mandatory, thus trying to force consumers to give up their rights.

I agree that most probably the number of lost customers due to Steam will make 2k miss their planned sales figures.

But this is not the fault of the responsible customers, but the fault of the company trying to shove unwanted so-called "features" down customer's throat.

If they would have chosen to make Steam optional, they would have got both groups - the ones who like or at least accept Steam and the ones who won't buy Civ5 because of Steam. Bad, bad, bad business decision.

Now, bad actions come with the risk of being punished - in this case due to missing sales figures.
That's the way it is, and if I have to chose what is more important for me - my rights or Firaxis' further existence, than I have just to say: "Has been a nice time with you, guys, and all the luck for your future. Bye bye."



This one for sure will not work for me.

Please read the above quote before proceeding...

...done, yet?

Good.

This entire thread should have ended here.

Hand me a big pile of steamy and tell me it's lunch-time after all my loyalty!!!???!!!!




No, there wont be 2 copies purchased here; there will be Zero until there is a version available that does not require internet activation. I'll gladly pay triple the price for this option. Don't give me some sob story about why I should eat some big pile of steamy. They should have known it was corporate suicide to treat a pretty highly intelligent market niche with such disregard, contempt, and under-estimation of our resolve.



Like many many others here, this is where we draw the line in the sand.



So be it!

I'll save that money for my retirement when I'll be able to enjoy it on real life.

Bye Bye

 

[Honorable_Pawn]

I support the "Buy Civ5 even if you disagree with Steam" part though, they deserve your money, infact buy it on Steam, Frixasis gets even more money that way, sure the bad evil corporation Steam will get a cut, but by bypassing your local retail store Frixasis/2k will make more Profit even with a Steam cut of the pie because Steam takes less than a normal retail outlet.

Yeah, just what I want to do. Send the money to 2K and Firaxis rather than the people that live in my local community/economy.

 

[Honorable_Pawn]

Let me just say that I think Civ 5 will sell amazingly well, that Steam-haters are in the extreme minority

If you look at the poll 29.71% of the market will not buy or probably wont buy the game beacuse of steam.

I hardly call that an extreme minority. I want you to think about 3 people that you love the most....one of them will "probably" die if they eat a big pile of steamy. Would you serve them a big pile of steamy?

 

[Honorable_Pawn]

Oh please, spare us the histrionics.

 

[Merovinge]

Like many many others here, this is where we draw the line in the sand.

The only part of your post I agree with, is that the demographics of Civ players is definitely different than that of most video games. People are probably a bit smarter, and definitely are a bit older, the latter of which is the issue here. Some of you have already fallen into old folk conservatism where your ways are the only ways and change is inherently an evil force.

While I think they may have underestimated how conservative their player base is, I think the end result would have been the same regardless. Steam just makes so much sense in terms of increased profits and increased piracy control, and while pleasing hardcore fans is great for them, turning a profit is ultimately what matters most.

Incidentally if it bothers you that making video games is only about maximizing profits, the way health care is run in this country should send you crying into your pillow.

 

[markieness]

I was upset about the whole steam thing, but i had a good cry, and im over it.

Ill be buying 2 copies, but they arent both for me, so i gues it doesnt count.

 

[Tylerryan79]

I was upset about the whole steam thing, but i had a good cry, and im over it.

Ill be buying 2 copies, but they arent both for me, so i gues it doesnt count.

Ya I had my cry too, but it has also passed. While I don't like steam, I've tried it and can live with it.

On another note, people who think that 2k won't hit their sales numbers because of steam are delusional. Steam has something like 45 million registered users, with 2 million actively using it at any given time. That's a lot of potential customers, who will be blasted with images of civ V everytime they look at the steam store. On top of that there is the normal media blitz and sales due from retail. This game will sell fine.

 

[Commander Bello]

The only part of your post I agree with, is that the demographics of Civ players is definitely different than that of most video games. People are probably a bit smarter, and definitely are a bit older, the latter of which is the issue here. Some of you have already fallen into old folk conservatism where your ways are the only ways and change is inherently an evil force.

And since many of the old hardcore Civ-fans are "a bit older", they know that something which is called "modern" not necessarily is better.
Knowledge like this typically is called experience, and it's a sad fact that you can only acquire it by becoming a bit older.

Incidentally if it bothers you that making video games is only about maximizing profits, the way health care is run in this country should send you crying into your pillow.

2k may try to maximize their profits all day long.
If they do so by restricting (better: trying to do so) my rights, then it becomes an issue for the reasonable customer.

On another note, people who think that 2k won't hit their sales numbers because of steam are delusional. Steam has something like 45 million registered users, with 2 million actively using it at any given time. That's a lot of potential customers, who will be blasted with images of civ V everytime they look at the steam store. On top of that there is the normal media blitz and sales due from retail. This game will sell fine.

A statement which clearly depicts that you don't have any clue how business works.
(All following numbers are just examples and very likely are too low in each aspect)

Let us assume a company has 10 million $ to invest in video games.
For this investment, they expect a certain return to make it profitable. If they miss that return, the investment will have failed.

To reach this return, they have to sell 1.5 million copies of the video game to be produced.
Their last video game has sold 800,000 times, so they estimate to have a customer base of 800,000.
Due to a new (mandatory) distribution channel, they expect to get addtional customers and they estimate that number to be 700,000.

So, their plans show that the investment would be reasonable and profitable.
Therefore, they grant the 10 million $ to the new product.

Unfortunately, this new distribution channel alienates 20% of their old customers, which are not going to buy the new product.
In addition we assume that the new distribution channel may work even better than estimated and will bring them 750,000 new customers.
So, the real sales figures will be 640,000 plus the 750,000 new ones, which gives us a total of 1,390,000.

In total they will have better sales figures than with the older product, yet they will have missed their target by appr. 7%.

Now, one could ask "Ok, what will this 7% mean? 7% is not much."
Well, it may not be that much, but enough to turn their investment into a failure - because their projection indicated the 100%, which they missed.

Now, if they would have made the new distribution channel an option and not a must, they could have hade 1,550,000 customers and would have been successful.

Next time they may go for not mandatory means and that way may reach their target figures.

 

[Preytor]

I won't buy two copies, but I will be buying one copy on Steam.
I might however buy a few copies for family and friends if I can lure, errr, inspire them to join the world of civilization.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hmmm, according to this poll here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=366427&highlight=Steam+Poll, only 17% of Civfanatics polled have said they *definitely* won't by the game because of Steam. Given that Civfanatics members make up only a minority of total consumers of the game, I hardly think this is a *significant majority*.
Personally I think all this BS about DRM are just a tiny minority acting like drama-queens, when the reality will probably be a very non-obtrusive, one-off process. The way some people are talking you'd think that 2K was demanding the sacrifice of a first-born child in order to play the game!

Aussie.

 

[Merovinge]

And since many of the old hardcore Civ-fans are "a bit older", they know that something which is called "modern" not necessarily is better.
Knowledge like this typically is called experience, and it's a sad fact that you can only acquire it by becoming a bit older.

Knowledge like that would typically be called wisdom actually, experience refers to learning from a discrete event, whereas wisdom is a synthesis of experience which invariably takes some time. I would have avoided pointing this out since English is not your first language had you not been so condescending in your reply.

See, experience has taught me that people who say things such as yourself rarely change their minds, so I just stop talking. Maybe as I get older I will develop the insight through further experience to relate to you, but for now I know my limits.

Enjoy roping other members into debates about consumer rights when purchasing a video game!

 

[The_Coyote]

@ Aussie Lurker

There are 188 (76+37+54+21) claiming that steamworks reduces the value of civ5 for them and 63 (45+3+1+14) which claim steamworks adds an additional gain (this number could be a bit underestimated - i can remenber to see some persons (ok one i know for sure) chosing the last option - and posting a opinion more like that steam provides use for them). Of course - as long as the persons buy the game* i doesn´t really matter in the short term for the publisher (they make their sales)

And looking that this palce here - it´s a forum (a community place - more likely multiplayer games players, modding fans, ...) one could claim that the base population for this pools should have a bias towards steam (most features of steam adress this group - multiplayer, community, mods, ...). Nothing i want to prove or claim by myself atm - but perhaps something you should consider before you neglect the pool result. And honestly would you still say the same about the pool if the result so far would have a result you would favour more?

Btw you should read this - especially the last update done by bite

* there are 97 persons claiming not or probably not buying the game and steam is the reason or at least influences the decision. But the number of additional sales (using the stated opinion - ignoring because of laziness in both cases the undecided group) because of steam is 59 (using the interpretation that all of the 45 probably yes answers with positive opinion towards steam wouldn´t buy the game without - so it´s likely a bit overestimated).

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

@ Aussie Lurker

There are 188 (76+37+54+21) claiming that steamworks reduces the value of civ5 for them and 63 (45+3+1+14) which claim steamworks adds an additional gain (this number could be a bit underestimated - i can remenber to see some persons (ok one i know for sure) chosing the last option - and posting a opinion more like that steam provides use for them). Of course - as long as the persons buy the game* i doesn´t really matter in the short term for the publisher (they make their sales)

And looking that this palce here - it´s a forum (a community place - more likely multiplayer games players, modding fans, ...) one could claim that the base population for this pools should have a bias towards steam (most features of steam adress this group - multiplayer, community, mods, ...). Nothing i want to prove or claim by myself atm - but perhaps something you should consider before you neglect the pool result. And honestly would you still say the same about the pool if the result so far would have a result you would favour more?

Btw you should read this - especially the last update done by bite

* there are 97 persons claiming not or probably not buying the game and steam is the reason or at least influences the decision. But the number of additional sales (using the stated opinion - ignoring because of laziness in both cases the undecided group) because of steam is 59 (using the interpretation that all of the 45 probably yes answers with positive opinion towards steam wouldn´t buy the game without - so it´s likely a bit overestimated).

My point, though, is that there are only 76 people who have said that they *definitely* won't buy the game because of Steam (though I suspect about half of them *will* ultimately buy the game in spite of their claims).
I certainly *don't* believe that Civ5 will fail to gain sufficient sales to make it a commercial success, in spite of what the Steam-haters here claim!

Aussie.

 

[Merovinge]

@ Aussie Lurker

There are 188 (76+37+54+21) claiming that steamworks reduces the value of civ5 for them and 63 (45+3+1+14) which claim steamworks adds an additional gain (this number could be a bit underestimated - i can remenber to see some persons (ok one i know for sure) chosing the last option - and posting a opinion more like that steam provides use for them). Of course - as long as the persons buy the game* i doesn´t really matter in the short term for the publisher (they make their sales)

And looking that this palce here - it´s a forum (a community place - more likely multiplayer games players, modding fans, ...) one could claim that the base population for this pools should have a bias towards steam (most features of steam adress this group - multiplayer, community, mods, ...). Nothing i want to prove or claim by myself atm - but perhaps something you should consider before you neglect the pool result. And honestly would you still say the same about the pool if the result so far would have a result you would favour more?

Btw you should read this - especially the last update done by bite

* there are 97 persons claiming not or probably not buying the game and steam is the reason or at least influences the decision. But the number of additional sales (using the stated opinion - ignoring because of laziness in both cases the undecided group) because of steam is 59 (using the interpretation that all of the 45 probably yes answers with positive opinion towards steam wouldn´t buy the game without - so it´s likely a bit overestimated).

The problem with that poll, like many others, is that the sample is a convenience sample, and thus has basically zero external validity (generalizability). Particularly in this case, the minority is quite vocal, like on many forums, but represents such a small sliver of the overall player base that it could be completely overlooked. This is precisely why MMO's and other continually updating games do not have forum polls and game balance is not based on forum polls.

When the game actually releases, if they were able to use mind control and poll every person interested in Civ, the percentage of people dissuaded from purchasing because of steam will be much much lower than that poll. I would be shocked if said imaginary number was >1% (although there is no way to ever know), and almost certainly the number of sales gained from steam will outweigh the number lost due to steam.