The Spanish Ripoff

[Rob (R8XFT)]

This is an age-old complaint that has gone on since Civ III (when Conquests was released, it included the civs from Play the World); personally, I bought Spain on the day of release and would do so again even if I knew it would be available 18 months later as part of G&K. I don't feel like I've been ripped off; I've had that civ to use all that time, as well as the Inca and the New world scenario which isn't included in G&K.

 

[Drill IV]

the DLC model does not have to be a ripoff - but is used as one, and making people pay early for a product they will have anyway for free later on feeds that idea.

Indeed the marketing model for Spain in this case is a psychologically dangerous one. On the one hand, the publisher potentially attracts many more buyers for the expansion, offering something "for free".

On the other hand, *everyone* wants to have a "free" advantage very much (opposed to some advantage costing 1 cent), and thus many people who bought Spain might feel cheated now.

A possible solution would be for the publisher to throw something else into the deal that is marketed as a "for free" addition, and somehow overshadows the "free" Spain DLC, or to give a small discount for those who already bought Spain beforehand. Even 1 cent might suffice.

 

[Trik]

This guy is right we're all getting ripped off. We should write to 2k/Firaxis and demand they remove this content from the G+K expansion.

 

[sumodaz]

As a Civ fan I almost feel its my 'duty' now to support the series. Seeing as the game has given me so much pleasure over the years I really don't mind a few £ to make it worth while for them to keep the series going. Either that or i'm a real sucker for DLC.

 

[oliver]

You all seem to be looking it as a cup half empty and not a cup half full cus we still get a full 9 civs and some people get one extra.
I do understand that if you just bought Spain+Inca you might be angry but just think some lucky people get 1 extra and you lose nothing, anyway it just cost 3.50 a civ for it so your not losing a lot of money.

 

[Camikaze]

You're paying for Spain a second time just as much as you're paying for cities, or Giant Death Robots, or the Iron resource, or any single thing that is already in the game. I, for one, am not put out by the fact that Firaxis are including cities in the expansion, despite having already paid for them.

Additionally, how do we know that the original price was going to be $33, and has been reduced to the quite reasonable $30 because Spain is included? It's impossible to sustain the 'paying for it twice' argument when the expansion is most likely priced entirely independently of whether or not Spain is included. I find it very unlikely that the marginal cost of Spain in the expansion is anything other than $0.

That leaves the only possible argument being that it's not good that people some people are essentially getting Spain for free, whereas others paid for them. And that argument certainly doesn't seem possible to maintain, either.

 

[tofofnts]

Additionally, how do we know that the original price was going to be $33, and has been reduced to the quite reasonable $30 because Spain is included? It's impossible to sustain the 'paying for it twice' argument when the expansion is most likely priced entirely independently of whether or not Spain is included. I find it very unlikely that the marginal cost of Spain in the expansion is anything other than $0.

I completely agree, I think it would be priced exactly the same whether or not Spain was included. Why? Because companies always sell games and Xpacks for round prices. And look at all the things the're adding
a lot of civs (10)
religion (5)
espionage (3)
revamped diplomacy (2)
More resources (1)
More units (2)
Expanded tech tree(2)
New combat system (2)
More scenarios (3)
If we use the numbers in brackets beside the things to see how many civs each is worth we see that spain is worth 1$, not the 5$ needed to change the price

 

[SalmonSoil]

And I don't believe Firaxis knew they would need Spain for this expansion when they released the DLC.

 

[AbsintheRed]

You got to be kidding me
This whole thread is a joke, right?
Spanish Ripoff... LOL, give me a brake

so i will have 2 spain's in my game? solved, close thread.

unless of course, i will only have one product i paid for twice, the war rages on.

You don't pay for your "second" Spain, you pay for GK, with the 9 new civs and every other new content
Spain is just a bonus, now for free. You bought that bonus earlier, in order to play it during the last 1.5 years

It's totally the same thing that game get's cheaper after a few months/years
You buy it on release - 60 dollars, you buy it 2 years later - 10 dollars
You bought Spain+Inca for 4 dollars, 1.5 years later Spain is added to the expansion as a bonus for free
No difference at all

 

[AbsintheRed]

Personally I dont feel its a ripoff. I managed to get 18 months exclusive play out of Spain. For 2.50. Bargain, eh? Thats like complaining that you paid 18$ at release for a blu-ray disk of Avatar when they show it on free to air Television 18 months later.

This

thadian,
Someone further up asked if you would feel better if you only had to pay $27 for GAK. The better question would be "Would you feel better if a seperate version of GAK were available that cost $30 but did not include Spain?" for that is the true alternative.

I firmly believe there is nothing wrong with what 2K/Firaxis are doing.
Why?
...because the expansion pack would have cost (and been worth) $30 with or without Spain.

You are not paying twice for Spain everyone is getting an 18month old DLC thrown-in for free.

Let me repeat...
You are not paying twice...you (and I, and many others who have the Spain/Inca DLC) are simply not benefiting from the free-DLC giveaway.

This tactic is no different than the frequent marketing tactic of including a giveaway of an older version of a game when selling the newest edition. For example, I got Civ III thrown in when I bought Civ5...Should I have complained because I was paying twice for CivIII...of course not that would be ridiculous!

I believe your argument has no merit.

Absolutely agreed, this also greatly sums it up
Noone pays twice for Spain - which is Thadian's main problem

On the other hand, there are some people who don't pay for Spain at all
But you have to live with it, it's just the time-money tradeoff
You got it early, you paid for it. You pay for that 1.5 years when you were able to use it, while the others were not

What if they release a Civ V ultimate version 10 years from now, with all expansions and all DLCs merged together for 10 dollars?
And what if they add it as a free bonus if you buy the newly released Civ VII?
You will also be complaining?

 

[Realyn]

35 replies in 1 hour

30 by the opening poster I guess.

 

[headcase]

In a few years Civ 5 + 2 XPs (if made) + all DLC will cost $10

 

[Drill IV]

I completely agree, I think it would be priced exactly the same whether or not Spain was included. Why? Because companies always sell games and Xpacks for round prices. And look at all the things the're adding
a lot of civs (10)
religion (5)
espionage (3)
revamped diplomacy (2)
More resources (1)
More units (2)
Expanded tech tree(2)
New combat system (2)
More scenarios (3)
If we use the numbers in brackets beside the things to see how many civs each is worth we see that spain is worth 1$, not the 5$ needed to change the price

By that thinking, it should be beneficial to throw in all the existing civs for free. Why do they not do that? Because they know it would put some people off.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Well, that's what they did in previous games. You bought Warlords or Play the World? It's free in Beyond the Sword and Conquests. The fact that they aren't doing this for all the civs is the new thing.

 

[Grubnessul]

They wanted the Spaniards in the new scenario, that's why they threw in the Spaniards. Also, I suspect they got a major overhaul in their UA as it was very silly and quite pointless before (since it required randomly placed tiles, so removing a lot of strategy)

 

[AbsintheRed]

Well, that's what they did in previous games. You bought Warlords or Play the World? It's free in Beyond the Sword and Conquests. The fact that they aren't doing this for all the civs is the new thing.

Indeed
They still hope for additional (and bigger) income from the separate DLCs, that's the only reason they didn't add all the other DLC civs as a free bonus
Otherwise they would be all shipped with GK, for further increasing the expansion's value in the eyes of the costumers
The price would stay 30 dollars, no matter how many DLC civs are added as a bonus
Same case as currently: it would have been 30 dollars without Spain too, it's a FREE addition

 

[drubell]

This complaint doesn't make any sense at all. The only situation in which you are "ripped off" is if you DON'T have the Spain/Inca pack and plan to buy it after G&K.

Situation 1: You bought the Spain/Inca pack. Spain is now available for free. The value of your pack is less, but you still have Inca and (imo) the one of the best scenarios available out there. You have unique content that you paid for already.

Situation 2: You don't have the Spain/Inca pack and don't plan to buy it. You will get Spain for free. You won't have the Incans or the scenario but that's your choice.

Situation 3: You don't have the Spain/Inca pack and do plan to buy it. You will be paying for the Incans, the scenario, and Spain. Since Spain is free, some of the money that you spent on the pack won't matter since one of the civs is already in the game.

Situation 3 is really the only one where anyone should feel "ripped off" because you're paying for free content if you want want the pack.

Now there may be a time later in which they announce a cheaper pack with just Incans and the scenario. That situation would rightly make those who bought Spain earlier feel "ripped off."

 

[seasnake]

They wanted the Spaniards in the new scenario, that's why they threw in the Spaniards. Also, I suspect they got a major overhaul in their UA as it was very silly and quite pointless before (since it required randomly placed tiles, so removing a lot of strategy)

actually it was my favorite UA. The strategy was in finding those tiles by investing in scouts/optics and then how to use any gold, and prioritizing getting those tiles under your control. I've fought many a war so i could wrest El Dorado or Grand Mesa from some city state who was putting on airs and happened to be settled by it.

 

[bite]

This complaint doesn't make any sense at all. The only situation in which you are "ripped off" is if you DON'T have the Spain/Inca pack and plan to buy it after G&K.

Situation 1: You bought the Spain/Inca pack. Spain is now available for free. The value of your pack is less, but you still have Inca and (imo) the one of the best scenarios available out there. You have unique content that you paid for already.

Situation 2: You don't have the Spain/Inca pack and don't plan to buy it. You will get Spain for free. You won't have the Incans or the scenario but that's your choice.

Situation 3: You don't have the Spain/Inca pack and do plan to buy it. You will be paying for the Incans, the scenario, and Spain. Since Spain is free, some of the money that you spent on the pack won't matter since one of the civs is already in the game.

Situation 3 is really the only one where anyone should feel "ripped off" because you're paying for free content if you want want the pack.

Now there may be a time later in which they announce a cheaper pack with just Incans and the scenario. That situation would rightly make those who bought Spain earlier feel "ripped off."

I completely agree with all this, they will probably either just have Inca as a stand alone dlc, or maybe they will just add the whole dlc pack to the new expansion (the later would be the easier option)

 

[The_Quasar]

I bought the Spain/Inca DLC on release day... I've played the Scenario to death, played Spain and the Incas several times, and got far more than my money's worth. Like most of the Civ V DLCs, it was very good value for money.

That Spain will be included in G & K makes no difference to me, as I've got it anyway... I'm going to pay the same amount whether it's there or not, and I'm paying, imho, an excellent, low price for the rest of the content, civs, etc.

To beef about one Civ out of 10, in a huge amount of extra content, that has been included because it's in a new scenario, and is such a tiny tiny piece of the rather generously large G & K jigsaw puzzle, is so petty that it defies belief!