We will pay for the missing/removed Age in the future?

[marius_kaparius]

As I've stated before I don't want the game to drag out in an ill-defined 4th age. I play long ages currently and the game is plenty long enough. Based on comments in the launch stream it sounds like every age is getting victory conditions? That would be great, especially if you could win early. If this were the case I'd be happy with a DLC that has a 4th age if I had the option of just not playing with it and finishing the game with the 3rd/2nd/1st age victory conditions.

 

[TheGrayFox]

First time I've been called a "fanboy".

Cutting too much, leaving too much unfinished and still releasing at very high price point instead of holding off or cancelling, IS shooting yourself in the foot from a long term outlook. Point this out is not "childish whining".

The game is nowhere near finished, and should NOT , repeat NOT have been released as is. Period dot.

Adding extra civs, more ages, yes, putting that into a DLC is fine and to be expected! duh! Too much has been left out, or put behind the 2k acct thing.
(I still don't like that)

"gamer entitlement". methinks I'll leave that alone as the "entitlement" part is a personal hotbutton issue for me.


... expanding the ages eg, "late antiquity" just another name for another age. (but without the transitions, which I still really really don't like)

I've tried the crisis once. It seemed more of an annoyance than anything else. (I ONLY do marathon, so games take a long time) I'm going to take a closer
look at them this time. (is there any benefit to leaving them on, or just turn off the annoyance for now? They do seem only half finished to me)

"You will buy the $10 horse armor and you will be happy and thank the devs! Can't believe you whiny entitled fanboys think you deserve having the UK released at launch like every other game in the series or that you shouldn't be paying double what you used to for individual civs DLC packs (despite the fact that you now only play with them for a 1/3rd of the game)."

 

[StargazingDog]

If there was actually a complete ending screen, the modern age wouldn't feel so unfinished. As it is, we get a painting, THE END, and absolutely nothing else. No charts. No hall of fame. No timeline. Hell, the game isn't even nice enough to show you the end map. Even the final auto save takes you immediately to the end screens.

 

[Evie]

I remember the halcyon days when the GAME sold the GAME and paid for the GAME and all of it's expenses. Games including the first five civ iterations. I think their has been a definite change in the way the gaming industry does business now - outside indie game companies' one-off's - that is not for the best (and, I believe the practice started with EA, but that's a different discussion), and not just, "cheapskate fanboys (and a few fangirls and fannonbinaries) whining." Such a condescending attitude does not address these things productivities

Aside any criticism of my phrasing, the advancement in computer technology of the past decades require considerably more time, people (and much more specialized people) and money to create a game as complete as the games made back then, but matching the expectations of modern graphic and engine and programing complexity.

Just think of the massive increase in install size in video games - from 3.5 gb for IV all the way to 12 gb in VI and 25 now. Much of that increase is extra lines of code to be written, or extra graphic details to be added, which reauire someone's time, which require paying for that time.

And yet, we still expect those games for similar priçes than we paid then, even after the heavy inflation of recent years.

At some point something has got to give.

 

[Patine]

Aside any criticism of my phrasing, the advancement in computer technology of the past decades require considerably more time, people (and much more specialized people) and money to create a game as complete as the games made back then, but matching the expectations of modern graphic and engine and programing complexity.

And the prices of the games, themselves, have gone up beyond proportion to inflation, and gamer consumer bases have drastically increased. My point remains.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Aside any criticism of my phrasing, the advancement in computer technology of the past decades require considerably more time, people (and much more specialized people) and money to create a game as complete as the games made back then, but matching the expectations of modern graphic and engine and programing complexity.

Just think of the massive increase in install size in video games - from 3.5 gb for IV all the way to 12 gb in VI and 25 now. Much of that increase is extra lines of code to be written, or extra graphic details to be added, which reauire someone's time, which require paying for that time.

And yet, we still expect those games for similar priçes than we paid then, even after the heavy inflation of recent years.

At some point something has got to give.

BG3 and Kingdom Come II are like over 100-150 gigs and they're cheaper than Civilization VII and not trying to peddle $30 horse armor Civ packs the first month of release

so this argument doesn't really work. The only thing that seems to have given here is your ability to reject an egregiously aggressive and overpriced DLC model. It's not just the existence of DLC that's the problem here, its the amount, it's the cost, it's timing. It's pretty disgusting

 

[queenpea]

If there was actually a complete ending screen, the modern age wouldn't feel so unfinished. As it is, we get a painting, THE END, and absolutely nothing else. No charts. No hall of fame. No timeline. Hell, the game isn't even nice enough to show you the end map. Even the final auto save takes you immediately to the end screens.

I really hate the lack of a proper ending. Some stats and a map would go a long way. A hall of fame is badly needed to track player progress. I love comparing my first games to my new games as I get better at the game.

There should be some visual at the end of the game to track your chosen cultures through the ages.

The final painting (as well as the cut scenes between the ages) lingers on awkwardly long considering the brevity of the narration. The paintings are fine (if vaguely reminiscent of AI art), and I really don’t need to stare and ponder at them.

 

[Evie]

@Patine As best as I can tell, Civ IV, at release, was 49.99 USD for a baseline regular edition.

Per the inflation calculators I can find, 49.99 USD in 2006 is a smidge over 80$ USD in 2025. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, is around 10 dollar more than the 69.99 base Civ VII retails for. (I'm using USD because the second half of the 00s was a high water mark for our exchange rate, and the mid-20s are rather the opposite of that, so exchange rate based price adjustments muddle the water further).

Inflation-adjusted, Civ VII (Base game) is *cheaper* than Civ IV - despite being a much bigger therefore much more demanding in term of the amount of coding and graphic work related to make it.

No, prices have *not* kept up with costs in the video game industry.

 

[Ornen]

By what metric is an atomic/future age 'missing'?

7 of 7 previous civ games extended at least to present day

 

[infiniterocks]

There is going to be a 4th age offered as an expansion pack. Right now you gain attribute points at the end of the current Modern Era which can't be used without a following age. There are thermonuclear radiation effects for tiles in the game files that are slightly different from the regular nuke effects. Also coming casus belli wars and new trade deals including: Gold, resources, units, artifacts, technology, prisoners, and agreements. So new alternatives to the AI giving away cities to stop wars. People who don't want to play beyond the Modern Age don't need the DLC that gives it, but for people who want to take it further the option will be there.

 

[Patine]

@Patine As best as I can tell, Civ IV, at release, was 49.99 USD for a baseline regular edition.

Per the inflation calculators I can find, 49.99 USD in 2006 is a smidge over 80$ USD in 2025. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, is around 10 dollar more than the 69.99 base Civ VII retails for. (I'm using USD because the second half of the 00s was a high water mark for our exchange rate, and the mid-20s are rather the opposite of that, so exchange rate based price adjustments muddle the water further).

Inflation-adjusted, Civ VII (Base game) is *cheaper* than Civ IV - despite being a much bigger therefore much more demanding in term of the amount of coding and graphic work related to make it.

No, prices have *not* kept up with costs in the video game industry.

Computer game programming is much more streamlined by content and quality ration than it used to be high far - like a modern steel mill versus a Medieval smithy, frankly. You also forgot to address the immensely bigger gamer consumer base, I brought up. For example, Civ6 and Civ7 had a specifically-stated launch date in Sierra Leone. How many people in Sierra Leone do you think realistically played Civ1-4 when it was current. In fact, the oft-quoted massive Chinese market (outside the REPUBLIC of China, on the Island of Taiwan) were almost untapped before Civ4 - which meant that, by that point, Mao as a leader in the first three had to go, and even SMAC's Human Hive leader, Sheng Ji-yang because, "a problematic stereotype." Also, the vast prevalence of digital downloading cuts the physical boxes, disks, and manuals being produced and distributed practically out of the equation as a cost factor. I am highly dubious that the major gaming companies are hurting to make ends meet without such vulture-like marketing tactics - but, like McDonald's, WalMart, and Starbucks, they try to make us believe differently.

 

[Evie]

Considering how grossly wrong you turned out to be about inflation and price increases, I'm going to have a healthy amount of sodium chloride on that claim that streamlining somehow compensate for the sheer increased volume and complexity of games.

If the size of the games will not convince you, then perhaps we may consider the fact that Civ VI has about ten time as many people credited as Civ I? Of course, there's also the many statement by people inside the industry that making a game is far more complex and resource intenseive now than it used to be, but I doubt you are willing to accept that. And some of the elements you quote as improvement are reason for that - yes, they sell worldwide, but they need localization crew worldwide for that, and marketing crews in dozens of language! The days when they could just sell in English and farm out the foreign release to other companies specialized in other regions are gone, too.

At this point, it should be self-evident that contemporary games do, in fact, require far more people and far more resources than old ones. I don't know how this even comes to be a controversial idea. That AAA games require budgets approaching Hollywood films (and for the biggest AAA games, Hollywood superproduction) is well established. That this is a dramatic increase in production cost is also well documented.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Considering how grossly wrong you turned out to be about inflation and price increases, I'm going to have a healthy amount of sodium chloride on that claim that streamlining somehow compensate for the sheer increased volume and complexity of games.

If the size of the games will not convince you,

Again this argument isn't very good because much larger and more resource intensive games are sold for cheaper than VII and without $30 dollars worth of DLC packaged for the first month

 

[Patine]

Considering how grossly wrong you turned out to be about inflation and price increases, I'm going to have a healthy amount of sodium chloride on that claim that streamlining somehow compensate for the sheer increased volume and complexity of games.

If the size of the games will not convince you, then perhaps we may consider the fact that Civ VI has about ten time as many people credited as Civ I? Of course, there's also the many statement by people inside the industry that making a game is far more complex and resource intenseive now than it used to be, but I doubt you are willing to accept that. And some of the elements you quote as improvement are reason for that - yes, they sell worldwide, but they need localization crew worldwide for that, and marketing crews in dozens of language! The days when they could just sell in English and farm out the foreign release to other companies specialized in other regions are gone, too.

At this point, it should be self-evident that contemporary games do, in fact, require far more people and far more resources than old ones. I don't know how this even comes to be a controversial idea. That AAA games require budgets approaching Hollywood films (and for the biggest AAA games, Hollywood superproduction) is well established. That this is a dramatic increase in production cost is also well documented.

It seems like your argument is breaking down into just trying to look correct, for it's sake, and the rationality and logic is going out the window, and makes a lot of faulty conflations, ignoring a lot of changes in technology, marketing, distribution, and production. It's descended almost to semantics. And, all to defend and validate vulture-like business practices as somehow being, "necessary." Moderator Action: Deleted personal attack, please keep the discussion civil and respond to the pints made not the person --NZ
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Leyrann]

It seems like your argument is breaking down into just trying to look correct, for it's sake

That still beats making easily-disproven statements such as game prices increasing more than inflation warrants or nasty insinuations that other people have sinister motives.

 

[Evie]

Sighs.

Here's an actual programmer and economist tracking down the increasing average cost of games:

https://venturebeat.com/pc-gaming/the-cost-of-games/

It's not the easiest analysis because game development costs are seldom reported so data only comes from people willing to give it, but fundamentally, the average inflation-adjusted cost of making a game is, in fact, increasing very fast (just as Hollywood film costs are), and while at first there were efficiency gains (ie, how much it cost to make one byte of game went down), these tapered off in the mid-2000s, and since then the price to produce one byte of game has remained relatively steady at least to the late 2010s (when the study was made).

My argument remain what it was: that advances in technology lead to increasly large games (evolution of the total file size of games, which as the study above show *is* actually a reliable predictor of the cost of making the game, at least from the mid-2000s onward), which requires large increase in manpower in the amount of people needed to make a game (tenfold increase in the number of people credited in Civ I vs Civ VI), which lead to large increases in the costs incurred just making the game, even after you adjust for inflation, thereby requiring far larger sums of money to make a game to modern standards in 2025 than in 2006, and that the cost of those games (which have, in fact, gone down after adjustment for inflation) cannot keep up with those rising costs, even with increased sales - Civ VI had a large sales increase compared to IV, but still only a 3.5x increase, so only able to keep up with a 3.5x increase in cost!

The change to a different sales (or registration, or whatever) model is a necessity of trying to keep base game prices to where gamers expect them.

 

[Leyrann]

This dude really wants to defend an obviously greedy and aggressive DLC and pricing model

Yeah id take those “easily-disproven” statements over trying to insinuate that 2K isn’t greedy and that their pricing and DLC model are necessary while larger and more expensive to create games are both cheaper and have less aggressive dlc model than CIV.

I'm not a fan of Civilization's monetization model either, but I do think that it is important to acknowledge the points raised by Evie. They should've probably spent a few months extra to polish the game (although I have to admit that I would rather play it in it's current state than wait another 4 months just for polishing), and I much prefer a model like what Age of Wonders IV is using (substantial free updates that release together with DLCs, although I wouldn't mind the DLCs to come at 1-2 per year rather than 3-4 per year, of course with the associated increase in size of individual DLCs), but it's not as if Civ VII was just as easy to make as Civ II or something like that.

And claiming that the pricing of games is outpacing inflation is just ridiculous. At least if you say "games keep getting more expensive!" you have the benefit of the doubt that you might be ignorant towards how much inflation impacts things. If you explicitly say that it's outpacing inflation, when in fact inflation is outpacing the increase in price by over 10% of the total price, you are straight up spreading misinformation.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I'm not a fan of Civilization's monetization model either, but I do think that it is important to acknowledge the points raised by Evie. They should've probably spent a few months extra to polish the game (although I have to admit that I would rather play it in it's current state than wait another 4 months just for polishing), and I much prefer a model like what Age of Wonders IV is using (substantial free updates that release together with DLCs, although I wouldn't mind the DLCs to come at 1-2 per year rather than 3-4 per year, of course with the associated increase in size of individual DLCs), but it's not as if Civ VII was just as easy to make as Civ II or something like that.

And claiming that the pricing of games is outpacing inflation is just ridiculous. At least if you say "games keep getting more expensive!" you have the benefit of the doubt that you might be ignorant towards how much inflation impacts things. If you explicitly say that it's outpacing inflation, when in fact inflation is outpacing the increase in price by over 10% of the total price, you are straight up spreading misinformation.

Oh I agree that claiming the price of games is keeping up with inflation is ridiculous but it is just as ridiculous as Evie’s repeated assertion that 2K HAS to nickel and dime players with month 1 DLC to make a profit.

Sure there is some validity to point that the price to develop games has increased but it’s also disingenuous to ignore that the market to which video games are being sold has also increased dramatically. It’s also silly to try and pretend that Civ cost anywhere near as much as the most expensive AAA titles. To make. He keeps talking about the size of games and yet ignoring that compared to most other AAA, civ games are the size of peanuts and that many much larger games are being sold relatively complete packages without $30 horse armor

 

[Leyrann]

$30 horse armor

Please point me towards where Civilization is offering $30 horse armor (or something comparable) in it's announced DLCs.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Please point me towards where Civilization is offering $30 horse armor (or something comparable) in it's announced DLCs.

Apparently if it gets repeated often enough it becames clever/ a valid argument.

Anyhow, Mazda decided it wants me to pay $10/month to continue to use the phone app that tells me if my car is unlocked or not. I can't even use the remote start because I drive a manual. I decided that is not worth my money and is an an insult. I don't pay for it. I also don't constantly bombard mazdafanatics.com with the same complaints over and over again. I went on with my live and instead focus on things I do like.