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

[Evie]

As I noted in my last post, sales from Civ IV to VI (we obviously have no figures for VII yet) increased from 3 million copies moved after two years (Civ IV, 2008 sales figures, which appear to be the only ones I can find) to 11 millions copies moved...after five years. A notable increase, to be sure (although the second number is likely to include a lot of copies bought at deep discount during Steam sales - after five years, you get a lot of those!), but can only

Moreover, yes, probably Civ-type games are less costly to make than others. The cost to make them still increase with tech all the same. The article I posted pretty much shows parallel increases at every end of the cost spectrum - that is, the cheapest game to make increase in cost at a similar pace to the priciest ones. Sure, that increase may be going from 10 million for earlier Civs to 100 million for later Civs instead of 40 million to 400 millions (no, the tenfold is not pulled out of thin air: it's the estimate - tenfold increase in ten years - from the article).

You don't think my numbers are right? Fine. At least I posted numbers. Post your own. Actual numbers, sourced or sourceable, not vague claims that Civ prices "aren't that high" (even if the price for a civ game weren't that high).

 

[TheGrayFox]

Given the trans flag and name change (and female gender listed in her bio), I strongly suspect that she's not a dude

I’m a dude. He’s a dude. She’s a dude. We’re all dudes

(I didn’t notice bio and went back and edited that post so it wasn’t gendered. Thanks for pointing that out)

 

[Evie]

I'll take it. Thank you.

 

[Arcaian]

I’m a dude. He’s a dude. She’s a dude. We’re all dudes

(I didn’t notice bio and went back and edited that post so it wasn’t gendered. Thanks for pointing that out)

I know many people use dude in a gender neutral way, but I think those of us who have transitioned away from a (often presumed/forced) masculine identity often find 'dude' to feel like it's enforcing that old identity, even if the speaker did intend it to be gender neutral Appreciate you changing it!

 

[Patine]

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.

I didn't deny the prices had increased, but my point was the efficiency of production and distribution, and gaming consumer base has also greatly increased, and the vulture-like business tactics are not, at all, a financial necessity or defensible to the level of deriding their critics.

 

[TheGrayFox]

She, GrayFox. It's she. Try typing it, it won't break your fingers.I normally wouldn't make an issue of the mistake, easy enough to make online, but when you do it right after another poster has corrected you on the matter, not so much.

I didn’t see bio and i didn’t see anyone correct me. When I did I went back and edited the post to not be gendered. So I apologize

Moreover, yes, probably Civ-type games are less costly to make than others. The cost to make them still increase with tech all the same. The article I posted pretty much shows parallel increases at every end of the cost spectrum - that is, the cheapest game to make increase in cost at a similar pace to the priciest ones. Sure, that increase may be going from 10 million for earlier Civs to 100 million for later Civs instead of 40 million to 400 millions (no, the tenfold is not pulled out of thin air: it's the estimate - tenfold increase in ten years - from the article).

You don't think my numbers are right? Fine. At least I posted numbers. Post your own. Actual numbers, sourced or sourceable, not vague claims that Civ prices "aren't that high" (even if the price for a civ game weren't that high).

Sure but I’m not* disputing that VII was more expensive to make. Again it has a wider audience to sell to and that increased expense doesn’t justify dlc model. again games 5x the size which objectively cost more to make are being sold for less than VI and have less egregious dlc models

I’ve already posted my argument repeatedly. It just keeps getting ignored.

 

[Patine]

I didn't deny the prices had increased, but my point was the efficiency of production and distribution and vast increase in gaming consumer base has also greatly increased, and the vulture-like business tactics are not, at all, a financial necessity or defensible to the level of deriding their critics.

Okay, looking back at yesterday's discussion, I did initially deny a price increase, but, when that was addressed, I moved on to the more important aspects, which I don't think have satisfactorily addressed, but somewhat evasively so.

 

[Evie]

As the article I posted noted, the efficiency of production plateaud in the mid-2000s - since then the cost per byte of making games has stayed pretty stable.

In that same time period, Civ sales went up, yes, but not tenfold, or even close: less than four fold (Civ 4 by 2008 had moved 3 million copies, Civ VI by 2023 had moved 11 million copies. Less than fourfold, and that's with Civ VI sales stretching over a much longer period (and including a lot of Steam sales at drastically reduced prices). The size of the games, meanwhile, went up in almost lock-step with the games (3.5 GB at release for IV, to 12GB at release for VI), with cost per byte again remaining stable. And that's with the one-time increase from Steam and Console factored in - Civ VII is very unlikely to see any sort of comparable size increase, since it has no significant increase in distribution channel. It is, however, twice the install size.

Don't get me wrong, part of the solution development studios have adopted to getting the money to make their games (money that they need to have before releasing the game, mind you - the whole point is that people need to be paid for their work now, not in five years when the game is released) *do* involve tapping investors, who do generally have something of a greedy side and will demand higher returns. That,s true. But this is not a case of "the devs are greedy" or "the devs make the game for money not fun". It's a case of "the devs had to make a deal with the devil in order to have the money to even make the game in the first place". (Other solutions to need less money from investors have involved crowd-funding and early access, which inject some sales money into the game's financial earlier in the development process ; and splitting the game into a smaller base game and DLC (so that they can get some funding stream going to fund the additional content).

 

[Leyrann]

I didn't deny the prices had increased

Then what is this?

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

 

[Kev1916]

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

Check 2K official site and or Steam

 

[Leyrann]

Check 2K official site and or Steam

And what, there, is $30 horse armor or something comparable?

Please quote.

 

[Psychotronics]

I want to to see all 3 ages expanded, adding a 4th age is a slippery slope into, adding a 5th future age, maybe another age inbetwen antiquity and exploration? what about a prehistoric age?

A pre-historic age would actually be pretty nice, imo. I kinda liked that about Humankind, I think getting to explore the map a bit before settling down is pretty neat.

@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.

I think part of the issue for people like me is that I don't feel like the baseline regular edition is the baseline regular edition. With DLC coming out so quickly after the game's release, it feels like parts of the game have been chopped up to drive up sales of the more expensive edition.

 

[Patine]

Then what is this?

A self-correction, just as it looks to be.

 

[Patine]

As the article I posted noted, the efficiency of production plateaud in the mid-2000s - since then the cost per byte of making games has stayed pretty stable.

In that same time period, Civ sales went up, yes, but not tenfold, or even close: less than four fold (Civ 4 by 2008 had moved 3 million copies, Civ VI by 2023 had moved 11 million copies. Less than fourfold, and that's with Civ VI sales stretching over a much longer period (and including a lot of Steam sales at drastically reduced prices). The size of the games, meanwhile, went up in almost lock-step with the games (3.5 GB at release for IV, to 12GB at release for VI), with cost per byte again remaining stable. And that's with the one-time increase from Steam and Console factored in - Civ VII is very unlikely to see any sort of comparable size increase, since it has no significant increase in distribution channel. It is, however, twice the install size.

Don'T get me wrong, part of the solution development studios have adopted to getting the money to make their games (money that they need to have before releasing the game, mind you - the whole point is that people need to be paid for their work now, not in five years when the game is released) *do* involve tapping investors, who do generally have something of a greedy side and will demand higher returns. That,s true. But this is not a case of "the devs are greedy" or "the devs make the game for money not fun". It's a case of "the devs had to make a deal with the devil in order to have the money to even make the game in the first place". (Other solutions to need less money from investors have involved crowd-funding and early access, which inject some sales money into the game's financial earlier in the development process ; and splitting the game into a smaller base game and DLC (so that they can get some funding stream going to fund the additional content).

I, myself, did not say, "the dev's are greedy," (although for-profit, private enterprise of any sort is not a charity or doing it just for the love of it), but I still am not convinced the gaming industry is so cash-strapped it would collapse without needing to resort to such tactics to keep things afloat as an absolute necessity, and that deriding critics of such tactics is somehow justified.

 

[Patine]

I think part of the issue for people like me is that I don't feel like the baseline regular edition is the baseline regular edition. With DLC coming out so quickly after the game's release, it feels like parts of the game have been chopped up to drive up sales of the more expensive edition.

This is also a very good point, and a good counter-point to real prices of games taking the vulture-like tactics into account.

 

[Evie]

I mean, Civ VI released in October 2016, and, not counting Aztecs, received four DLCs and four new civilizations within its first five months of existence (Poland in December, Australia in February, and Percia and Macedon in March). Civ V likewise release in September 2010, and by March had added via DLC (not counting the Mongols or Babylonians) the Spanish, Incans and Polynesians. Civ IV was back in the days of physical sales, so of course did not have DLCs.

Adding a number of civ within a few months via DLCs after a new game release is hardly a new thing here, yet with the exception of Day 1 DLC there has never been a "The base game is not the base game" prior to now.

It seems to be that it's the inclusion of Season passes for upcoming DLC/Expansions in the higher-paying versions of the game that's triggering that feeling. Not the existence of DLCs unto themselves.

(And I will actually agree that I'm not fond of collector editions containing future promises of season passes. That does not make them more the base game to me, but I'm not a fan of pre-order inception where pre-ordering a collector edition involve preordering a preorder.)

 

[Patine]

And what, there, is $30 horse armor or something comparable?

Please quote.

I believe it's a commonly used pop culture reference to an early application of these vulture-like marketing tactics.

 

[Patine]

It seems to be that it's the inclusion of Season passes for upcoming DLC/Expansions in the higher-paying versions of the game that's triggering that feeling. Not the existence of DLCs unto themselves.

It still increases the cost of the complete game significantly more than earlier games with their, typically, one to three, expansions. Plus, expansions in older games typically added more content and additions and tools to the base game, each, than a modern DLC.

 

[Evie]

re: Horse armor: of course, the original horse armor, being a cosmetic upgrade with no gameplay impact sold for 2.50 USD or 1.99 USD (not thirty dollars!) depending on platform, is precisely the kind of micro-transaction everyone praise nowaday as the right way to do micro-transactions in game. It just was shocking at the time because micro-transactions weren't a thing yet and people expected new content, even cheap new content, to be actual content.

As to increasing the cost of the complete game, the complete games tend to be significantly bigger than their predecessors (civ IV Complete: 34 civ and 52 leaders, and the civ/leaders are only defined by a couple unique infrastructure and a couple generic traits, Civ VI Complete: 50 civs and 78 leaders, and each civ and leader has its own unique ability as well as unit and infrastructure, sometime multiple). Why should we expect a bigger game to not cost more, exactly?

 

[Kev1916]

And what, there, is $30 horse armor or something comparable?

Please quote.

Your hands painted on ? Check yourself

Moderator Action: Trolling - Methos