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

[Patine]

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.

Still, it's reference in these kind of debates, and it wasn't even me who invoked it.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I do believe that the whole DLC model, and premium incentives, that this game is going for is more of a 2K thing, than strictly a Firaxis thing. I think it's been evolving ever since being taken over, and now the way that Civ VII has started reaches the limit for some people.

 

[Evie]

It's referenced in those kind of debate as a hyperbolic comparison between the meme of the horse armor, which is essentially a boogeyman that never actually existed, and whichever reality the poster is criticizing. It contributes little of value beside inflamatory sentiment to any discussion, and isn't even an accurate reflection of the history.

(I do recognize you didn't bring it up, Patine, which is why I did not name you in that regard until now).

 

[Leyrann]

Your hands painted on ? Check yourself

Listen, if you're gonna make the claim you're gonna have to provide the source.

I'm not going to do your job for you.

Else, I will just assume that you're talking out of your behind and there is no $30 horse armor equivalent being offered for Civilization.

 

[Kev1916]

Listen, if you're gonna make the claim you're gonna have to provide the source.

I'm not going to do your job for you.

Else, I will just assume that you're talking out of your behind and there is no $30 horse armor equivalent being offered for Civilization.

K , you enjoy your night

Moderator Action: Trolling - Methos

 

[Patine]

It's referenced in those kind of debate as a hyperbolic comparison between the meme of the horse armor, which is essentially a boogeyman that never actually existed, and whichever reality the poster is criticizing. It contributes little of value beside inflamatory sentiment to any discussion, and isn't even an accurate reflection of the history.

(I do recognize you didn't bring it up, Patine, which is why I did not name you in that regard until now).

Still, I remain unconvinced of the necessity of these marketing tactics as required, "to pay the bills." I think certain companies like EA (who is a very big and unscrupulous company never hurting for money) started these bad habits, and they just became ingrained in the industry.

 

[Evie]

Even EA (and yes, they do abuse the DLC model) need to see cash returns to its projects at some point. No one can just keep throwing money at a game (or any other project!) for however long it takes to get ready - eventually even the very deepest pockets will hit a "Release or cancel" point where there is no more funding that can reasonably be put on the project.

Early Access, Crowdfunding and DLCs are all ways of ensuring the game get a cash flow while development continues, thus prolonging how long the game can be in development. They do get abused by some ; but that some abuse it does not make cash flow management less of a necessity for all games.

 

[Leyrann]

I think there might be a miscommunication, where Evie means more to say 'this is a valid consideration' and others are interpreting it as 'this justifies the strategies they're using', despite that not being intended?

 

[Evie]

I mean...it's a valid consideration that justify *some* level of *some* of the models they are using, and more importantly, that justify why the old models they were using could not be maintained.

It's not *unlimited* license to justify everything every company is doing. Some of them go completely overboard. But that will be hard to gauge until we have a better idea of how the price of DLC in Civ VII compare to previous Civ, and how the content compare likewise. Which we do not, as of yet, because the collector editions are a mix of DLC access and other bonuses.

 

[Siddorm]

When a game price is discounted by 90%, I feel like it is normally priced. If the discount is only 80%, I feel like I am paying double.

 

[Maiq]

Listen, if you're gonna make the claim you're gonna have to provide the source.

I'm not going to do your job for you.

Else, I will just assume that you're talking out of your behind and there is no $30 horse armor equivalent being offered for Civilization.

$30 horse armor would be preferred to trying to sell you Britain in 2 weeks.

 

[Evie]

In fairmess, that's about what I would expect Ma'iq to say.

 

[Steinernein]

Still, I remain unconvinced of the necessity of these marketing tactics as required, "to pay the bills." I think certain companies like EA (who is a very big and unscrupulous company never hurting for money) started these bad habits, and they just became ingrained in the industry.

The lion share of the bills - the shareholders followed by the C-suite. Some times your overhead demands demonic sacrifices. That being said I guess you could just buy 2K stock but it's pretty middling in terms of performance.

 

[pokiehl]

The lion share of the bills - the shareholders followed by the C-suite. Some times your overhead demands demonic sacrifices. That being said I guess you could just buy 2K stock but it's pretty middling in terms of performance.

TTWO is middling? TTWO has beaten the S&P 500 since it went public in 1997. Its annualized performance is literally over 50% higher than the S&P 500 (15.5% annually compared with 9.8% annually). It's up almost 18% year to date already...

 

[canadamufc]

Cutting stuff that you don't have the resources to complete now and adding it back later once you've started actually making money with which to pay your staff is not "predatory monetization"

Advertising DLC that comes out one month after release before the base game is even available is absolutely predatory monetization.

You can't make me support the practice of buyers shelling out 90CAD for the base game, and then a month later ask for another 40CAD. People shouldn't pay for DLC so close after release, it doesn't sit right with me and it's not a good practice for consumers (us).

 

[ydejin]

Advertising DLC that comes out one month after release before the base game is even available is absolutely predatory monetization.

That seemed very strange to me, and I’m perfectly okay with the Paradox model with constant DLC coming out — to me it keeps the games fresh and interesting. But announcing the DLC contents before launch really just seemed like trolling, guaranteed to stir people up. Very strange marketing strategy.

I suppose the bean counters have run the numbers and the income benefit from people buying the more expensive versions was high enough they figured ticking off part of their player base was worth it. But showing off the DLC right before release was just weird.

 

[canadamufc]

The main part that irks me honestly is that they were showing it off. In the end, you don't have to pay the 40CAD for the DLC if you don't want to. You can buy it two months, three months, or longer after release.

But the game hasn't even released yet and you're showing off your DLC? Seriously?

 

[Krikkit1]

The main part that irks me honestly is that they were showing it off. In the end, you don't have to pay the 40CAD for the DLC if you don't want to. You can buy it two months, three months, or longer after release.

But the game hasn't even released yet and you're showing off your DLC? Seriously?

The thing is they work on stuff in parallel... Britain was going to be released within a month of launch they weren't going to start from scratch on Feb 11.

(I agree it was somewhat irksome... I was anticipating they would say What the civs in the DLC were without necessarily showing them... but the idea they they wouldn't have a sort of working model of it isn't surprising... especially as it was a pre cut scene..not a live gameplay..where all the British bugginess would show up)

 

[Evie]

Announcing the DLC before release when part of the preorder or collector edition bonus is a *season pass* for the saidfuture content is just...good practice? Or do we want people to buy season passes with not the lesst idea what's going to be in them? Are they season passes, or loot boxes?

Also, one month from release is NOT a time when the devs and content designers should be adding game features! By that point in the dev cycle the initial release should be feature-complete and frozen for additional development to allow for Q&A and bug fixing, so it actually *make sense* that the content designers (who are largely uninvolved in bug work) to already be working on the next content release by that point.

 

[Steinernein]

TTWO is middling? TTWO has beaten the S&P 500 since it went public in 1997. Its annualized performance is literally over 50% higher than the S&P 500 (15.5% annually compared with 9.8% annually). It's up almost 18% year to date already...

But... Costco! And I guess I would rather just buy Nvidia because AMD has given up or something boring like ADP. But, sure this year it does look rather good and I guess you should buy right before GTA 6 releases whenever that is.

So, if you buy TTWO stock and then buy Civ 7 and its DLCs it is fine then right? It's like ... paying yourself just slowly and backwards.