What of we didn't buy the DLC?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by jtb1127, Mar 12, 2011.

  1. Jatta Pake

    Jatta Pake Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    299
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Same with me on all points.

    I'll take it one step further. I want to spend MORE money on Civ 5. If Firaxis immediately released 15 new DLC Civs at $5 bucks a pop, I'd buy them all tonight.
     
  2. smitty5ca

    smitty5ca Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    16
    Location:
    US
    Ever since the introduction of DLC's in games, I find my interest in video games deminishing very rapidly. The introduction of DLC's might even be good for me, maybe instead of playing video games I can learn an actual skill that might benefit me in life.
     
  3. Vordeo

    Vordeo King

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    719
    I've got a degree in Business Economics, and I don't see the connection between DLC and piracy. Frankly, if you pirated CiV, than I doubt it was due to the fact that they were releasing optional DLC content for it.

    Also, the obvious, glaring flaw in your little anecdote is that Adobe programs aren't DLC.

    Lastly, since you brought up the education issue, I've got to say that the fact that you had professors actively encouraging piracy doesn't speak well as to the quality of your education.

    Like what? Demos? Going to a friend's house? Neither is exactly convenient.
     
  4. Vordeo

    Vordeo King

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    719
    Fair enough, I just didn't think tarring everyone with the same brush made sense.

    Agreed, I do think they could afford to charge less, though they certainly know their market better than either of us do.

    Oh I would love that, and I think most people on this board would too. Personally though I just don't think it'd increase their revenues.

    I think the main problem with Civ as a series is it's pretty daunting to newbies, as there's a lot to pick up. Also, games take far longer than say, Call of Duty games. A Civ game can take days to complete whereas a Call of Duty game can take only a few minutes. Civ also suffers from less exciting multiplayer, IMO. In FPS, both guys are always doing things. In Civ there's huge downtime.

    Also, turn based strategy games just aren't popular nowadays. If anything, the audience I'd imagine Civilization would be ideal for are older people, as they'd tend to be more interested in history, and more willing to take the time to learn strategy in a relatively less exciting game, but at the same time that market isn't exactly likely to spend hours playing video games.

    That's a huge generalization, I know, but I just don't think the genre is that appealing to the mainstream.

    Yeah, I agree with that. Low pricing would be one way to lure new people in, but it has to be only one part of marketing campaign. The biggest challenge Firaxis faces in marketing isn't pricing; it's the fact that turn based strategy games just don't have the mass market appeal FPS do.
     
  5. brianshapiro

    brianshapiro King

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Messages:
    775
    Facebook games like Farmville are becoming popular among certain audiences so I don't know if the turn-based nature of the game is really that big of a problem. I also casually do play by e-mail games with my friends all the time, which is the same concept.

    The best type of multi-player games are either games that you can do very fast or those you do as leisurely as you wish. The problem with Civ is that you load up this heavy game that takes a while just to get past the intro movie, and it becomes clusmy to go between that and your work or other activities. You don't even get notified that the other player is done with his turn if you're not switched to the game screen. A slow player multiplayer in a Civ game would need to take in mind all these scenarios in which the player would want to go away from his game screen for a minute, an hour, or a day.

    I know that the team is now working on CivWorld, but it would be great if the concepts were taken into consideration in the standard game, which really is a much better experience than Facebook.
     
  6. Vordeo

    Vordeo King

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    719
    Yes, but the thing with Facebook games is that they're far easier to access. You can do it on your phone via wi-fi, or even at work. Also, they don't require much time: you can log on, play for a few minutes, and stop. Neither of those apply to CiV.

    Yep, and honestly, I don't really see way to speed up CiV multiplayer to the extent that both players are engaged all the time. I'd love to see it, but I think the changes they'd need to make to gameplay would alter the game beyond recognition.

    CivWorld? Haven't heard of that, is that CiV for Facebook or something? Any details or links?
     
  7. brianshapiro

    brianshapiro King

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Messages:
    775
    Yes its civ for facebook. http://www.facebook.com/civworld

    I was thinking less along the lines of making civ multiplayer faster, and more about doing things that would : make the game load quick enough that its worth opening to play a single move; notify the player of his turn if he's switched to another app, say if he's browsing the web while waiting for another player to do their thing; even allow notification by e-mail or txt message in the case the person isn't on his computer.

    Also, I think it would be good to have some player community interface, where people could start open games that are meant to be marathon play-by-email games, and have anyone join them in the middle of the game. Also, have a better, more visual storefront for mods.

    All these things would enhance the social experience of Civ.
     
  8. noncognosco

    noncognosco Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    229
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Where do you live? 1982?
     
  9. awesome

    awesome Meme Lord

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,768
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    behind you
    this times a million. they always told us to just buy it from the school bookstore.
     
  10. Tapewormlondon

    Tapewormlondon Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Messages:
    128
    I dunno but I want to live there - $6 for a 3d movie.... thats like £4.50 here......wow we get ripped off, at my Odeon its £15!!
     
  11. Aeon221

    Aeon221 Lord of the Cheese Helmet

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,900
    Location:
    Hiding from the Afro-Eurasians
    Oh hey surprise, it's like some people already knew what would happen and managed to wait patiently as the value of the package started to build.

    Still not there yet, but it's definitely getting there.

    Thanks for paying to beta the game for me, btw.
     
  12. Aeon221

    Aeon221 Lord of the Cheese Helmet

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,900
    Location:
    Hiding from the Afro-Eurasians
    On what planet is a game with millions of buyers niche?
     
  13. Drawmeus

    Drawmeus Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    1,213
    Given that the argument was in the context of someone's proposal that games would be more profitable if they cost $10 a pop instead of $50... if we accept "millions" as the number of sales Civ V hit, then they'd have to get into the 10s of millions in order to make the same revenue (not profit) at $10 as they're at now at $50.
     
  14. brianshapiro

    brianshapiro King

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Messages:
    775
    That wasn't my argument, btw.

    I really don't know what the best price point for the game would be, but you also have to take in consideration like I said the fact that movies cost a lot more to make. So the fact that games have a smaller audience could be balanced out a little by the fact that they cost less to make.

    I was just responding to people who were determining the money value of the game by the play hours.
     
  15. Vordeo

    Vordeo King

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    719
    Oooooh. Now that sounds interesting.

    Anyone signed up for alpha testing?

    I like that idea, though even there you run the risk of people losing interest.

    My idea would be something along the lines of having players move 1 unit at a time (though that would change the experience significantly), which should cut down the amount of time people are just waiting for the other guy to move.

    Alternatively, you could have players make all of their upcoming decisions (what to produce next in a city, what techs to research) while their opponent is making their unit moves.

    The one?

    Or do you seriously want to argue that Civilization has the mass market appeal of say, an FPS shooter like CoD? It's all about scale.
     
  16. Aeon221

    Aeon221 Lord of the Cheese Helmet

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,900
    Location:
    Hiding from the Afro-Eurasians
    Uh, yeah, I do.

    Lemme put it to you like this. CoD might be a McDonalds, but Civ is still an Arbys. Both of them are massive movers of unappealing meals. They can afford to put out commercials and blow millions on developing the latest greatest mealtime combination that just happens to look pretty much exactly the same as everything else on the menu.

    McDonalds might be a heck of a lot bigger than Arbys, but both of them sell to more people in a minute than the sushi place next door sells to in a year.

    Stardock and Paradox are more like a local chain; good food, quality, but not pushing a lot of green around. Might be they'll eventually take down one of the big boys, but not yet.

    And then there's one shop wonders like Spiderweb Games, Shrapnel Games and Cryptic Comet. The guys who make food like you wouldn't believe, and they're just happy if they cover costs.


    Now, you might not think that your favorite mega chain is a mega chain. But lemme assure you, Civ is one big fat greasy cheeseburger of a game compared to pretty much everything outside of the multi-million range, and a lot of stuff in it.

    And you guys are gobbling it down fairly happily, as far as I can tell.

    Speaking of which: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeLcNmQ0AO4&feature=related
     
  17. Vordeo

    Vordeo King

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    719
    Before I debate things, I try to know what I'm talking about. I do not think you know what the word 'niche' means.

    Scale doesn't actually matter as much as percentage. Let's imagine there are 100 million video games in the world. Not all of them are going to be strategy fans (or FPS or fighting game or RPG fans, for that matter). Let's asume maybe 5% of all video gamers are strategy fans. That 5%, or those 5 million gamers, make up Civilization's target market. There is a relatively small percentage of the market that would be interested in the product (compared to say, CoD, which based off how much it has sold would appeal to a significantly larger part of the market), so in the business world it would thus be referred to as a niche product.

    5 million is a lot of people, but in proportion, it would still be considered a niche market.

    Again, you might want to learn what 'niche' actually means before getting your self-righteous on.

    At least we get to enjoy it. What you're doing is akin to standing outside a McDonald's and yelling about how their food is awful.

    Right, I don't have audio on this computer, but based off the title I'm assuming that's meant to be insulting?
     
  18. myrrhbear

    myrrhbear Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    5
    I have to say, I'm VERY glad to see that other people are protesting this DLC business.

    I really hate it. ... And I think it sucks really badly that some people justify it. What the h for? Do you think the devs of this game will read your support of it and give you a gold star for having their back, while you stab the rest of us in the back?

    Basically, unless you are a kid and don't remember much before this new trend in gouging people, you know this is total crap.

    I find it hard to imgaine that we can get the game companies to stop doing this to us if we go along with it, and are so divided about it.

    We used to just buy a game - finished product - something polished and impressive. End of story. Releasing something with flaws, riddled with bugs, and incomplete to boot would be enough nails in the coffin to bury it, the company, and their pets : P

    Then they added in the idea of people paying monthly to play a game. My jaw hit the floor the first time I saw that. Totally dumbfounded. What ^%! ridiculous craziness. Seriously, you don't just buy a game, now you also pay every month to keep playing?!&%^!

    Then they stacked on top of that the idea of the in-game store. AaAaarrrrg!&^%! Totally bleeping insane. Now you buy the game, buy the expensive yearly expansions, pay monthly, AND get nickled and dimed to death at the store. Just like drug dealers - give you a taste, then once they have you hooked solidly on the line, they get you for constant payments. Also a lot like casinos, getting people to toss away tons of money in small amounts so they don't realize how much they're burning through until they're broke, and sold up the creek.

    NOW I see Civ, which I've bee playing for years and years, and always spoke very highly of, now suddenly make a move to sell civs one by one*&^!*&!???? When I bought this I was like - where the h are the scenarios and variety of maps??

    Now we know. They planned to sell them piecemeal, and take the gouging to a new low. I definitely wouldn't have the nice things to say about Civ anymore that I always used to.

    It was a really great game - full of history, thorough, complex, beautifully designed. Really something cool. Now, if someone asked me about it, I'd be like... well, the graphics came along a bit since the last version, but now they rip you off selling Civs and maps one at a time!!! It's so &^%!&^%! crappy.

    Don't get over clever and rationalize garbage like this or you are just buttering yourself up for more. If we want things to go back to simple decency - you buy a game at the store - and that's it - we have to speak out clearly against this stuff, and we have to be as unanymous as possible.

    The only thing beyond buying the game initially we should be paying for thereafter is if a year or two down the road they release a great expansion - which used to mean basically a whole new game in the series - a sequel - something of standalone worth.
     
  19. Vordeo

    Vordeo King

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    719
    *Shrug*

    If I think criticism is unfair, I say so.

    Would I prefer to get the extra civs free? Yes, but at the same time, looking at things from Firaxis' perspective, I know they can't afford to give away all of their content free.

    And it's not like the DLC is essential to the game, anyway.

    MMORPGs require alot more maintenance and upkeep than regular games. They've got to employ a good number of people to keep say, WoW running, and I don't think they make money if they sell the games at standard retail price without charging monthly fees.

    The alternative would've been Blizzard charging around $120 (assuming players played for one year) on top of the standard retail price when you buy the game. I think I prefer the pay as you play model.

    You don't have to buy the expansions/DLC though. You buy them if you think they're worth whatever you're priced at.
     
  20. Frugal_Gourmet

    Frugal_Gourmet Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    11
    I think the only legitimate complaint is that making DLCs uses valuable developer time that should be spent "fixing" (editorialization) the game for free.

    Although I doubt this is accurate.

    Most likely, the DLC business model causes more resources to be spent polishing/bug fixed the original product for free than would've been spent otherwise. Probably even more than in an expansion pack model.
     

Share This Page