Zero day DLC = disrespecting the customer
- Thread starter phungus420
- Start date
Ahriman
Tyrant
On price discrimination; I can speak somewhat authoritatively here (I'm an industrial organization economist, and I've read large chunks of the academic price discrimination literature, and even written some stuff in it).
Price discrimination is basically: any form of differential pricing mechanism where your aim is to charge a different average price to different groups of people who have different willingness to pay for your product. Sometimes you can identify those people directly, sometimes you have to rely on self-selecting mechanisms where people rationally choose a different
Sometimes people are getting an identical product, sometimes
The key point is that the price differentiation is aimed at differentiating prices in a manner that is not justified by cost. [Eg if oil costs $X in New York and $X-a in Rotterdam, that doesn't necessarily mean price discrimination because the cost difference a might be due entirely to differences in transport costs.]
There are many types of price discrimination depending on how the mechanism is used, referred to as different "degrees" of price discrimination, depending on the nature of the information known to the seller about the customer and the nature of the product.
For example, a discount for students or seniors is a form of price discrimination; you know that these people are willing to pay less, and you can verify what "type" of customer any customer is, and so you charge them less.
A more sophisticated pricing plan is something like cellphone pricing plans; you might offer 200 minutes at $40, and 600 minutes at $60.
Why do this? You know that there are some "light users" and some "heavy users", and so you try to offer a menu where the light users select into one group and the heavy users select into another.
The "deluxe edition" pricing is a similar mechanism to the latter. You're offering a slightly improved product to try to get some extra revenue from the dedicated fans with high willingness to pay, while still offering the main product at the lower price to lower willingness to pay people.
Price discrimination is basically: any form of differential pricing mechanism where your aim is to charge a different average price to different groups of people who have different willingness to pay for your product. Sometimes you can identify those people directly, sometimes you have to rely on self-selecting mechanisms where people rationally choose a different
Sometimes people are getting an identical product, sometimes
The key point is that the price differentiation is aimed at differentiating prices in a manner that is not justified by cost. [Eg if oil costs $X in New York and $X-a in Rotterdam, that doesn't necessarily mean price discrimination because the cost difference a might be due entirely to differences in transport costs.]
There are many types of price discrimination depending on how the mechanism is used, referred to as different "degrees" of price discrimination, depending on the nature of the information known to the seller about the customer and the nature of the product.
For example, a discount for students or seniors is a form of price discrimination; you know that these people are willing to pay less, and you can verify what "type" of customer any customer is, and so you charge them less.
A more sophisticated pricing plan is something like cellphone pricing plans; you might offer 200 minutes at $40, and 600 minutes at $60.
Why do this? You know that there are some "light users" and some "heavy users", and so you try to offer a menu where the light users select into one group and the heavy users select into another.
The "deluxe edition" pricing is a similar mechanism to the latter. You're offering a slightly improved product to try to get some extra revenue from the dedicated fans with high willingness to pay, while still offering the main product at the lower price to lower willingness to pay people.
player1 fanatic
Fanatic
Price discrimination is something that works for computer games, since cost of replicating games is really low. Main cost is in developing games, and different prices for different markets, help to maximize that profit.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Price discrimination can work for any good where the seller has market power (which will already lead to price > MC), where you can prevent arbitrage/resale, and where you have different groups of customers with significantly different demand functions.
[Though sometimes the optimal solution is just to sell at high price to the high-demand users.]
Low MC just means that a profit maximizing solution ends up very close to revenue maximizing solution.
[Though sometimes the optimal solution is just to sell at high price to the high-demand users.]
Low MC just means that a profit maximizing solution ends up very close to revenue maximizing solution.
scottthong
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1
True, all that is different is ONE civ...
But to put it in current terms, imagine if you were playing a Civ IV in which there were no Monty to sic on your neighbors. Heck of a difference, no?
Having read through each post up to this point, I think I can summarize the reasons the citizens are rebelling:
1) $10 for minimal extra content (heck, $5 during Steam sales gets you a whole SET of games - Tropico pack, Titan Quest pack, Rome: Total War pack, etc)
2) Bonus content that affects gameplay, unlike say getting the TF2 Lugermorph from buying Sam & Max which is totally cosmetic
3) Extra civ not being scenario, but main game (if it actually turns out that way)
4) Further to above, sort-of forcing hardcore or Obsess-Compulse fans to fork out 10 bucks more or miss out on the 'full' gameplay experience
5) Modding troubles
Point 2 is the most sticking to me, because many fans can live without alt-designs like torn-off rabbit skulls on their Spearmen, but not having those extra gameplay possibilities SUCKS - another TF2 example, imagine if you had to fork out even $1 to use the Huntsman or Direct Hit. The community would mass-strike in protest, much worse than the complaints over item drops replacing achievement rewards.
Madballs in: Babo Invasion even had a patch to allow banning those who bought the 'cheat packs' (that unlock all weapons instead of having to earn them) from your games!
(Yes, if you've noticed by now, I'm a hardcore Steam customer.)
Especially if the extra civ is main-game instead of a scenario, then it really seems like they're getting Civ V: Not-As-Good-And-Crippled-Big-Toe Edition.
To use myself as an example, I MUSTHAVE all possible DLC with gameplay content, hence my waiting for Fallout 3 GOTY and other packages. But TF2 fancy hats and guns with the exact same gameplay properties? *Pffft*
IMHO Firaxis has a right to make whatever candy or crud they see fit, and up to us to choose whether or not to swallow it or vomit it out explosively. There is no coercion or monopolistic stranglehold, Civ is not a basic necessity for life. (Um, well, to most humans anyway... See the MUSTHAVE bit above.)
So what is my personal strat? Yeah, I'm MUSTHAVE Obss/Compuls, but I'm also patient - I'll simply wait as long as it takes for a package set with all the expanded content at a holiday discount as I did for Civ IV.
Pinstar
Ringtailed Regent
I would rather have Babylon included in the core game. It is obviously done, polished, balanced and ready (or rather will be the day Civ V releases) so why are you taking it out and making people buy it separately? This is going down the same evil path that the Sims 3 did with the Johny Longtorso logic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk0i0yTPJBY
Geek113377
Human (Usually)
i'm a bit pissed too-giving the people who pay more a better chance of winning?! i would be FINE with them just offering the behind the scenes and the soundtrack, but a ZDDLC that actually changes the coded gameplay is just wrong for a civ game. i will be pacified if they release it as DLC for <$10 (the extra price it costs to get it) relatively soon (like a few weeks after the release of the game), but that would piss off the people who paid for it up front and thought they were getting something special. although they did get that other stuff too....
But really, is complaining here going to change anything at this point? they've already lured customers into paying extra for their babylonian civ, they can't offer it to other people now.
But really, is complaining here going to change anything at this point? they've already lured customers into paying extra for their babylonian civ, they can't offer it to other people now.
Schuesseled
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 2,081
im very much doubt htat babylon is going super pwnage!!!!!!
Wardancing
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2010
- Messages
- 162
To start, as the voice says in Civ4, "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay".
That being said, i think a civilization is a big deal. Im not saying Babylon will be overpowered, or underpowered, but in my experience with the civilization series, some civs just do better vs other civs in general. Lets pretend for a minute that Babylon will be a carbon copy of another civ, so to not disrupt gameplay. Now you play Civ#1 which is overpowered (due to UU) at early stages of the game vs Civ#2, which is who Babylon is a copy of. So someone gets lucky and gets Civ#2 and Babylon next to them at start location. Its an advantage that not all the community will have. Do i bother comparing my scores with someone else? This is why a single civilization is a big deal.
As has been stated, it seems it will lead to a lot of issues concerning modders. Are you allowed to make a mod that adds content thats DLC? As many have said, this DLC is for money, and theyre in the market for money, so the obvious answer would be that they wont allow DLC to be re-created in mod form, due to loss of sales.
The "do you have or not have babylon" seems to splinter this community, and I think a lot of the passion in this debate stems from that (defending the community).
Its sad, I have been with Civilization from DOS, and then Win3.x but the marketing choices Im seeing now arent up my alley. As has been stated here, DLC is the norm now, which is exactly why i havent supported a lot of titles. Dont blame lack of sales on piracy, when you clearly make choices that people arent happy with.
I was on the fence when i found out about steam, as its my belief that in the future companies will just disable games all together when they see fit, whether it be due to lack of community, or a new version coming out. That is the reason i dont buy games that require online activation, or a connection for single player mode. Now reading this, and seeing how it already disrupts the community, i will voice my opinion and stay away from Civ5.
Im happy that Civ1 - Civ4 are in my hands, and will continue to work, although my civ1 manual is showing signs of aging =)
Moderator Action: Inappropriate imgae deleted.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
That being said, i think a civilization is a big deal. Im not saying Babylon will be overpowered, or underpowered, but in my experience with the civilization series, some civs just do better vs other civs in general. Lets pretend for a minute that Babylon will be a carbon copy of another civ, so to not disrupt gameplay. Now you play Civ#1 which is overpowered (due to UU) at early stages of the game vs Civ#2, which is who Babylon is a copy of. So someone gets lucky and gets Civ#2 and Babylon next to them at start location. Its an advantage that not all the community will have. Do i bother comparing my scores with someone else? This is why a single civilization is a big deal.
As has been stated, it seems it will lead to a lot of issues concerning modders. Are you allowed to make a mod that adds content thats DLC? As many have said, this DLC is for money, and theyre in the market for money, so the obvious answer would be that they wont allow DLC to be re-created in mod form, due to loss of sales.
The "do you have or not have babylon" seems to splinter this community, and I think a lot of the passion in this debate stems from that (defending the community).
Its sad, I have been with Civilization from DOS, and then Win3.x but the marketing choices Im seeing now arent up my alley. As has been stated here, DLC is the norm now, which is exactly why i havent supported a lot of titles. Dont blame lack of sales on piracy, when you clearly make choices that people arent happy with.
I was on the fence when i found out about steam, as its my belief that in the future companies will just disable games all together when they see fit, whether it be due to lack of community, or a new version coming out. That is the reason i dont buy games that require online activation, or a connection for single player mode. Now reading this, and seeing how it already disrupts the community, i will voice my opinion and stay away from Civ5.
Im happy that Civ1 - Civ4 are in my hands, and will continue to work, although my civ1 manual is showing signs of aging =)
Moderator Action: Inappropriate imgae deleted.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
CossackProblem
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 131
The huckster that invented game-day DLC probably has a closet full of marketing and sales trophies.
Zero day DLC is a mockery, but its the times we live in. While a lot of people argue that if you don't like it don't buy it, that doesn't change the fact its still there.
Personally when I spend w/e they are charging for a game these days I want it to be a 1 time transaction, it just makes sense to me. However, good marketing dictates you sell things piece by piece (many people won't consider DLC as optional), because people will pay - however most people wouldn't pay $150 for a game - yet this is often the final figure.
I mean, just look at those MW2 map packs - $15 EACH. So thats $30 + $84. Almost 1/3 of the original games value for 10 maps, 4 of which are recycled from an earlier release, yet MILLIONS still paid. I don't know how much further a customer can be milked, but its certainly not near any kind of tipping point yet..
Personally when I spend w/e they are charging for a game these days I want it to be a 1 time transaction, it just makes sense to me. However, good marketing dictates you sell things piece by piece (many people won't consider DLC as optional), because people will pay - however most people wouldn't pay $150 for a game - yet this is often the final figure.
I mean, just look at those MW2 map packs - $15 EACH. So thats $30 + $84. Almost 1/3 of the original games value for 10 maps, 4 of which are recycled from an earlier release, yet MILLIONS still paid. I don't know how much further a customer can be milked, but its certainly not near any kind of tipping point yet..
Schuesseled
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 2,081
you know you don't have pay for dlc on most games, compare mw2 and world at war, with mw2 you can play just fine wuithout the map packs, with world at war on the other hand you have to have the map pack, or you get kicked out half of the time, as it tries to load the new maps.
Dlc isn't a problem as long as the game doesn't disrespect you by reducing your enjoyment from not having them.
Dlc isn't a problem as long as the game doesn't disrespect you by reducing your enjoyment from not having them.
Your first post in here and you are already being apprehend. This speaks high for your cause.. hahah!!!
Zero day down loadable content is the shame of the industry at the time. Babylon plus other civs will probably be zero day modded in too.. fair & square, and Firaxis should know this as they are encouraging so much modding. Modding capability being the reason for which many many of us will even play this game in the first place. So you see, it works either way.
The Almighty dF
Pharaoh
Zero day DLC is one of the major reasons why I'm boycotting Civilization 5.
That and the false claim of the game being "more moddable" than ever before. How can you say that while selling off civilizations and simplifying so much of the gameplay outside of combat?
I'm just glad Civ4 had a better lead designer. Why couldn't Firaxis bring him back? Did they -need- to bring in a fanboy of a completely different game to work on their own, to mold it in the image of the game he prefers?
That and the false claim of the game being "more moddable" than ever before. How can you say that while selling off civilizations and simplifying so much of the gameplay outside of combat?
I'm just glad Civ4 had a better lead designer. Why couldn't Firaxis bring him back? Did they -need- to bring in a fanboy of a completely different game to work on their own, to mold it in the image of the game he prefers?
Schuesseled
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 2,081
Exaclty Mr 12agnar0k 
I have never downloaded a mod for civ 4, ive played the ones included in BTS, and if there was an ingame mod browser i might try out some on there too. (but there ain't and i like a lot of people can't be bothered trawling through mods on possible dodgy fansites filled with viruses, certainly can't be arse to put the files i download into different directories, why do you hate me)
I have never downloaded a mod for civ 4, ive played the ones included in BTS, and if there was an ingame mod browser i might try out some on there too. (but there ain't and i like a lot of people can't be bothered trawling through mods on possible dodgy fansites filled with viruses, certainly can't be arse to put the files i download into different directories, why do you hate me)
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
Would you be so kind as to eloborate a bit?
ZimbuTheMonkey
King
Yeah, it isn't as logical as he makes it out to be.
Starcraft 2 has an in-game map browser too this time around, and the game is significantly more closed and restrictive now. See the Apple app store for another example.
It depends on how the developer wants to use the in-game mod browser. Will they restrict content? Will they segregate mod users? How will they organize it? Will there be featured/sponsored mods and content?
It's not as simple as "Ingame mod browser = more moddable than ever before". Logically, there's no connection between how moddable a game is and whether or not it has an in-game mod browser, except of course that it CAN be modded (unless the dev just included a mod browser for no reason at all).
This is what concerns me most. The concepts of DLC and modding directly compete with each other. Will the publisher stand by while users "copy" paid DLC as Mods? We could really be looking at some kind of AppStore rigidness here...
Which brings another scary scenario to mind: what if the modding tools came as DLC...? *shudders* ...now that we know that they have their own engine, well, why not charge a few bucks for a Blender exporter...
tom2050
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 5,516
Never thought of that! 2K, can you confirm if you plan on selling modding tools as DLC or not?
According to D2D statement (if those are accurate), free DLC by going with them means DLC will cost $ (of course it doesn't mean free DLC won't exist). They are setting up direct competition between themselves and modders.
