Why I haven't bought Millienia

[Thandius]

Right now Millenia is at a 50% discount, which is the perfect time to buy a game that has a bit of a troubled history and not the best reviews but that I am really interested in.

Why am I not buying it then?

It's quite simple. I look at DLC 1 at 9,99 (already out) and DLC 2 (about to come out for 19,99) and I feel like I am more than being nickel and dimed. I am supposed to pay a considerable amount of money for features that should be in the base game coming out preplanned, just a few months after release, before the main game is even remotely fixed.

I am not some college kid who can't afford to pay that, I am a guy in his 50s, who doesn't reward that kind of behavior by a publisher and, mind you, I used to be a big fan of Paradox before it went public a few years ago.

It's a damn shame and I feel bad for the devs who came up with some interesting stuff and are getting screwed by the publisher's bad business decisions here.

[Earl of Doncaster]

The base game is good and feels complete. The first DLC looks like something I would pay to avoid. £20 for the second looks 'king stupid, no matter just how good it is.

[Red Death]

Entirely fair to say the DLC price is not worth it, but:

Originally posted by Thandius:

features that should be in the base game coming out preplanned, just a few months after release, before the main game is even remotely fixed.

Have you played the game? Seems not, so how do you figure the game is broken and still needs to be fixed?

[Oaks]

I find it a little disheartening when a new game is coming out and there are already a bunch of payment options for different editions. It seems to have been the trend for a while (I remember Civilization 6 had it) and it is still pretty common (Ara and Civ 7 already a few different editions).

Millennia's dlc seemed a bit harder to justify too, since it featured gameplay that is generally considered "standard" in the genre - placing first cities and nuclear weapons. To the game's credit though, they did make first the first city placement a free patch and the nuclear stuff sounds like it is a bit different - seems like it might involve a nuclear wasteland setting. That could be unique.

With all this "preorder now and get the first few dlcs" stuff, I console myself with thoughts that it ensures the devs have some future projects to work on and I'm assisting them with this, though maybe they are just out on a beach hanging out.

[Thandius]

Originally posted by Red Death:

Have you played the game? Seems not, so how do you figure the game is broken and still needs to be fixed?

I base my opinion on all the reviews podium discussion etc I have watched and read, which, since I was very eager for this game, were assuredly quite a few.

Originally posted by Oaks:

I find it a little disheartening when a new game is coming out and there are already a bunch of payment options for different editions. It seems to have been the trend for a while (I remember Civilization 6 had it) and it is still pretty common (Ara and Civ 7 already a few different editions).

Millennia's dlc seemed a bit harder to justify too, since it featured gameplay that is generally considered "standard" in the genre - placing first cities and nuclear weapons. To the game's credit though, they did make first the first city placement a free patch and the nuclear stuff sounds like it is a bit different - seems like it might involve a nuclear wasteland setting. That could be unique.

With all this "preorder now and get the first few dlcs" stuff, I console myself with thoughts that it ensures the devs have some future projects to work on and I'm assisting them with this, though maybe they are just out on a beach hanging out.

Exactly my point. Hence my unwillingness to support this kind of behavior, no matter how much I may want to try a game.

[archonsod]

Originally posted by Oaks:

I find it a little disheartening when a new game is coming out and there are already a bunch of payment options for different editions. It seems to have been the trend for a while (I remember Civilization 6 had it)

Since the 90s, possibly earlier depending on how you define 'editions'.

[shoobers]

Originally posted by Thandius:

Originally posted by Red Death:

Have you played the game? Seems not, so how do you figure the game is broken and still needs to be fixed?

I base my opinion on all the reviews podium discussion etc I have watched and read, which, since I was very eager for this game, were assuredly quite a few.

Originally posted by Oaks:

I find it a little disheartening when a new game is coming out and there are already a bunch of payment options for different editions. It seems to have been the trend for a while (I remember Civilization 6 had it) and it is still pretty common (Ara and Civ 7 already a few different editions).

Millennia's dlc seemed a bit harder to justify too, since it featured gameplay that is generally considered "standard" in the genre - placing first cities and nuclear weapons. To the game's credit though, they did make first the first city placement a free patch and the nuclear stuff sounds like it is a bit different - seems like it might involve a nuclear wasteland setting. That could be unique.

With all this "preorder now and get the first few dlcs" stuff, I console myself with thoughts that it ensures the devs have some future projects to work on and I'm assisting them with this, though maybe they are just out on a beach hanging out.

Exactly my point. Hence my unwillingness to support this kind of behavior, no matter how much I may want to try a game.

The game was functional from day 1. Was it standout? In some ways yes, and in others no. Was there decent MP? No. But you can grandstand all you want, all you're doing is hurting a product that I have been more than happy with.

[Thandius]

And you have a right to your opinion.

But what I a saying is that they are doing a fine job of hurting themselves all on their own.

As a customer, if you accept business practices like that, you have nobody to blame but yourself.

[chaney]

So what price do you think would be fair for each piece or for the whole bundle? Genuine question.

I paid the full 60 at release for everything and it has been a far better value to me already than Humankind, Civ VI, Civ BE for sure ... and will probably eclipse the all in Civ V value after I've had more time to play. I have to wonder if the reaction would have been so negative if they waited until the end of the year and sold the whole thing at 60 then, but then I'd have been playing something else not as good the whole time so I'm glad they didn't.

[Thandius]

Originally posted by chaney:

So what price do you think would be fair for each piece or for the whole bundle? Genuine question.

To me, pricing isn't even the issue, it is the developement cycle/monetization plan which has been layed out.

I know how Paradox works, I have been playing their games going on 20 years or so, but in this case they are making several mistakes.

First, they are trying to tack on the tried and true method of churning out medium sized DLCs to a game that isn't part of the the grand strategy genre, which the puzzle approach, that always allowed people to mix and match DLCs and build their own toy set to play with, has always been designed for.

This doesn't work for 4X (And , sure, you could string together an argument how it worked for Stellaris). DLCs for 4X games have always monetized best when you a) add on side content (additional civilizations and such), b) introduce an entirely new set of mechanics in form of a big DLC (like adding a whole espionage system to a game that didn't have one) or c) add completely alternative ways to play the game (think of something like mods like Final Frontier for Civ IV, which was free but would absolutely be monetized by 2K these days.)

Second, and to keep this short I'll focus on DLC no 1 entirely here: don't publish a DLC that consists entirely of something that people were lamenting as missing upon release and that is part of the base game in every other genre example.

Mind you, the road map was right there for us to see that they planned it this way.

Sadly that is a widespread staple of modern gaming: leaving something essential out of the release version and having already planned to put it in later for money.

It's not the kind of decision made by developers who (I assume from the ones I had the pleasure to meet) are always trying to make the best game possible, but by people at the higher level who only care about shareholder values.

And frankly hard working developers are getting screwed that way in the games industry every day.

As a customer though, I am only responsible for who I decide to give me money to .... and so I vote with my wallet.

[Lord Haart]

There were some real salty boiz in these comments

[OZFugazi]

you're not alone op.

was excited when game was announced. saw the publisher was paradox.. right away i knew that this was going to be a very very long wait. not going to be dlc'd to death by paradox's sales model. i can wait. my wish list has become my library anyway. to many games i have yet to play and not enough time. i will wait for the ENTIRE millennia release and on deep sale. probably not popular enough for paradox's monthly fee model, so looking forward to the "complete" edition in a couple years. all good. think i'll play some vampire survivors today

missed sale not worth the 50% when they'll just over price whatever dlcs they have coming to make up for it.

all the best.

[chaney]

Thandius, I concur with your distaste when content is deliberately left out to be sold later at an inappropriately inflated price; when a publisher will sucker the player in with a base game and then have them throw good money after bad ignoring the sunk cost fallacy they are putting on themselves. I understand why you perceive this to be the case here, but I don't think it is.

I'll bring it up again: what would be the reaction if they had waited until the end of the year and then released a SINGLE product at 60 money? If it plays well then with the features demanded and/or promised?

So far the features have been added as promised, and much has been done ahead of schedule. That isn't the hallmark of a deceptive cash grab. Lots of small improvements have been added without being mentioned. The devs seem to actually want the game to improve.

I don't like the model of releasing unfinished products, and do feel that the devs themselves wanted the DLC to be part of the game from the beginning. (No proof, just my guess.) But the practical reality now is too much controlled by the money/business/sales influences, so we get this paradigm. It does suck. But in this case - hate the publisher or not - the devs are creating a product that I suspect will be successful over time, even if only a bit niche. It is already giving me a great experience.

Consider that if 60 money at the end of the year would be ok - you can get it all now for 42 money or so. But yes, you do have to risk that the 2nd DLC will fall short of what is promised. So far, the devs have delivered on promises, and then some, so ... I'm optimistic about this one, far from perfect as it admittedly is.

Thanks again for the genuine discussion Thandius, and thanks to whoever for the jester, I'll use the points to give Thandius an award.

[Big Poppa]

Trying to charge the same price for this as ARA is hilarious. This game with all the dlc has no business costing more than 30. this is not a 60 dollar game by any stretch of the imagination. C prompt is about as far from triple a as you can get lol 60 dollars.

[chaney]

It's pretty likely you have as many hours in Millennia as you do in ARA. Seems like you would accept Millennia with DLC at 30, but 42 is a crime against humanity. Pretty precise rage there. ARA will probably be pretty good (too) in a few weeks. You even get the option to pay up to 80 if you like skins. For now, back to enjoying Millennia for me. Oh, thanks for the clown ...

[Oaks]

Originally posted by Big Poppa:

Trying to charge the same price for this as ARA is hilarious. This game with all the dlc has no business costing more than 30. this is not a 60 dollar game by any stretch of the imagination. C prompt is about as far from triple a as you can get lol 60 dollars.

Numbers can be tough, let me help you here. Millennia's price is 39.99 and Ara's is 59.99. These numbers are not the same, are actually different numbers. We can even say 59.99 is _______ than 39.99.

Here's a hint: it's the opposite of less.