What made Civ VII so expensive?

[strategic_panda]

For Civilization VI, including all the DLCs, I spent around $200–300 in total because I bought each of them at launch.

Now, the base version of Civ VII with two minor DLCs costs more than half of that.

I'm wondering why it's so expensive. Has the development cost increased that much?
If so, what exactly justifies it?


After playing Humankind, Millennia, and Ara: History Untold, I feel there's nothing new in Civ 7.

As a big fan of the Civilization series, I would still buy the game, but this time, not at launch. I'll wait for a sale price.

[anynamewilldo]

250 employees and i'm guessing some of the leads make a pretty penny or nice stock benefits in a 40k square foot building working 8 years on a game costs a bit.

[strategic_panda]

Messaggio originale di anynamewilldo:

250 employees and i'm guessing some of the leads make a pretty penny or nice stock benefits in a 40k square foot building working 8 years on a game costs a bit.

As long as the cost makes sense to the players, that would be fine.

This time, I'm skipping the launch purchase as a form of protest, but in the end, if they still make good profits at this price, they'll just keep doing it—and that's their choice.

Personally, I feel like they're taking us for granted, but everyone has their own perspective.

[donald23]

Messaggio originale di Violetls:

I stop buying Civs since it sold with DLCs, I hate this way to sell a game, cuz I will not have a completed game to play if I dont buy the DLCs.

So after Civ 1?

[Evrach]

"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it."

- Publius Syrius ; Civilization IV's quote for Currency

[Japanese shaman girl]

Messaggio originale di donald23:

Messaggio originale di Violetls:

I stop buying Civs since it sold with DLCs, I hate this way to sell a game, cuz I will not have a completed game to play if I dont buy the DLCs.

So after Civ 1?

There are now people young enough to believe that expansion packs for old games are the same as DLCs.
Grim timeline.

[RiceZBallz]

Messaggio originale di Ricky the "No Guard":

I'm old enough to properly understand that a lot of the DLC made today is largely the same as expansion packs for older games. The only actual difference is that the term "DLC" (aside from denoting the use of digital distribution) also includes smaller (and less expensive) items. What makes this timeline so grim are people like you who don't understand this.

Civ II had two expansions which solely added scenarios (which means tough ♥♥♥♥ for anyone who doesn't care for scenarios), a complete rerelease (including the two expansions) that you needed to buy if you wanted multiplayer, and another complete rerelease which added new graphics and modes (and which everyone hates for some reason). Civ VII is clearly not doing anything "worse" than this.

But arent these "editions" a bit different than the original expansions and their original intent from what you are referencing? Im going to guess Im a bit older than most here, and I still dont understand at all the edition releases and their intent other than what they really are. Hell, even the Blood and Wine DLC expansion comes to mind from recent years, where it came well after the original release to keep people in the world, not the chop shop mentality today. I think if company's were more transparent about it, players wouldn't mind since fleecing is fleecing but as long as you call it that, then we can at least agree to your practices that they are what they are.

I think the true expansions are one's to come like the Gathering Storm, etc. Civ 6 came out in 10/2016, Rise and Fall 02/2018 and Gathering Storm was 02/2019. So it at least looks like content they wanted players to come back to. All this other leader crap is exactly what it is, a money grab.

Best comments from this thread from my perspective, call a spade a spade and wait for the Ultra Super Edition Pro Max Civ 7 version in two years time when everything is on sale.

[Squire Zed]

The value sucks compared to other games, sure, but that's a dirty secret of AAA games: They suck on value. $60 and now $70 price tags for games you'll play for 20-30 hours, $300 price tags for games you'll play for 100, while indie games you'll put 20-30 hours into are $10-20 and 100 hour indies are $30. What you pay for, supposedly, is a quality guarantee, that all AAA games will be basically the same quality and not the gamble that indie games can often be. Of course, lately that hasn't been the case lately with how many AAA releases have been absolute garbage, but that doesn't change the idea. You're guaranteed to pay more for less.

Don't get me wrong, $70 for a game, as much as people catastrophize about it, is not crazy. Objectively, $70 is not terrible compared to movie tickets, or a fancy dinner, or whatever else you would spend on entertainment compared to a game that gives 20-30 hours of gameplay. There are cheaper ways to keep busy, of course, but with inflation $70 just doesn't go very far anymore. But it does make it hard to justify the value when I can buy three indie games, with a fraction of the combined budget, for the same price as a AAA game, and each of those games is close to on par with the AAA game in terms of play time and enjoyment (if not necessarily quality and polish).

[depl0rable]

release half of game - good idea, but it stops people buying. Release half of game, and 1 quarter call it deluxe, then release full game and call it founders edition.. thus making more and more money. is a win for them.

no gamer will boycott, it's civ technically even if you include a dollar for every hour you play then founder edition is more than worth the price even though they are technically screwing you.

so put your big boy pants on, use your salary and bend over.... if you have a job, you'll be used to doing that anyway

[tookie]

a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ of a youtuber claimed that the 60$ price tag was to low for AAA games and they listened

[freeclear]

I posted this data and the supporting "documentation" in a locked thread, but it's still true. PC games were expensive ($60 - 90 USD in the late 80's early 90's), then they got a lot less expensive, and now they are catching up again.

In the early 90s, PC games were expensive, especially for the time. I remember paying $80 or $90 USD for Ultima Underworld. As a poor student, you bought a game and it became an investment, so you played the hell out of it.

But for Civilization, it was a $69.95 MSRP at release. With retail and mail order business at the time you could get it cheaper a few months later for maybe $40.

https://archive.org/details/cgw_museum_pdfs/cgw_95/page/120/mode/2up see page 121 in this old Computer Gaming World magazine with reference to the price.

$69.00 1991 is about $160 in today's dollars.

I don't like the prices, but I'm older now and can afford it. I'll keep the company's first quarter release numbers up and the dev/pub don't completely cancel the game (i.e. Dragon Age) so others can get it when it's on sale.

[Smoked]

Messaggio originale di strategic_panda:

For Civilization VI, including all the DLCs, I spent around $200–300 in total because I bought each of them at launch.

Now, the base version of Civ VII with two minor DLCs costs more than half of that.

I'm wondering why it's so expensive. Has the development cost increased that much?
If so, what exactly justifies it?


After playing Humankind, Millennia, and Ara: History Untold, I feel there's nothing new in Civ 7.

As a big fan of the Civilization series, I would still buy the game, but this time, not at launch. I'll wait for a sale price.

There is skins in Civ now. Skins in a singleplayer game. That should tell you all you need to know about the focus the devs have. Milk you for money. I hope the game is good, but I suspect its nothing more than a highway robbery.

[𝔓𝔲𝔰𝔥𝔶]

I think the prices are absurd not only for the base values ​​but also considering what we might spend even more in the future to acquire other DLCs for leaders and civilizations that will probably be paid for, adding the DLCs that will come later because the game is not fully complete in this regard. The game is absurdly expensive, to buy an advanced edition for €99,99 or €129,99 it would have to come with about 50 leaders and everything else for free that comes in the future with a free pass to all future DLCs
- If you tell me that the more expensive advanced versions of the game give you the possibility of acquiring future DLCs for free, then maybe it would be worth it, otherwise the price of the game is extremely expensive for today's economic reality.
- All games shouldn't cost more than €50 unless they are a large collection
- Not only CV but in all games in general, when we pay more than €50 we are already paying for two games in one.

[strategic_panda]

Messaggio originale di 𝔓𝔲𝔰𝔥𝔶:

I think the prices are absurd not only for the base values ​​but also considering what we might spend even more in the future to acquire other DLCs for leaders and civilizations that will probably be paid for, adding the DLCs that will come later because the game is not fully complete in this regard. The game is absurdly expensive, to buy an advanced edition for €99,99 or €129,99 it would have to come with about 50 leaders and everything else for free that comes in the future with a free pass to all future DLCs
- If you tell me that the more expensive advanced versions of the game give you the possibility of acquiring future DLCs for free, then maybe it would be worth it, otherwise the price of the game is extremely expensive for today's economic reality.
- All games shouldn't cost more than €50 unless they are a large collection
- Not only CV but in all games in general, when we pay more than €50 we are already paying for two games in one.

Yeah, exactly.
I usually just buy the highest edition without thinking too much about it, but this time, the price is ridiculously high.
And yet, there isn’t even that much content included.

That said, not having certain DLCs included feels weird, and honestly, it just kills my motivation to buy the game.

At the very least, they should have included all the content in the second-tier edition.
Then, they could have positioned the highest-tier version as more of a supporter’s package.