End of an Era

[Soluafin]

I'm getting old, I suppose, because I've played every single Civ game since the very first one. It's just always been a game and gameplay that I've loved and enjoyed.

But I'm not buying this one, for the first time ever. I'm not paying $70+ for a game that already has multiple civs and leaders locked behind paywall DLCs, so that I'm effectively getting half the game unless I want to spend $120+. Not because I can't afford it - I could spend ten times that on games if I really wanted to - but because of the principle of it and the scummy business model it encourages if I do.

I'm not sure why they've gotten so greedy and stupid about this series, but they've finally pushed hard enough to push me away from the series I've always enjoyed.

RIP Civ. You will be missed.

[Evilgenius]

I am in the exact same boat as you.

[HatlessHorseMan]

The future is now, old man!

But yeah, this is the trend the gaming industry has been travelling in for a long time now. It's only gonna get worse. Save us, indie devs!

[Siladen]

Games price remained relatively stables, 50/60 over the last 15+ years or so ? What non essential product remained at a steady price for the last decade ?
If there is no micro transaction, the only way to keep a game around 50 or even 70 is to DLC the ♥♥♥♥ out of it otherwise to sell it at 150+.

So you prefer they just say here is our game for 150, and in 1 year or two a DLC for 100 again ? Or game at 70 with a tiny DLC every 6 month at 20 ?
It's the same as it used to be they just broke it down taking inflation and cost of living into account and made it more digestible.

If you like it, buy it. If you don't, don't.

[micdy]

your loss.
i mean games are all monetised like that now, if you stop buying them for that reason, you will just stop gaming.
like you said you are getting old, how many more occasion of playing the new civ game will you have, seriously, the paid dlc only have a few civ and leader, and all the mechanic of the game are in the base game.
just buy the base game, and enjoy it

[AirfryerEnjoyer69]

Then why did you buy Civ5 and Civ6? Both of those had DLCs releasing one month after launch. Or was it totally fine when Civ5 and 6 did it, but it's a deal breaker with Civ7?

No one cares whether you buy a video game or not, but at least be consistent lol

[Rambo]

+1

[Padds]

Originally posted by SausageAssassin:

Then why did you buy Civ5 and Civ6? Both of those had DLCs releasing one month after launch. Or was it totally fine when Civ5 and 6 did it, but it's a deal breaker with Civ7?

No one cares whether you buy a video game or not, but at least be consistent lol

but if you didnt care you wouldnt post.

[Padds]

Originally posted by micdy:

your loss.
i mean games are all monetised like that now, if you stop buying them for that reason, you will just stop gaming.

not true at all, do you know what a pile of shame is?

truth is for at least the last 2 main line iterations civ games release incomplete. they are made by the first and second year DLC's the game is simply too big and complex now release versions are always going to be half the game.

Much better to save your money buy finished games in sales get double the value for your money and pick up civ7 complete in a couple of years once its been polished , balanced and finished. it will be both cheaper and a much better experience.

[Evrach]

Originally posted by Padds:

Originally posted by micdy:

your loss.
i mean games are all monetised like that now, if you stop buying them for that reason, you will just stop gaming.

not true at all, do you know what a pile of shame is?

truth is for at least the last 2 main line iterations civ games release incomplete. they are made by the first and second year DLC's the game is simply too big and complex now release versions are always going to be half the game.

Much better to save your money buy finished games in sales get double the value for your money and pick up civ7 complete in a couple of years once its been polished , balanced and finished. it will be both cheaper and a much better experience.

but you can understand that if everyone does that, the complete edition will never happen. The game would just be discontinued because low sales. Instead of blaming day one players, you should thank them. It’s thanks to them that devs can continue to work on the game and you will have a complete edition at low price in a few years. And both positions aren’t opposed, they’re complementary.
For some games/series I really like, I have no problem buying them at full price. But For some other games I prefere to wait. And that’s OK too :)

[gbuglyo]

Originally posted by ˞˞˞˞˞˞˞˞˞˞˞˞˞˞˞:

Video games are one of the few things we make as a species, that we have basically arbitrarily decided cannot be allowed to change its valuation in terms of price per economic inflation and other matters that come into play when it comes to pricing these things.

The prices we tend to pay now, are based on prices that were set back when these games were by and large, much easier to make comparative to today, at least when each are of comparative scale, performance, quality, etc for each's own time frame.

Originally posted by Siladen:

Games price remained relatively stables, 50/60 over the last 15+ years or so ? What non essential product remained at a steady price for the last decade ?

What other non-essential product has seen such a continuous rise in sales over time?

https://truelist.co/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Number-of-Video-Gamers-in-the-World-From-2015-to-2024.jpg

https://newzoo.com/resources/blog/games-market-engagement-revenues-trends-2020-2023-gaming-report

Consumers aren’t buying more TVs, smartphones or dishwashers at an increasing rate. Yet, video game sales continue to grow, even without price hikes. This raises the question: why is the industry pushing increasingly aggressive monetization strategies when the market is already expanding? From an economic standpoint, such tactics seem unnecessary, and they are difficult to explain by anything but excessive corporate greed.

[T-Bone]

Originally posted by Siladen:

Games price remained relatively stables, 50/60 over the last 15+ years or so ? What non essential product remained at a steady price for the last decade ?

Consumers aren’t buying more TVs, smartphones or dishwashers at an increasing rate. Yet, video game sales continue to grow, even without price hikes. This raises the question: why is the industry pushing increasingly aggressive monetization strategies when the market is already expanding? From an economic standpoint, such tactics seem unnecessary, and they are difficult to explain by anything but excessive corporate greed. [/quote]

It's not greed, its a public corporation simply trying to develop and sell a profitably product. Take-Two has not been a profitably company for the previous couple of years and they acquired this franchise and developer primarily (as all companies do, since they tend not to be non-profits) to make a profit.

Simple economics, a public company has a fiduciary to act in the best interests of it's shareholders, and that is almost always to get the highest return on equity as possible.

[gbuglyo]

Originally posted by T-Bone:

It's not greed, its a public corporation simply trying to develop and sell a profitably product. Take-Two has not been a profitably company for the previous couple of years and they acquired this franchise and developer primarily (as all companies do, since they tend not to be non-profits) to make a profit.

Simple economics, a public company has a fiduciary to act in the best interests of it's shareholders, and that is almost always to get the highest return on equity as possible.

And yet, their aggressive monetization is alienating consumers like OP, potentially leading to declining trust and lower engagement in the long run. While companies have a duty to maximize profit, short-term revenue boosts don’t always translate to sustainable success. Only time will tell if their strategy pays off.

[T-Bone]

Originally posted by gbuglyo:

Originally posted by T-Bone:

And yet, their aggressive monetization is alienating consumers like OP, potentially leading to declining trust and lower engagement in the long run. While companies have a duty to maximize profit, short-term revenue boosts don’t always translate to sustainable success. Only time will tell if their strategy pays off.

I do agree with this, however they are likely banking on the past success of this franchise to generate income well in the future. The brand recognition has generated a lot of buzz and this is currently the top selling game on steam.

The best way they can maintain the income stream is to develop a good/great game.

[gbuglyo]

Originally posted by T-Bone:

The best way they can maintain the income stream is to develop a good/great game.

Good point. Regardless of monetization strategies, that’s what truly matters.

[Smoked]

Originally posted by Soluafin:

I'm getting old, I suppose, because I've played every single Civ game since the very first one. It's just always been a game and gameplay that I've loved and enjoyed.

But I'm not buying this one, for the first time ever. I'm not paying $70+ for a game that already has multiple civs and leaders locked behind paywall DLCs, so that I'm effectively getting half the game unless I want to spend $120+. Not because I can't afford it - I could spend ten times that on games if I really wanted to - but because of the principle of it and the scummy business model it encourages if I do.

I'm not sure why they've gotten so greedy and stupid about this series, but they've finally pushed hard enough to push me away from the series I've always enjoyed.

RIP Civ. You will be missed.

In the first months after the release, there will be so many bugs anyway. All the studios today release games that can best be labeled as beta tests, so buying on day 1 is pretty stupid no matter the price. I never buy AAA games on launch anymore. Wait weeks till all the ugly is documented, and then make a decision whether it's worth it or not. FOMO just doesn't bite on me anymore. And no, I'm not going to foot the bill for past failed projects.

Paying for "early access" is a BIG red flag that tells me I'm gonna get skinned alive. And of course, Fortnite skins came to this game too. Another massive red flag that tells me the focus is not on making a good game, but to manipulate me into spending money on useless cosmetics. The game can be barely working, riddled with fatal bugs, but the cash shop ALWAYS works perfectly.. Strange indeed.

This was one of the few games I was looking forward to this year, but yeah, no. I'm not gonna let myself be exploited by this scummy practice. I will eventually buy it of course, but not until the Founder's pack (which should have been the base game to begin with) is at 40-50% discount.