SoNic67If that "minor" part is about brainwashing us while we try to have fun... yes, it is definitely something to focus on.
Climate changed on Earth since before humans were present, constantly. Ice Ages followed Super Heat periods, no need to blame humans for this. All the carbon that we are burning today is result of plants sequestrating it in the oil and coal. So it was in the Earth's air at some point.
Forest fires, volcanic eruptions, make more CO2 than all of us, humans. No need to guilt us, in a game, about something like that.
"OMG, I am breathing out CO2, I need to stop doing that to save the polar bears!"

I'm sorry, but you come across as a tin foil hat to me. No-one's trying to brainwash anyone. It's a fact that mankind has affected the climate, it might be in a small way, but it's enough to nudge thing in a direction that might wipe us off this planet. However, it's not something that started recently, it's been going on for almost as long as mankind has existed. We've been chopping down forests and been dumping our garbage in rivers and oceans for millennia and it has affected the climate in those areas. Italy is a great example of a nation that has done a lot of damage to itself thanks to the large scale deforestation that was done there a couple of thousand years ago.

I also think you're missing the point, by a lot. I doubt the game has anything to do with guilt tripping, that's never been part of the Civilization games, they're simply reflecting possible outcomes based on your decision as a leader in the game, good or bad. If they were about guilt trips, why would there be nuclear weapons in the game? Or wars? If that's what they cared about, they'd made a game about cute little bunnies eating carrots.

TheLostSwedeIt's a fact that mankind has affected the climate

Nope, that's not a fact. It was proven over and over that it's a manipulation of data at best.

TheLostSwededoubt the game has anything to do with guilt tripping, that's never been part of the Civilization games

Things are changing. And not for the best.

Vayra86Small dev studios are pushing out fantastic quality and much more content at a lower price, consistently. And guess what, those 4X games offer the same replayability and then some.

There's reasoning behind that, "small devs" had it a trillion times harder than already established game studios, they will need to make an excellent game to even get noticed otherwise they'd just be slipped past in the crowd, AAA companies will take advantage of the fact they're already noticed and established.

SoNic67Nope, that's not a fact. It was proven over and over that it's a manipulation of data at best.

Things are changing. And not for the best.

You know what the best feature of this forum is? The ignore list and you're now on mine ;)

Xx Tek Tip xXThere's reasoning behind that, "small devs" had it a trillion times harder than already established game studios, they will need to make an excellent game to even get noticed otherwise they'd just be slipped past in the crowd, AAA companies will take advantage of the fact they're already noticed and established.

Exactly - with Firaxis, you're paying half the money on the fact it has Civ on the box. Not because the content was so costly to make for them. Whether that means the content is worth it, is a personal question, but that does explain why people rally against such pricing. You're paying for branding. And you're letting them get away with a meagre performance by buying it - even if the content is good on its own.

Here's a really crazy idea..... not directed at any individuals: Buy it when it's on sale or don't buy it when it's on sale. Another option would be to buy it at full price..... You could also not buy it at all. It's a free country. JEEEZ!

BasardHere's a really crazy idea..... not directed at any individuals: Buy it when it's on sale or don't buy it when it's on sale. Another option would be to buy it at full price..... You could also not buy it at all. It's a free country. JEEEZ!

Free world, this expansion is released worldwide.
Also:
Arrr mate, you are missing one last option. Raise anchor!

Xx Tek Tip xXsince your only wasting your time here.

That would indicate I have something better to do. Who am I, Lord British?

Then the game had no replay-ability for you - it's not for you so why are you here complaining and discussing it?

Because it sets a terrible precedent. Vayra expanded upon it, but essentially $40 is more or less the max I'm willing to spend on any game, unless I thought it would be really, really, really awesome, in which case I'd be willing to maybe go up to $50. Was it a new proper Jedi Knight I probably would pay $60 even.

Xx Tek Tip xXAnd how much do other AAA companies charge for "DLCs" and "Add-ons" BS?

Fair question. So let us have a look. Total War: Warhammer 2 is very much an AAA game. The first major DLC was $18.99, the second is the same. The last Civ IV expansion was $30. The biggest Stellaris expansion to date (which fundementally restructured so many things, so it too could qualify as a "big" expansion) was $20. Base game was $40 on release. Paradox is definitely more indie than Firafix though, but Creative Assembly isn't. So many great games cost $40, that much for an expansion is just wrong to me.

The purpose of the company is to make the most money they can, 40$ is fair enough to me.

This is when it gets weird. It's true, but what does that have to do with you, the customer? Firafix is a big studio, Sid Meier is one of the biggest games in gaming. Had it been an independent studio barely scraping by I too would be concerned about financials if I liked their games, but this is Firafix and Sid Meier we're talking about. Unless they screw up in a comically bad fashion money will never be a problem, not any more than it normally is. See the link I posted earlier, they're one of Take Twos golden gooses. They are taken well care of, and they are raking in the cash. Unless they publish hard figures to prove otherwise I can't believe they're so poor they have to set - AFAIK - a new record for expensive expansions.

Do you think it's your obligation to make them as much money as possible? That's not how it works. Devs can't survive without customers, but especially for AAA games that has nothing to do with the single gamer and they should not run the publishers errands when it comes to justifying prices. Maybe it will be so awesome as to be worth an entire Stellaris, or Endless Space 2. Maybe it is so good ten million people will simply give Take Two their credit card information and telling them to take whatever they want. Maybe it will spark a revolution. But that isn't very likely, what's likely is that it will just be an expansion.

It's like the people saying the Nvidia RTX cards being good deals considering how big the chips are. That's also not how it works. "Technically complicated in ways the customer really has nothing to do with" is not a sales argument unless it gives a tangible boost in some area. It's the same with games. It's the devs problem to make games in a way that makes them money. They can make the most complex game ever designed and sell it for $200 if they like, but chances are that game will not be four times as good as an AAA game, or ten times better than an indie game, or infinite times better than say Dwarf Fortress or Wesnoth, which are free.

The point is for this dev/publisher money is not an issue more than it always is. They are sampling the waters. If it sells well, whats stopping the next expansion to cost $40? Will others follow suit, will $40 be the new norm?

It is never the end users obligation to keep the revenue coming in. You don't owe them anything.

FrickSo many great games cost $40, that much for an expansion is just wrong to me.

Then how about buy it on sale? It's bound to drop hard to half the price easily, you don't need to pick it up day one you know.

FrickDo you think it's your obligation to make them as much money as possible? That's not how it works.

Quote it instead of making pathetic assumptions, it's obvious you have poor comprehension skills here, You buy the DLC or game if you want it, they've not got a gun to your head taking your money are they?

Frickwhats stopping the next expansion to cost $40? Will others follow suit, will $40 be the new norm?

It will be if people pay that, it's going to sell well regardless, whatever point you look at it from.

OK. So let's just put a standard message that we can copy paste under any news article, so that we don't have to discuss anything here anymore. Something along the lines of: 'No matter what you think, this release is fantastic, now move along'....


Apparently its hard to grasp that this is a forum, where discussion is possible on a wide range of subjects. That includes the pricing of products.

Its OK to disagree, you know.

I will take this one step further towards reality, the reason people take this personally is because there's a truth in the statement on price. And its an uncomfortable truth that is fighting with cognitive dissonance because 'I must buy it'.

Think on that one for a bit, if you reflect upon this topic, that is the only possible reasoning behind getting all worked up about criticism. And it really means that you actually agree the price is too high, but you still want it. That is fine. Just be honest, call a spade a spade instead of trying to find silly excuses for a retarded price point. You can head right into any Turing discussion topic and see the exact same thing.

Xx Tek Tip xXThen how about buy it on sale? It's bound to drop hard to half the price easily, you don't need to pick it up day one you know.

And that is not the point. By that logic nothing can be too expensive because there's a sale happening in the future.

Quote it instead of making pathetic assumptions, it's obvious you have poor comprehension skills here, You buy the DLC or game if you want it, they've not got a gun to your head taking your money are they?

Quote what? I'm not making assumptions, that's just how it works. The customer is not responsible for any companies revenue. You said their job was to make as much profit as possible and as such you're willing to help them with that, which is so not your job. And if I misunderstood you, what exactly is your point? That nothing can by definition be too expensive because eventually it will be on sale? That I'm daft for not realizing that Sid Meier and Firafix deserves the money for delivering unto us what likely is the most expensive expansion pack in gaming (if it isn't I'd love to know)? How do you look at other goods? Is the RAM prices ok? Those companies lives to make a profit too. If Civ VII was €75 at launch, would that be cool with you? If you answer yes to that question and no the question about RAM prices, why?

It will be if people pay that, it's going to sell well regardless, whatever point you look at it from.

Indeed. And that isn't a good development from any perspective. Economy tends to get bigger over time (you make more money but things cost more), and if you account for inflation AAA games aren't much more expensive than they were 20 years ago, but even then $40 for an expansion is a pretty big leap.

FrickYou said their job was to make as much profit as possible and as such you're willing to help them with that, which is so not your job.

Lack of interpretation skills? The purpose of a company is to make money, that's their job. I never stated it was my job to feed them money.

FrickIs the RAM prices ok?

They're fine for me at the moment, any more and it becomes a joke. I've already bought a 32gb kit anyways.

FrickIf Civ VII was €75 at launch, would that be cool with you?

No, because that's a poor value game in that case, I wouldn't pay that much for it and I would wait for a sale.

I like how we have a discussion about the price of a single player game with infinite replayability, and no one says nothing about crap like Battlefield, Destiny, Fallout 76, etc. Games that charge the same or more, only to be abandoned of new content in a year.

GoldenXI like how we have a discussion about the price of a single player game with infinite replayability, and no one says nothing about crap like Battlefield, Destiny, Fallout 76, etc. Games that charge the same or more, only to be abandoned of new content in a year.

But I do... Those games don't even appear on my radar anymore and its off topic in here. But yes.

Also, how is BF or Destiny or FO not infinitely replayable? Especially the multiplayer of it? Destiny pulls the exact same stunt when it comes to DLC: the vanilla game is lacking content and they even called their latest DLC an expansion to justify a high price point. With the same meagre content in it.

Civ is following that trend and its wrong. The only difference is Firaxis times their releases further apart.

To be fair, Civ 5 was even worse, the base Civ 6 is pretty good.

Vayra86Also, how is BF or Destiny or FO not infinitely replayable?

MMO FPS are replayable as long as they are popular.

Xx Tek Tip xXLack of interpretation skills? The purpose of a company is to make money, that's their job. I never stated it was my job to feed them money.

It sure read like it. "Their purpose is to make money, $40 is fair to me." That was the argument.

GoldenXI like how we have a discussion about the price of a single player game with infinite replayability, and no one says nothing about crap like Battlefield, Destiny, Fallout 76, etc. Games that charge the same or more, only to be abandoned of new content in a year.

This is a different argument, that has a wee bit merit but is still flawed to me. Again this makes games impossible to price too high, because replayabality. It's not a linear value, that X hours of entertainment is worth Y money. It also makes any game besides free games too expensive, because there's always Dwarf Fortress, Aurora and ZangbandTK.

They're fine for me at the moment, any more and it becomes a joke

This is just wrong. They have started to come down, sure, but they're still much more expensive than they were two years ago. That's not how technological progress is supposed to work. What happens if you factor in cartels and price fixing? Is the price still ok if literally the only things that happens is you lining their pockets based on artificially induced conditions?

No, because that's a poor value game in that case, I wouldn't pay that much for it and I would wait for a sale.

And here is the core of the argument: you're ok with the same price hike on expansions? Because the last expansion was $30, which already is expansive (they tend to top out at $20 in my experience). If you're ok with $40, why not $45? And a year later, why not $50? And bam! there are games are running waaay ahead of the inflation.

I am not excited about this expansion at all and will only pick it up if it gets very positive reviews. I've never cared for disaster management in games so if that is the primary focus, then definitely no thanks.