Price of Downloadable Content is Outrageous

[Xill]

It is really not my habit to complain about the price of something and do not wish to add more to the already large amount of complaints about the bugs and missing features, but this time I think 2kgames are going way too far.

2.99$ for a map or 9.99$ for four maps?
7.49$ for 2 animated characters, a few animated unit icons and one 100-turn scenario?
4.99$ for only one of those animated characters (Babylon)??? (you sell the 2 others and a "map" for 2.49$ more)

That is a total of 23$+taxes just to have 3 civilizations that have been included with previous games for free and you still end up with less maps than in Civ4. And, disregarding the fact that the multiplayer is buggy as hell, the maps do not even work in multiplayer, not even the earth map.

We are not in 2000 anymore, people expect to have something worthwhile for their money (specially on Steam, like the current Half Life Episode 2 deal for 1.99$).

I really respect the Civilization franchise, but I'm already not happy about having spent 60$ (with taxes) for a game with less features than it's predecessor (no hotseat and broken multiplayer)... Ain't 85$ (with the expansions, 90$ cad) a bit too much?

Just wanted to say that, even if it probably has already been said.

[jacypr]

Ok, you're months late with this thread.

I'm kidding. We had discussions like that when the DLC was launched, including the discussion if it was right to release a DLC with the game having so many problems.

At the end of the day no one changes oppinion in this forum, so be aware that many support you and many don't.

And I agree with you.

[King of Spades]

I don't find it outrageous. Babylon for the price of two cartons of milk? I can live with that. Spain and Inca for the price of three cartons of milk? Also acceptable. As for the maps, I won't be buying them.

[NitroPhantasm]

The three civs are pretty cool to look at. Dunno about the maps...

[Jazzterisk]

It is really not my habit to complain about the price of something and do not wish to add more to the already large amount of complaints about the bugs and missing features, but this time I think 2kgames are going way too far.

2.99$ for a map or 9.99$ for four maps?
7.49$ for 2 animated characters, a few animated unit icons and one 100-turn scenario?
4.99$ for only one of those animated characters (Babylon)??? (you sell the 2 others and a "map" for 2.49$ more)

That is a total of 23$+taxes just to have 3 civilizations that have been included with previous games for free and you still end up with less maps than in Civ4. And, disregarding the fact that the multiplayer is buggy as hell, the maps do not even work in multiplayer, not even the earth map.

We are not in 2000 anymore, people expect to have something worthwhile for their money (specially on Steam, like the current Half Life Episode 2 deal for 1.99$).

I really respect the Civilization franchise, but I'm already not happy about having spent 60$ (with taxes) for a game with less features than it's predecessor (no hotseat and broken multiplayer)... Ain't 85$ (with the expansions, 90$ cad) a bit too much?

Just wanted to say that, even if it probably has already been said.

I didn't find the DLC civs a bad deal considering the amount of work that takes into making them (animation, voices, balancing units and traits) but the map packs are a pretty crappy deal especially when they can be easily replicated by a determined player.

$50 for a the game is a huge deal considering I've played it 240 hours. I've paid more for FPS games that only offer 20.

[Shiggs713]

I don't mind the price so much, its the fact they they want to sell them all as piece meal to try and squeeze more money out of it. I would have definitely bought any expansions, hell if the released version was better i would have paid $40 for an expansion. I likely won't buy much DLC, the animated screens don't appeal to me much, at least not enough to pay top shelf prices. I may buy some later on when the price is lower, and if/when the game ever gets fixed. I can barely even finish a game, so any dlc is just pointless for me atm anyways.

[Calouste]

It is really not my habit to complain about the price of something and do not wish to add more to the already large amount of complaints about the bugs and missing features, but this time I think 2kgames are going way too far.

2.99$ for a map or 9.99$ for four maps?
7.49$ for 2 animated characters, a few animated unit icons and one 100-turn scenario?
4.99$ for only one of those animated characters (Babylon)??? (you sell the 2 others and a "map" for 2.49$ more)

That is a total of 23$+taxes just to have 3 civilizations that have been included with previous games for free and you still end up with less maps than in Civ4. And, disregarding the fact that the multiplayer is buggy as hell, the maps do not even work in multiplayer, not even the earth map.

We are not in 2000 anymore, people expect to have something worthwhile for their money (specially on Steam, like the current Half Life Episode 2 deal for 1.99$).

I really respect the Civilization franchise, but I'm already not happy about having spent 60$ (with taxes) for a game with less features than it's predecessor (no hotseat and broken multiplayer)... Ain't 85$ (with the expansions, 90$ cad) a bit too much?

Just wanted to say that, even if it probably has already been said.

I guess you never buy DVDs, where $20 (for a recent movie) gets you about 90-120 minutes of entertainment?

[tfordp]

...
We are not in 2000 anymore, people expect to have something worthwhile for their money...

$50 for a the game is a huge deal considering I've played it 240 hours. I've paid more for FPS games that only offer 20.

^This.
I'm still playing too, and a quick calculation tells me every hour I've played up to now has cost me about 10 (ten) euro-cent. That's a bargain, and even if I were to add all the DLC, I would still be under 15 cph (cents per hour).
The only reason I'm *not* buying the maps is because I wouldn't use them. I got the pre-order packet from D2D for the civs, so the only one I'm missing is Babylon.
Now I've worked it out, I might actually got and buy it, price €3,49. That's less than the price of a couple of beers.

[kaybeebiscuits]

I must agree with you to much of an extent. My grandson recently showed me his game play on Team Fortress 2 lately and I was shocked that Valve was charging up to US$9.90 (mostly around the US$2.00-5.00 range) for a single digital possession: a single weapon, and up to US$39.90 for a unique intangible hat.

This has caught my attention and I have recently done some probing into the game and found that it was far worse off. Some people bought "keys" using up to US$2000, just to "gamble" them on "crates" that dropped in game. Some people really will do anything just to get an item that does not drop for them. Even those who express just a mild intention at first might quickly be psychologically tormented by time, and in turn become tempted to use their money to purchase them when they can no longer tolerate the amount of envy they have for other players showing off their weapons. I hear some legal action has already been expressed, or that some players are voluntarily surmounting to an inevitable deadlock with Valve in a joint coalition.

The conclusion is that, inevitably, many digital possessions will become more and more popular in time and developers can potentially lower the "supply" side of an inexistent and intangible economy deliberately just to make use of the high demand and yield high gains - at almost zero maintenance cost; just highly miniaturized and efficient circuit boards with powerful CPUs. It is kind of a new topic that should be studied by economists in the 21st century. It does not go contrary to the whole point of economics requiring that scarcity entails choice, or the necessity of, but rather, it expresses itself in such a way that it is possible to choose the amount of scarcity just to adjust the amount of choices available. This is entirely impossible in real life due to the lack of raw materials, but utterly possible, though I find outrageous, across the digital ocean.

Serves them right in my opinion.

[RideASpaceCowboy]

What I find outrageous about the downloadable content for the game is this: it seems that Spain was omitted from the base game and Songhai included in its place, not because the later merited inclusion more, but rather because more players would be likely to pay extra for a historically significant civilization such as Spain whereas few would purchase Songhai on its own.

[Liberal]

I bought my game from D2D. Spain and Babylon were included as free DLCs. I was informed when they were available, and I downloaded them. No hassle.

[tfordp]

What I find outrageous about the downloadable content for the game is this: it seems that Spain was omitted from the base game and Songhai included in its place, not because the later merited inclusion more, but rather because more players would be likely to pay extra for a historically significant civilization such as Spain whereas few would purchase Songhai on its own.

Correct, except this isn't outrageous, it's perfectly sensible business. The more popular, interesting stuff is *always* more expensive than the unknown, unwanted stuff. This is not ripping anybody off, it's capitalism. Some could argue they are one and the same, but I'm not going down that road.

[RobC04]

We all have the ability to choose whether the DLC is worth the price charged. In my case it isn't and I didn't buy any of the DLC. I will buy an expansion pack that adds new significant gameplay features. They charge whatever price they think will maximize their profits. After they depleat the number of people who are willing to pay that price, my guess is that there will be a price drop to try and convince the hold outs to purchase it. And to the poster above, I think buying DVDs is a big waste of money :-)

[TexasRoughRider]

Yes, I find the DLC prices too high at present...but here's hoping that others keep buying DLC, so part of the profits will fund continued patches and improvements! Overall, I like the DLC system, and trust the free market's "invisible hand" to guide it reasonably.

[SadItDoesNotWork]

I not only agree with what the OP says, I'll take it just a hair further. Touching on what many people in these forums have stated, they rushed this game to market without enough quality testing. Support has been less than expected and everything to do with the game costs more than previous versions.

IMO twenty years of fans loyalty has been cashed in on. I feel like this was a goldrush - hit it quick approach and it won't do any of us who have played the game for two decades any good in the long run. You could have held your collective heads above the current trend of making the gamer pay to breathe, but instead you've made them pay to wish they could breathe with a game that is buggy and has paid for content.

I feel like your attempt to join all the other games' "charge for extras" way of making money, has made you just like them. If I ever had respect for any name in the videogame arena, it was Sids'. You've mortgaged his name against the future and made your money now, but at a cost of your reputation.

Fool us once, shame on you.

[Liberal]

I feel like your attempt to join all the other games' "charge for extras" way of making money, has made you just like them. If I ever had respect for any name in the videogame arena, it was Sids'. You've mortgaged his name against the future and made your money now, but at a cost of your reputation.

Let me ask you this: suppose you were the CEO or Chairman of a business. (Squint and grunt real hard if you have to.)

Now what would you do:

1) Make as much money for your shareholders as the market will allow?

2) Feed your shareholders crumbs from your profits and keep the rest for personal bonuses? (Note: they will see your financial reports each quarter)

3) Pay your shareholders nothing.

If you choose anything other than (1), your shareholders will vote you out of the company altogether.

[MadDjinn]

I must agree with you to much of an extent. My grandson recently showed me his game play on Team Fortress 2 lately and I was shocked that Valve was charging up to US$9.90 (mostly around the US$2.00-5.00 range) for a single digital possession: a single weapon, and up to US$39.90 for a unique intangible hat.

This has caught my attention and I have recently done some probing into the game and found that it was far worse off. Some people bought "keys" using up to US$2000, just to "gamble" them on "crates" that dropped in game. Some people really will do anything just to get an item that does not drop for them. Even those who express just a mild intention at first might quickly be psychologically tormented by time, and in turn become tempted to use their money to purchase them when they can no longer tolerate the amount of envy they have for other players showing off their weapons. I hear some legal action has already been expressed, or that some players are voluntarily surmounting to an inevitable deadlock with Valve in a joint coalition.

The conclusion is that, inevitably, many digital possessions will become more and more popular in time and developers can potentially lower the "supply" side of an inexistent and intangible economy deliberately just to make use of the high demand and yield high gains - at almost zero maintenance cost; just highly miniaturized and efficient circuit boards with powerful CPUs. It is kind of a new topic that should be studied by economists in the 21st century. It does not go contrary to the whole point of economics requiring that scarcity entails choice, or the necessity of, but rather, it expresses itself in such a way that it is possible to choose the amount of scarcity just to adjust the amount of choices available. This is entirely impossible in real life due to the lack of raw materials, but utterly possible, though I find outrageous, across the digital ocean.

Serves them right in my opinion.

Economists have known about this behaviour modification technique for a long time. It's based in psychology, and we've known that for a long time as well. (see derivatives and futures markets for details - and for how they've 'gamed' the market, go look at silver specifically)

Business people may be just coming around to this concept, but it's as old as time. Think of it in the light of gambling, and with some basic psychology, you'd understand why these 'useless' objects are fetching prices in the the 'real world'. (also see Avatars on Xbox/etc - horribly stupid things require cash)

As per OP:

menh, don't buy it then. Sorry guy, the developer can't just hand you something for free and the price of creation is going up all the time. (people like getting paid for their work. Then they think their work is worth more, so they want more) Game development has started to outstrip Films in pure cost of production. That's goofy if you look back to the last 10 years or more.

Oh, and King of Spades: please send me some milk. 7.49 gets me maybe 4 litres of milk Stupid Dairy Farmers controlling pricing.

[Lathieza]

Lol complaining at the dairy farmers while you come with a post like that... dont buy milk then.

[MadDjinn]

Lol complaining at the dairy farmers while you come with a post like that... dont buy milk then.

there's a difference between food items and 'luxury addon items'. Ones good for staying alive. The other is not.

Oh, and it's price collusion/government price fixing (at the request of the farmers) that causes my milk to cost more than others. That's not quite the same as pricing stocks/etc. (colluding on futures is actually illegal whereas price fixing milk is not - here that is)

[Xill]

Thanks everyone for your input, of course I knew not everyone would agree. And yeah I know, I'm 4 months late

Anyway, some do not care about the ratio between price and production fees but I do.

The issue from my perspective is about ethics and profit margins.
What they are doing is really charging the maximum of money for the lowest production cost as possible.
Some people here wonder where is the support the modding community?..

Someone else had a good point however, their business model is inspired by that of Team Fortress, where you pay 5-10$+ for a 3d hat that took 5 hours to make by one artist (100-200$ production cost, they get back their money by selling only 10, but end up selling 100000). The same with ps3/360 avatars: 32 pixels for 2-3$.

It is the perfect example of how they are using scientific studies on psychology to fraud innocently naive people and most surely shouldn't be encouraged, just as subliminals in movies shouldn't be. It is a form of abuse, both wrong and unethical.

Milk is a physical product btw, there is a huge difference between buying something physical and something virtual, the later having the potential of being sold over and over again, endlessly.

As per OP:
menh, don't buy it then.

Of course I will not buy it, that was my point.

[M A F I A]

Lamborghini prices are outrageous.
Civilization's DLCs aren't. Really.

[Xill]

Lamborghini prices are outrageous.
Civilization's DLCs aren't. Really.

Lamborghini prices are relative to what they cost to make, not the civ DL content. But yeah, perhaps outrageous is not the right word.

[Shadow717]

I've never been a huge fan of DLC, at least for PCs, I prefer a nice fat expansion pack. But I don't think the civ prices are that bad, especially compared to console DLC (I'm looking at you CoD series -.-) what is nowadays? 15$ for 3 maps that come out barely a month or two after a games release? But thanks to its (in my oponion absurd) popularity, the Devs can get away with it, hell they'd probably be able to get away with 20$ if they just added in a weapon or attachment.

[King of Spades]

Fool us once, shame on you.

Civ 4 was in just as bad a state, if not worse, when it was released, so shame on you if you fool us once, but shame on us if you fool us twice.

Oh, and King of Spades: please send me some milk. 7.49 gets me maybe 4 litres of milk Stupid Dairy Farmers controlling pricing.

A carton of milk in my country equals 1 liter, so I get only 3 liters for 7,50. Do you want my adress?

[Bloody Rose]

Someone mentioned TF2 items here. Most of them can be legally acquired for free so the comparison is pretty irrelevant.

[Jazzterisk]

Lamborghini prices are relative to what they cost to make, not the civ DL content. But yeah, perhaps outrageous is not the right word.

I don't know if I agree that the DLC is over priced given it's cost to produce.

I have no idea but I'll just price it out using pure speculation:

1 DLC civ $5.

Cost:
- price to research specific Civs info, write up appropriate voice script - $1000
- pay someone to animate the leader and likely have actor to rotoscope the movements: $10000 all totaled

- decide, incorporate, and balance various units, buildings, and traits that civ may have - $1000
- animate all units and buildings - $1000
- misc costs - lawyers etc - $1000
- QA - $1000

Total : $15000 to produce

At $5 each they'd need 3000 copies sold to break even but that's not taking into account how much steam takes off each sale - $2 maybe?

So they make $3 off each copy so they need 5000 DLC sold just to break even but they don't want to just break even obviously. So perhaps 10000 dlc's sold are needed to make a small profit of maybe $20000 or so.

This doesn't seem like a lot considering they probably lost money making the base game and are now hoping to reap the rewards with the DLC.

Am I crazy or does this actually seem right?

[Atranox]

Let's see...

I can goto McDonalds, get a burger, fries, & a drink for about $7. That lasts you about, what, 10 minutes? Or, I can buy new civs for $7...and get something that I'll likely spend hours & hours playing with.

So for the price of a cheap meal...you can get something that you'll use for hours in entertainment. How is that outrageous?

[mwallyn]

Personally, I don't mind the DLC costs too much. Maybe they are slightly expensive, but I have certainly gotten my use out of all of them twice over. As for the map packs, it COULD be like Halo where you are required to buy the map packs in order to be able to play online at all, on top of being way overpriced. $2.99 per map is a bit much, but I only got the ones I wanted anyway instead of buying everything.

[Calouste]

I don't know if I agree that the DLC is over priced given it's cost to produce.

I have no idea but I'll just price it out using pure speculation:

1 DLC civ $5.

Cost:
- price to research specific Civs info, write up appropriate voice script - $1000
- pay someone to animate the leader and likely have actor to rotoscope the movements: $10000 all totaled

- decide, incorporate, and balance various units, buildings, and traits that civ may have - $1000
- animate all units and buildings - $1000
- misc costs - lawyers etc - $1000
- QA - $1000

Total : $15000 to produce

At $5 each they'd need 3000 copies sold to break even but that's not taking into account how much steam takes off each sale - $2 maybe?

So they make $3 off each copy so they need 5000 DLC sold just to break even but they don't want to just break even obviously. So perhaps 10000 dlc's sold are needed to make a small profit of maybe $20000 or so.

This doesn't seem like a lot considering they probably lost money making the base game and are now hoping to reap the rewards with the DLC.

Am I crazy or does this actually seem right?

You're crazy. (Well, you only gave two choices and it certainly doesn't seem right).

First, it's not $5 for 1 DLC. The latest DLC is $7.50 for 2 civs and a scenario.
Second, you forgot the cost of the voice actor.

Third, you're underestimating the cost. Cost per man hour would be at least $50 (salary, benefits, pay roll tax, equipment costs, office rent etc). So that would give you 20 hours of QA, which mean you can probably just about play through the scenario with each civ once.

I think the production costs of the Spain/Inca DLC were at least $100,000.

[Furball]

Vote with your wallet. If people didn't pay the price they wouldn't sell them at that price.

[ddesart]

Let's see...

I can goto McDonalds, get a burger, fries, & a drink for about $7. That lasts you about, what, 10 minutes? Or, I can buy new civs for $7...and get something that I'll likely spend hours & hours playing with.

So for the price of a cheap meal...you can get something that you'll use for hours in entertainment. How is that outrageous?

I don't know about you, but I get much more out of my McDonalds: the McDonalds byproduct which takes, what, about 40 minutes to race through me? All kidding aside, I have very much enjoyed playing all of the DLC civs, especially the Incan. If you don't want to pay the small fee per DLC, don't buy it, doesn't hurt my feelings...

[Gyrate]

We are not in 2000 anymore, people expect to have something worthwhile for their money (specially on Steam, like the current Half Life Episode 2 deal for 1.99$).

Unfortunately people are buying it and that is why we're having this conversation. You can actually buy better games from Steam for much cheaper than it costs to upgrade your leader heads and maps. That's just capitalism we gotta move on to greener pastures they don't care bout us bro.

[King of Spades]

Unfortunately people are buying it and that is why we're having this conversation. You can actually buy better games from Steam for much cheaper than it costs to upgrade your leader heads and maps. That's just capitalism we gotta move on to greener pastures they don't care bout us bro.

Better? For me? How do you figure?

[Floating Pants]

Yeah that's a bit too high. It's like how CoD release $10 map packs for 3 maps, and Xbox arcade games are the same price and much more badass.

I'd buy it for, oh... 2 or 3 dollars a civ? Right now I'm looking more forward to an expansion with all of them plus new features. Then again, that could be up to $50.

I'm with you, TC, I'd like them cheaper.

[Gyrate]

Better? For me? How do you figure?

If you like this game that's your business. Personally I hate everything about it except for ranged archers.

[dukeisaac]

Oh, and it's price collusion/government price fixing (at the request of the farmers) that causes my milk to cost more than others. That's not quite the same as pricing stocks/etc. (colluding on futures is actually illegal whereas price fixing milk is not - here that is)

Do you live in Quebec?

[MadDjinn]

Do you live in Quebec?

yes, just down the street.

[Onandoga]

Havent bought any DLC's or maps. Im satisfied with the patches and since i dont play much SP maps and Scenarios dont appeal to me. And (knowing steam and 2k) they will be free eventually, and im a patient man.

[JammerK]

I bit the bullet and paid $9.99 for the map set. The first game I played using the Mediterranean map. After 200+ turns with 3 scouts, I had uncovered ZERO Horse resources anywhere on the map. This was especially annoying since I played as the Greeks and therefore was unable to utilize their unique Companion Cavalry unit. Making things worse, several City States had NO strategic or luxury resources in their territory. I've been robbed!

[Black Gate of Mordor]

You're crazy. (Well, you only gave two choices and it certainly doesn't seem right).

First, it's not $5 for 1 DLC. The latest DLC is $7.50 for 2 civs and a scenario.
Second, you forgot the cost of the voice actor.

Third, you're underestimating the cost. Cost per man hour would be at least $50 (salary, benefits, pay roll tax, equipment costs, office rent etc). So that would give you 20 hours of QA, which mean you can probably just about play through the scenario with each civ once.

I think the production costs of the Spain/Inca DLC were at least $100,000.

You can get Babylon for $5.

Also, I think he included voice acting under the second point.

- pay someone to animate the leader and likely have actor to rotoscope the movements: $10000 all totaled

Also, you'd put it at 100,000?! I'd say it'd be 30-70 thousand. But xpacks are probably slightly cheaper than DLC to produce (a few thousand less). I've supported Firaxis with the DLC, but 5 bucks for only a civ, and no scenario, is too high for me (compared to S/I; Two civs and a scenario). But the game's coming along nicely.