|
Are you, in fact, a pregnant lady who lives in the apartment next door to Superdeath's parents? - Commodore |
|
Pre-Release CIV VI Discussion
|
|
Re: Roosevelt art - I like it too. That's the only leaderhead I've seen though.
Re: leader head art costs making the game more expensive... I agree. It's pretty much like how tickets to see Room cost $10 and tickets to see Avengers: Age of Ultron cost $245. Wait a minute... 
Nice hotels charge for WiFi but crappy hotels don't. It's like T-Hawk said earlier, things cost what the market will bear.
Firaxis (consciously or not) made the business decision that expensive leaderheads will increase their ability to charge proportional to the expense (because margin matters too). I tend to agree with them, Civ is a brand with few peers in the gaming industry and cashing out with a cheapened experience will devalue its long term value. Darrell
Bleh, this may have already been noted in here, but the Aztecs are a pre-order exclusive civ for the game's first 3 months after launch. That's not as bad as making them exclusive for all time, but still is an alarming sign that the game will replicate the all-too-common abuses of the AAA market. I see little reason to purchase the title until the complete package is for sale a couple years from now, rather than paying a premium to be nickle-and-dimed as the full content is dribbled out as DLC.
Waiting for the price to go down has always been a valid consumer strategy.
On the other hand, you don't get to experience the progression of the game. The final version of games (with expansions tacked on, etc, and after patches that "fix" things that weren't broken) is not always the best version. There are valid reasons to buy early, too. When to buy a game has almost become a game unto itself, these days. Sadly, a game that many consider themselves to have lost, when they do buy early and end up significantly disappointed. Still, I can think of several games (both recent and older) where I would have missed out on the golden age of the game and all its best experiences if I'd chosen to wait. I'm sure I'm not alone in that. It's a dice roll. - Sirian
Fortune favors the bold.
(July 30th, 2016, 22:18)Bobchillingworth Wrote: Bleh, this may have already been noted in here, but the Aztecs are a pre-order exclusive civ for the game's first 3 months after launch. That's not as bad as making them exclusive for all time, but still is an alarming sign that the game will replicate the all-too-common abuses of the AAA market. I see little reason to purchase the title until the complete package is for sale a couple years from now, rather than paying a premium to be nickle-and-dimed as the full content is dribbled out as DLC. Usually, if you are going to do something about it your going to wait for a summer sale anyway. There's a couple of hardcore fans that might get turned off, just from moblie invading the game, but they can be ignored. This is also why YouTubers started selling out like crazy after AdBlock got big. If you unsub you use AdBlock anyway. (July 30th, 2016, 23:27)Sirian Wrote: On the other hand, you don't get to experience the progression of the game. The final version of games (with expansions tacked on, etc, and after patches that "fix" things that weren't broken) is not always the best version. I think there's a lot to this. Between not delaying satisfaction, playing when a larger percentage of the community is also playing, the Sirian's point above, a modest early adopter penalty isn't too problematic to me. That said, if I bought two games per month and played then lightly I could definitely see it adding up. But at this point I'm more like 2 paid games per decade 
(July 31st, 2016, 14:53)sunrise089 Wrote: I think there's a lot to this. Between not delaying satisfaction, playing when a larger percentage of the community is also playing, the Sirian's point above, a modest early adopter penalty isn't too problematic to me. The part that feels weird is that you're paying the company for the early-adopter benefit which accrues to you and other fans. I think that's what Bob is getting at. As far as the company is concerned, yes you lose nothing by waiting for a cheaper price, but as far as the community is concerned, you do. But it's the company that stands to benefit from the early full-price sale and from any sketchy microtransaction stuff that goes with it. (July 31st, 2016, 14:53)sunrise089 Wrote: That said, if I bought two games per month and played then lightly I could definitely see it adding up. But at this point I'm more like 2 paid games per decade Ha, I second that remark. I'm not quite that bad, but I buy about one game per year. And haven't done any yet this year, Civ 6 might actually be it. (August 1st, 2016, 09:26)T-hawk Wrote:(July 31st, 2016, 14:53)sunrise089 Wrote: That said, if I bought two games per month and played then lightly I could definitely see it adding up. But at this point I'm more like 2 paid games per decade Rings true to me too. Since starting working (I joined RB soon after finishing college, about the same time the civ4 events went to BTS) I tend to think about "time spent playing games" as costing a lot more than the money...even for things I didn't play a huge amount (civ5, world of warcraft come to mind; had maybe 2 or 3 months of active subscription on the latter). Looking at projected release date, I may hold off buying right away but may be more because of rush of concerts, parents deciding to visit in Oct or Nov, splurging time on football roadtrips and the like rather than hoping for a discount.
Potato nose. A bit too much.
It appears that they don't subtract off what your citizens eat for some reason--that's why the food seem so inflated. If you redo the math the foodbox still seems inverted. What's more surprising is the shockingly small size--a size 4 city only has a ~16 size foodbox. Start reading at post #291 if you don't know what I'm talking about. |
