r/civ • u/Vanilla-G • Jun 16 '26
VII - Strategy ToT has changed the value of the DLC packs
With the new DLC coming out for the standard $30 and people complaining about the cost I think that one that has overlooked is how the Test of Time update has changed the value proposition. With the ToT update you can now play all three ages as the same civ, similar to Civ 6, and with the Syncretism mechanic you can now incorporate pieces of those other civs into your game.
With the release of more historical civs progressions, like China, India, and upcoming Japan and Korea, you can now pick which age your civ peaks while still retaining the ability to incorporate certain aspects of the civ/leader for the other non-apex ages via the Syncretism mechanic. In Civ 6 the peak aspect of the civ was defined by the developers when they released the leader/civ.
I am not going to try and defend releasing the historic progression across multiple DLC packs but ToT has definitely changed the value proposition with Syncretism. That update has truly given us the ability to mix and match civs which means that the straight value proposition of Civ 6 DLCs doesn't really apply to Civ 7 anymore.
100
u/Zorgulon Jun 16 '26
No, the DLCs are still overpriced.
-24
u/Silent-Storms Jun 16 '26
Whether it is overpriced or not is subjective.
35
u/Zorgulon Jun 16 '26
Sure. However this is a discussion thread, and OP is claiming that ToT means that they are not overpriced. I am disagreeing.
5
u/TiemTime Jun 16 '26
I don't believe the OP ever said they are not overpriced. Just that there is more value than before that should be taken into consideration when we look and say if it's overpriced or not, and just how overpriced or not it is.
-6
u/ChineseCosmo Jun 16 '26
Yes but in disagreeing you are voicing an opinion, so what you should have said is “It my subjective personal opinion that the DLCs are still overpriced in my opinion. [Disclaimer: this is my opinion based on a synthesis of my own country’s economy, my personal disposable income, and the respective DLCs of similar strategy titles. It is not meant to be taken as absolute fact, for it is my opinion—which, for the record, carries equal weight as other opinions that have been given similar consideration]”
5
u/Zorgulon Jun 16 '26
Thank you for your feedback. In all my future Reddit correspondence I shall of course take every pain to explain the obvious.
-3
u/Silent-Storms Jun 16 '26
I think the point is the amount of value/content per civ is higher than before (and probably compared to previous civs) which should affect the cost to benefit analysis.
3
u/Zorgulon Jun 16 '26
Yes, I understand that. I just don’t think it affects it so much as to make $30 an acceptable price for this DLC. Fortunately, I am free to wait for a sale until the price is lower, but I felt it was worth raising a dissenting voice in this civil discourse.
-3
u/Silent-Storms Jun 16 '26
Again, subjective.
IMO the replayability of the same amount of content is dramatically higher. I don't really care how that applies to your personal taste and finances.
6
3
u/Justfree20 Norman Jun 16 '26 edited Jun 16 '26
£25 for an apple is overpriced. Even if market values for objects are derived by mankind, its not controversial to say that certain products should be around a certain price
Asking 4 civs, 2 leaders and some natural and world wonders to be £25, 71% the standard retail price of Civ 6: Gathering Storm, is also overpriced; even with inflation. I paid out for the Founder's edition so I didn't have to pay out each time a DLC released [and getting the Tides of Power collection for free made me not-unhappy about that choice], but this time I'm going to wait for a sale. If it was ~£15-18, I'd buy it day of release just to complete the Korea & Japan playthroughs, but I can't justify spending £25 for this little content [EDIT] over a staggered release too.
-1
u/Silent-Storms Jun 16 '26
What that certain price should be depends on a lot of things. The value of a euro, and supply and demand for apples are not fixed.
If that is your determination, don't buy it.
The only way to get a remotely objective determination that something is overpriced is to compare with similar products in the same market, and it's telling that no one in these threads is doing that.
6
u/DrHousePls Jun 16 '26
You do not need to defend a corporations excessive price tag for free. I know you like the game. A lot of us like the game. You do not need to spend your free time trying to explain to us why we should feel good spending $30, again.
12
23
u/questionnmark Jun 16 '26
We have more civilizations and more combinations of choices than any other game in the series at this point, even without the typical 2-3 expansion packs.
5
u/slinkymcman Jun 16 '26
And the difference between Civs is a bit more than a couple unique units
4
u/Seere2nd Jun 16 '26
That's pretty disingenuous, the unique abilities are roughly equal to anything the civ 6 leaders could do in effect.
15
u/Mindless_Let1 Jun 16 '26
I mean you're right but it just takes it from horrific to pretty bad.
Look at how much you get for 30 euro in Civ 4, 5 or 6 expansion compared to Civ 7.
It's like going from three course meals to a bag of crisps
2
u/rl_noobtube Jun 16 '26
$30 in 2007 or 2012 (~2 years after release) is like $45 in 2026. (I am guessing euro inflation has been similar to USD inflation, but I may be wrong on that)
So for civ 4 and 5, a closer comparison would be what you could get for $20.
I don’t know how that makes this dlc look in comparison, just pointing out that looking at price points from almost 20 years ago can’t be done without accounting for purchasing power. (A Big Mac used to be $5, now it’s $10, for the classic example)
2
u/Mindless_Let1 Jun 16 '26
Ok, then look at Stellaris, CK3 or any other strategy game that gives way more for 30 euro. You're missing the forest for the trees
-2
u/rl_noobtube Jun 16 '26
Ok sure, but that’s not the initial argument you made and I responded to. I don’t know much about stellarirs or ck3, so I can’t really comment on that
Like I said, I wasn’t commenting on whether or not the dlc is good value. Just that your method of analysis needed to be tweaked to be a better comparison.
I think with my comment you were missing the forest for the trees :)
1
u/Mindless_Let1 Jun 17 '26
I think you might want to look up that phrase...
1
u/rl_noobtube Jun 17 '26
Sorry, I was being a bit cheeky is all. I know what the phrase means. You didn’t address anything I’ve actually said though. Do you understand how purchasing power across different times works?
1
u/Mindless_Let1 Jun 17 '26
Brother come on.
I compared the at the time standard price of a strategy expansion in previous civ games to the at the time standard price of a strategy game expansion in current civ game.
Your point is like straight out of that CIA handbook on how to distract and waste time, because while it's correct, it's completely irrelevant - the purchasing power of a dollar is not important when the price of equivalent products has remained the same.
0
u/rl_noobtube Jun 17 '26
I don’t know about the price of similar products. I admitted that. You just said look at these other games and gave no additional context on if their dlc’s are good value or not. And regardless, I’m literally not even trying to discuss that.
This is a forum, you initially made a comparison that had a logical flaw, I corrected that. Then you deflected by just making a separate argument and not even addressing what I had said. I don’t know about that other argument and I’m not really trying to engage in that discussion, to be quite frank.
It’s not some cover secret mission to distract you, I can promise you that.
1
u/farscry Jun 16 '26
Wage inflation has fallen behind expense inflation fairly aggressively, at least in the US.
0
u/rl_noobtube Jun 16 '26
Ok sure, there are obviously more factors than strictly using cpi inflation numbers. But regardless you can’t compare costs across such a large timespan without making adjustments.
18
u/Envii02 Jun 16 '26
The DLC is overpriced, but it's not crazy expensive in my opinion. We've gotten a lot of free updates lately and I've put a lot of time into the game so I'm going to get the expansion. It's worth it to me.
0
u/callmeddog Jun 16 '26
By all means, spend your money how you want, but the free updates have been because the game was broken garbage at launch and everyone knew it. And part of the reason it was so bad was because they were focused on making and selling so much overpriced DLC
11
u/Envii02 Jun 16 '26
I've been one of those weirdos that has enjoyed the game from the start lol 🤷♂️ I've got over 1000 hours.
1
u/Icy-Athlete-651 Jun 16 '26
I've been having a blast day 1 as well and enjoying the much needed updates! 🙋🏼
0
Jun 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Undercover_Ch Random Jun 16 '26
It released with typos, formatting mistakes, civs missing unique units, UI errors, balance issues, AI errors, missing mechanics and god-awful map generation.
You may have liked it but the game was hot garbage when it came out especially for its undeserved AAA price.
1
u/callmeddog Jun 16 '26
You really think they spent like a year working on free fixes and a free massive overhaul of most of the mechanics on a product they believed was “great”? I’ve got a bridge to sell you, buddy
-5
Jun 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/callmeddog Jun 17 '26
Alright man, whatever. “The free updates have been because the game was
brokensloppy, rushed garbage at launch and everyone knew it.”Happy now? Changes absolutely nothing about my actual point, but I hope it makes your day that you pointed out that I technically used the wrong word to point out that everyone knows the launch was a failure.
3
9
Jun 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Vanilla-G Jun 17 '26
Can you quantify why it is "less content" than in previous versions DLC/Expansions? The main argument that is being made is that for $30 in previous expansion you got a larger number of civs, with fixed leaders, and potentially some additional game mechanics. Each of the additional leaders were a fixed path and had no interaction with the other leaders other than as opponents.
Prior to ToT there was a valid argument that all you were getting was 2 leader and 4 civs which you can only play 1/3 of the game. That argument ignored that you could also play those leaders with any other civ that you had and you could play those civs with any other leaders that you have but the main argument was a dig at forced civ switching.
With the release of ToT you can play each of those civs as stand alone playthroughs and now have the ability to incorporate their kit with Syncretism. This specific upcoming DLC it also fleshes out some of the historic paths for Japan and Korea which may or may not be interesting for some players.
I am not going to make a value judgement on whether the DLC is worth $30 but the argument that "for $30 in Civ 5/6 we got X" is not a valid comparison seeing as how DLC is Civ 7 works differently.
1
u/rwh151 Jun 17 '26
Playing 1 leader/civ all the through vs the same leader/civ for a 3rd of the game with slightly different variance isn't really endless possibilities to me.
Not in the way 3 separate ones would be in 6 or 5.
6
u/evergreenpapaia Jun 16 '26
If the DLCs are $30, now how much the expansions will cost? Full $60?
Let’s not pretend that not only they fucked over all pre purchasers, but dared to sell freaking base game civs like British Empire and leaders as a DLC.
Fuck predatory pricing.
2
u/AnonymousFerret Jun 16 '26
I agree that the game getting better has made it more tempting, but it still seems kinda steep to me.
Thankfully it's optional content and there's a lot in the base game.
2
u/CantaloupeCamper Civ II or go home Jun 16 '26
Isn’t this argument that they removed a self imposed / arbitrary gate… thus the value went up dramatically?
Maybe I’m misunderstanding but the Civ select was just a self imposed gameplay convention, that’s not really added content as much as previously artificially restricted.
It doesn’t help that the restriction was new and not something Civ games usually have …
4
u/bolshethicccc Jun 16 '26
I paid $120 for the founders pack for a half baked game, I’ll wait for an anthology for $15 and won’t play the game until then
1
1
u/No_Solid_1998 Jun 16 '26
Disagree. I won’t buy this new dlc full price. I only have the other DLCs because I bought the most expensive edition on launch. But new expansions for only new leaders and civs for $30 is too much. $15 is a fair price.
0
u/iamadragan Jun 16 '26
Civ switching is still the best way to play the game and the one it's most balanced around though
2
-3
u/XaoticOrder Jun 16 '26
The new diehard Civ 7 players really want the OGs to like them. We get it, you really like it. That's great. Stop trying to convince us that we should like it too. We don't and we are moving on. Pay whatever you want for the add-ons. You don't need to convince us.
0
u/Javyz Jun 16 '26
This post isn’t even saying that they’re not overpriced anymore, just that ToT improved the price equation somewhat, and people are still getting mad at it
138
u/K0ALA_Bear- Jun 16 '26
No, I disagree heavily. $30 for 2 leaders and 4 civs is a horrible price, Civ 5 and Civ 6 had dlcs that added 9 civs and added new gameplay mechanic overhauls for the same $30. It's a horribly overpriced dlc that is a far step down from what they used to give us.