7.99 for plantoids??!!

[Cel. Mostarda]

I will gladly pay 8 bucks, or even the 20 Johan suggested, when one thing happens to the base game: phenotypes become meaningful. Right now, there is simply no difference in playing as a mammal, insect or even a plant. Nothing. The mechanics and interactions are based on traits, ethos and government.

Now, there is a argument for everyone having an equivalent experience, independent of phenotype chosen. But I think the scale is heavily tipped to the "blandness" side, and almost nothing in the "unique" side, besides portaits, cities and ship/station models. No mechanics, no gameplay around phenotypes.

With that in mind, if I purchase the DLC right now, i'll will just add another phenotype to the game, and that will make absolutely no difference. Some might say "but this is the point of cosmetic DLC!". If this were more portaits added to an existing phenotype, sure. But phenotype should mean something in the game besides a graphical aspect, and have a deeper gameplay behind them.

As I said in my first phrase, I will happily buy cosmetic DLCs like this one, for this price or even slighty higher; but I need more preexisting game mechanics in order to justify this kind of purchase.

Also, I want a pony portait. A rather cute one, please.

 

[Uxigadur]

The DLC might worth the time developers spent on it, but it doesn't -to me and many ore- worth the product the consumer got.
Yes, it is a wallet vote thing, but consumers have the right to express their ideas.
In anycase, if many people vote yes, there are gonna be more cosmetics dlcs and ill go for then when on sale, like the good space cockroach i am.

 

[Cat_Fuzz]

If the cost of making an art pack is 7.99, this means that the current races must also be worth this much. By this logic:

$7.99 x Mammalian, reptilian, avian, molluscoid, fungoid, and arthropod = $47.94.

Considering the original game shipped at around this cost, you can't be paying your coding staff, marketing team or admin guys much (or this is well over-prices for what you get...)

 

[deeks]

For me, it's more about the timing of the release of this DLC. As many other people have noted, the mid and late game still lack a lot of depth. I play games mostly for the gameplay and not the graphics.

The problem for me is not the price (I'll probably buy it in the long run like I have the CK2 and EUIV cosmetic packs), but rather that the game desperately needs more mid and late game content. To have the first paid DLC be a purely cosmetic one is a huge disappointment.

I think the outrage expressed in this thread would be substantially less if it was released in November or December, after a couple of major paid gameplay DLCs had been released which filled out the mid and late game (and fixed some bugs). If that had been the timing, I think the reaction in the forum would have been mixed between "sweet, some variety from a new species" and "meh, $8 is a bit much for some pictures, maybe I'll get it on sale later". As it is now, you have a customer base starving for gameplay content and you're giving them eye candy. It's just bad timing.

 

[Pete0714]

I will gladly pay 8 bucks, or even the 20 Johan suggested, when one thing happens to the base game: phenotypes become meaningful. Right now, there is simply no difference in playing as a mammal, insect or even a plant. Nothing. The mechanics and interactions are based on traits, ethos and government.

Now, there is a argument for everyone having an equivalent experience, independent of phenotype chosen. But I think the scale is heavily tipped to the "blandness" side, and almost nothing in the "unique" side, besides portaits, cities and ship/station models. No mechanics, no gameplay around phenotypes.

With that in mind, if I purchase the DLC right now, i'll will just add another phenotype to the game, and that will make absolutely no difference. Some might say "but this is the point of cosmetic DLC!". If this were more portaits added to an existing phenotype, sure. But phenotype should mean something in the game besides a graphical aspect, and have a deeper gameplay behind them.

As I said in my first phrase, I will happily buy cosmetic DLCs like this one, for this price or even slighty higher; but I need more preexisting game mechanics in order to justify this kind of purchase.

Also, I want a pony portait. A rather cute one, please.

Oh you will get a pony portrait: 4.99 please..

 

[Pyramid_Head]

It's rather arrogant a lot of people assume that a developer/publisher with more than one game under their belt and like, I dunno, 4 or 5 pieces of DLC (or maybe even more!) doesn't know about what has been blatantly obvious in the entire games industry ever since the very first Steam sale...

There's a point at which lowering the price stops moving enough units to compensate for the price drop. I guess that's $8 in this case.

UbiSoft was founded 30 years ago. See how 30 years of gamedev experience served them.

 

[markmid]

I don't have this game yet. It is on my maybe list. I have been following it and watched a friend playing however, so this opinion only carries so much weight.

If it is just pictures and animations yes it is a bit high. Mechanics are more justified for a strategy fan but harder to sell on mass, as they don't 'look pretty' to casual end consumers.

Revenge of the Snathi had new mechanics, ship sets and animations. Granted they were not huge mechanics, but they were there.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/395990/

I know things are not exactly the same, as this games not setup to be so easy to tweak perhaps. But even the casual consumers in the strategy market usually have a bit more time to read the fine print, than say an action game before they buy.

tl;dr

Add mechanics with the race packs. Even small changes to keep playing the new race fresh.

 

[Wizzington]

If the cost of making an art pack is 7.99, this means that the current races must also be worth this much. By this logic:

$7.99 x Mammalian, reptilian, avian, molluscoid, fungoid, and arthropod = $47.94.

Considering the original game shipped at around this cost, you can't be paying your coding staff, marketing team or admin guys much (or this is well over-prices for what you get...)

This is erroneous logic, sorry. Game always moves far more units than DLC so the profitability equation is different.

 

[stripe7]

I just wait for the steam sales to get some DLC's. In this case probably wait until it drops to a 50% sale. I know it is a lot of work by the artists but it is just not worth the price for me. fyi. I also play Gal Civ 3 and I have yet to buy any of their latest DLC's even at a 50% discount as I don't see them as worth the price even at that discount. It would have been worth it if it was tied to a completely different tech tree for the species.

 

[Xomus]

I think price is fair. Its fluff for enthusiasts not must buy expansion content.

 

[Reaperdamo]

maybe this is a good opportunity for Stellaris to breakaway from the bitesize dlc or whatever you want to call it and go for more meaty ones at a higher price point - say £14.99 or something. you don't need to keep doing the same old tactic forever. CK2 was more of an evolution - i would like to think you could come up with a better perceived value to price ratio moving forwards for the consumer - but what do i know i work in the toy industry

 

[grandad1982]

It is also very interesting how 8$ equals 8€...

Yeah this is always happening......

 

[Pete0714]

This is erroneous logic, sorry. Game always moves far more units than DLC so the profitability equation is different.

Well, at least you were honest on that one. Could have said, " hey, you know what, maybe we did go too low on that base game price....

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Unfortunately, while you may have worked out the math of pricing vs worth doing, you've missed a rather critical piece of the equation. What you gain from pricing high, you lose in terms of number of buys from people like myself who are either hesitant or unwilling to pay.

Are you SERIOUSLY saying that you think PDS, who've been in the business of developing and selling games for more than a decade and a half, don't take into account how different price points affect how many people are interested in purchasing at that price point, because each purchaser has a different price point he is willing to meet, such that you are doing them a kindness by providing them this critical bit of the equation they have missed?

COME ON!

Look, you won't meet the price point. That's fine. Some other people won't either. That's also fine. Regardless of price point chosen, some people will not meet it. That's how pricing works. It does not follow that if they lowered the price to your preferred price point, they would earn money from it, or, as you say, "what you gain from pricing high you lose in terms of number of buys..."

EDIT: Look. Even if you take the extremely simplified example where there are no costs per unit involved in sales at all and the company earns a fixed percentage, p>0, of each sale's price, the question of whether pricing point P1 that will sell C1 copies is better for the company than the pricing point P2 that will sell C2 copies comes down to whether pP1C1 > pP2C2 <=> P1C1 > P2C2. In your example, P2 being your preferred price, P2<P1 and C2>C1, but it does not follow from this that P1C1 < P2C2, which it would have to be for your pricing point P2 to make better sense from PDS perspective.

 

[RELee]

Now do you see what you just did? I didn't wake up this morning and think, "You know what? I think I'm going to just go out and be a jack ass today." But y'all just went and pushed my jack ass button.

I wasn't planning on getting this DLC, but now it's become a moral imperative.

This is what you call "being contrary" in these parts. Old people excel at it, but I can usually top even the people older and less rational.

Take that entitled young'uns.

 

[physics1915]

Hard to hear tones on a text based forum, so it is insane if people are losing it over 8 bucks, but the consumer should also be conscious about what they buy. The discussion should remain civil however, and not act like Paradox is a gas company or something.

I personally see a friendly discussion of this more like "haggling a better price" than outright hostility. Don't you bargain for better deals, particularily with goods or services that aren't sold by numerous producers? And the devs are being friendly about it, and if "8 dollars is final offer" then that's their call still.

Yes, but a little while back Paradox was kind enough to lay out their DLC pricing policies for the community:

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/eu4-dev-diary-december-3rd-2015.894626/

The price was calculated based on development costs. The discussions in this threat aren't about costs, they're about value, which is far more subjective. Whether the value of this DLC is $5, $8, or $20 is going to vary from person to person, it's not a constant. If you've only played 10 hours and haven't touched Stellaris since release, the DLC probably isn't worth $8 to you, if you've spent several hundred hours playing, it's hard to argue it's not worth at least $8. What we don't want is Paradox pricing things based on perceived value, with is what many AAA game companies do; they're not going to produce a DLC if they think the value is lower than the cost, so such a pricing policy would only serve to increase prices (see Apple's business model). Pricing based on cost is more objective and better for the consumer.

So since pricing is based on cost to produce, the situation is really quite simple. If people are interested in this kind of DLC, they'll produce more, if people don't think that the value they get out of it is at least equal to the cost, and thus price, they won't make more...they simply can't afford to.

Personally, I'm not big on graphics, I can take them or leave them; Dwarf Fortress is a great game, even when played with ASCII characters. But, pretty games sell more copies, with means more money for Paradox to reinvest in both graphics and gameplay. In order to keep making pretty games, they need to keep their graphics team busy to pay their salaries, so it's in everybody's best interest to support DLCs like this.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

I would prefer to see the art team do something more.. productive. Obviously the art team can only ever do cosmetic things. (That's what art is), but.. New buildings? Those need art.. New events? Those need art. New weapons and hull types for ships already in the game? Those need art. How about new ships in general? Those need art as well. All of those I'd pay 8$ for. New tech that needs art as well, and how about new planet types. Those need art. Plenty of things the art team and dev team can be doing together to bring something new that expands on things the game sorely lacks, rather than just giving us a cosmetic change and nothing really new in a game a majority of people have voiced feels... bland and empty.

The difference is that they are new. Not just cosmetic changes to things we already have. That's a huge difference for many people. Especially those who will never play plantoids they get almost nothing out of it.

I'd expect that when we get a content expansion/DLC the art team will be involved there. Until then, there's absolutely nothing wrong with cosmetic packs being produced for those who want to buy them.

A full on rules-changing DLC won't be coming quite this hard on the heels of the release - especially with them still doing game-balancing and minor (free!!) patches that already include art changes.

 

[Janusir]

I'm not going to criticize anybody buying this at the current price, but it's too much for my wallet. I'd decided beforehand that if the price were 3 euros, I'd buy it instantly, yet I had thought the price would cap out at 6. Eight euros for some portraits and ship models that do not look very inspiring or pretty, I'm sorry but no.

I do hope this is not a preview of what content DLC will cost, because 30 euros for that is not something I can fork over. Even if it did fix everything that is lacking currently with Stellaris.

 

[Pete0714]

Now do you see what you just did? I didn't wake up this morning and think, "You know what? I think I'm going to just go out and be a jack ass today." But y'all just went and pushed my jack ass button.

I wasn't planning on getting this DLC, but now it's become a moral imperative.

This is what you call "being contrary" in these parts. Old people excel at it, but I can usually top even the people older and less rational.

Take that entitled young'uns.

Um, so seeing products increase in price for apparently less content than in the past and questioning the company about why... is being contrary or entitled? My parents and grandparents called that being a smart spender, or knowing the value of money. As a near forty year old, I pass that on to my kids, proudly.

 

[ColCarp]

People always value art lower than they appreciate it.

I bought it, because I like adding variety and supporting more unique art in my game.