Why are tourists not spending in my commercial, within my city? (And discussion of Space Elevator )

[28rommel]

Note: I have the base (vanilla) game only. No DLC's (so I cant have specialized "Tourism" or "Leisure" zones), and no mods.

Why are tourists not spending (much) money in my commercial stores, within my city?

Wiki says, "Tourism is a mechanic by which outside cims come to your city to visit unique buildings, monuments, decorations, and spend money in your commercial districts. Tourism can be a substantial source of tax income ...."

I figured out just recently, that maybe I need to spend money on unique buildings to attract more tourists (I had none), and this has definitely increased the number of tourists coming-in. I have only added the 6 cheapest (lowest ongoing upkeep expense) unique buildings, and the number of tourists now in my city went from an average of about 100 to about 480. I have also added the Train Station and Harbor to make it easier for tourists to arrive.

The amount spent by tourists is easy to determine, since the developers added a special tab in the Economy panel. From the image below, you will see that the "Income from money spent by tourists" is a total of about $1,469 and this is broken down into 2 additional sub-categories .... tourist spending in "Commercial zones" is about $50 and the amount they spend on "Public transportation" is about $1,419.

But why is tourist spending so little in my commercial zones? (Just $50 .... really!)
If it wasn't for tourists spending money using my public transportation, then it would be counterproductive to invest and pay the ongoing expense (on unique buildings, etc) to attract tourists.

What am I doing wrong? Have others seen this same thing playing with the base-game only?

PS: The total income earned from tourists in my city, is more than the budget I spend (total expense) for unique buildings ($976) as also seen in the budget panel image below. So I am at least happy about that, but the amount spent by tourists in my commercial zones is very, very disappointing.

 

[sprites]

i don't know but the thing is i can put safely unique buildings at 50% as the return from tourism is abysmal....

 

[muttonnoir]

Don't expect any detailed analysis- after all this is the team who gave you a sparkly unicorn park and that pointless blue bird ( I refuse to utter its name).

 

[Beer Fiend]

Just poor coding really. Hell I ended up getting a mod of the Workshop that multiplies what tourists spend just to make it more realistic.

 

[Promethian]

Just double checked it in my current city, which has the space elevator. The tourism income is definitely off. When I put the space elevator in my overall income increased. However the tourism income panel shows less gained than the maintenance of the space elevator.

 

[azxcvbnm321]

Unfortunately, you can't make any money from tourism without mods. Tourists will never spend enough money to offset the costs of the attractions. Commercial zones generate tax income so that's not a problem.

Thinking about it, perhaps the game is somewhat correct, it's hard for tourist money to wind up in government coffers without some sort of special tourist tax (like on hotel rooms). Tourists spend money on local commerce, but only sales tax will be generated from that. Public transportation fees are generally kept low to encourage their use and subsidize low income residents. So even with a ridiculous real life sales tax of 10%, a tourist that spends $1000 will only provide $100 of income for the local government. That's not counting non-taxable spending on certain food and entertainment.

 

[sprites]

ridiculous...
well it's more like 20% than 10 but yeah

 

[28rommel]

Just double checked it in my current city, which has the space elevator. The tourism income is definitely off. When I put the space elevator in my overall income increased. However the tourism income panel shows less gained than the maintenance of the space elevator.

Oh no .... please tell me this isn't so.
I'm currently at 86,000 in population, and I will (for the first time ever) reach the magic number of 90K which allows a player to place monuments.
I looked forward to placing the Space Elevator, and was hoping that it would give me the "tourism can be a substantial source of tax income" that Wiki promises. Yet now you are telling me it may not be worth purchasing this monument.

But how can this be? The Space Elevator is all about "tourism" and "tourists." Wiki describes it as: "People near and far travel to the city to see the Space Elevator. This means a huge influx of tourists, who also like to spend money while visiting." So if this spectacular monument, the Space Elevator, doesn't bring in extra profit (actually according to Promethian, you lose money), but only brings in more tourists to clog your streets and jam your public transportation (headaches), then what positive benefit(s) does it give your city?

Uggggg !
In any case, when I do reach 90k population, I will still attempt to place the Space Elevator. Then I will report back to this thread in regards to how its ongoing upkeep expense compares to the total "Income from money spent by tourists" number, found in the Economy panel.

 

[Promethian]

When I put the space elevator in my overall income increased.

Quoting self for emphasis. Please re read previous post with this specific sentence in mind for context.

 

[28rommel]

Quoting self for emphasis. Please re read previous post with this specific sentence in mind for context.

Promethian,
The developers have confused the word "income" in the game (and thus confuse us, when we use it in our discussions). They use the word in two ways: to describe the sales or tax or "income" that is generated, and they also use it in the small box near the bottom-center of your screen where it reads "Weekly Income" (see image below).

The number that constantly fluctuates in the "Weekly Income" box is not really the total "income" your city is generating but instead should read better if it said "Weekly Profit." Throughout the Economy panel, the developers were careful to be consistent in using "Income - Expenses = Profit" (which is good and correct). But then they were in error when they labeled that fluctuating box number, as "Weekly Income." Somewhere in another thread, I suggested that the developers need to correct this (I hope emmi will take this into consideration @co_emmi ).
PS to developers: It could read as "Weekly Profit," or alternatively it could read as "Weekly Net Income," but to be consistent with the language they are already using, the use of profit is better than net income.
To further explain this: If you look at the image below, you see that at the exact moment in time that I captured the image, my weekly "income" was exactly 103,146.19 and my weekly "expenses" were 101,239.42. The difference between these two numbers is the profit, which is the rounded number we see of " +1,907 " in the mis-labeled "Weekly Income" box.

Anyway, here is my question for you (Promethian) ....
Are you saying that when you placed the Space Elevator in your city, your "Weekly Profit" did go up, even though its individual ongoing upkeep expense, exceeds the amount of total "Income from money spent by tourists" number, found in the Economy panel?
If so then it would be a positive result/benefit to place the Space Elevator, even though it would be somewhat mysterious as to how (financially or accounting wise) that was achieved by the game mechanics.

 

[Promethian]

Promethian,
Are you saying that when you placed the Space Elevator in your city, your "Weekly Profit" did go up, even though its individual ongoing upkeep expense, exceeds the amount of total "Income from money spent by tourists" number, found in the Economy panel?
If so then it would be a positive result/benefit to place the Space Elevator, even though it would be somewhat mysterious as to how (financially or accounting wise) that was achieved by the game mechanics.

This and exactly the point I was making. That tourism income panel isn't giving us all the info. Tourists are spending money somewhere that isn't being reported in the budget panels.

 

[28rommel]

This and exactly the point I was making. That tourism income panel isn't giving us all the info. Tourists are spending money somewhere that isn't being reported in the budget panels.

Ok. Thank you.

 

[Will Steel]

As of yet the tourism mechanism is borked, even after the half-hearted attempts to fix it.

Sad really, I always wanted to build a tourism-based town in this game.

 

[Promethian]

As of yet the tourism mechanism is borked, even after the half-hearted attempts to fix it.

Sad really, I always wanted to build a tourism-based town in this game.

Do it. In another thread someone did some testing with the Stadium. Not the DLC one but the old school unique building on the Space Elevator unlock path. The Stadium costs 4k maintenance but doesn't have substantially better tourism stats than other far cheaper UBs. This person built the stadium and it immediately spiked them into negative income. They eventually recovered back to the positive. So tourism does work. It just isn't giving swift or effective feedback that it is working.

I can also add that I personally did a similar test with the Space Elevator. The Space Elevator costs a devastating 16k maintenance and my average income over a day/night cycle was about 5k (peaking at around 12k with valleys around -5k). I was honestly expecting it to break me and I would have to load my backup save. This wasn't the case. It rather quickly turned itself around and became profitable. My average income was about 2k higher after a couple day/night cycles.

The lesson I pull from this are:

1. Tourism is a delayed effect. My hypothesis is this is because it draws a certain number of tourists of a certain wealth level over time. So say you add a building that makes them trickle in at one per month and they stay for 6 months on average. You won't get the full benefit until they hit that 6 month stride.

2. The UBs that appear efficient tourism stat wise are so. Make them, they will turn a profit overall.

3. The UBs that aren't efficient (eg: stadium) still can even out at least. Also, I suspect there is some kind of cumulative calculation that makes them slightly better than they appear. Like they contribute to the stat that increases the average wealth per tourist.

3. The Space Elevator is profitable. It also doesn't disrupt any other aspect of your city so its worth making.

 

[Turjan]

I actually don't think that the income from Space Elevator or unique buildings is in any substantial way related to tourism. We don't really know how the game calculates tax income, but I have the feeling that these buildings simply increase the "value" of your city, and taxes are just a certain percentage of that value. That's why you can place as many unique buildings as you like.

 

[Promethian]

I actually don't think that the income from Space Elevator or unique buildings is in any substantial way related to tourism. We don't really know how the game calculates tax income, but I have the feeling that these buildings simply increase the "value" of your city, and taxes are just a certain percentage of that value. That's why you can place as many unique buildings as you like.

If that is the case then the Eden Project would negate the value of every UB and the Space Elevator because it hard maxes all property value everywhere. Incidentally I had the Eden Project up well before I did my Space Elevator test. The Eden Project is generally one of the first things I do when hitting the monuments milestone since it doesn't actually break any mechanics, just makes everything nicer.

 

[Turjan]

The Space Elevator is a traffic station, like the airport or the railway station. It usually sucks up most of the traffic from there and the harbor. It has the advantage that people don't have to travel to or from the map edge, which makes response times regarding population needs much quicker. Its positive effect is also there if tourism is zero.

As for the Eden Project, it mostly abolishes the upgrade mechanics. It's one of those inbuilt "cheat buildings". I try to avoid it if I don't want my city to look the same everywhere.

 

[sprites]

i don't have those unlocked but it is really useful? and my city has a substancial unique building budget...

 

[Turjan]

I usually try to avoid all those buildings. They are mostly just "official cheats". The Eden Project sets your land value to max, and everything levels up to max level, which will result in maximal tax income. The science building allows you to get rid of schools, as everyone is fully educated. The medical building sets health to top, so you don't care about noise or pollution anymore. The Space elevator renders airport, harbor and railway station superfluous. Put it in the center of your city.

It's a matter of style. As I said, I'm not very fond of them, as they basically abolish most game elements. If you want your citizens live in eternal bliss, go ahead.

 

[sprites]

they might be a thing to do once , then try to play the base game.. ubt i have loads of various unique buildings and they don't seem to do much, to the point i put the at 50% and noticed no difference... (no god level buildings but some of the prerequisites , central park , etc)