Civ X or Civ 6 ?

[Brian Shanahan]

Are we sure 6 will be more like 5 than 4?

Probably, it'll take at least one turkey (and maybe even too) for 2K to realise what they did to the name Civilisation with 5.

I'm sure very few people who actually bought 5 because of the name will want to throw their money at 6 until they have proof positive it's good. And very few of the casual players of 5 are even around, never mind coming back for 6.

 

[Dasphios]

Probably, it'll take at least one turkey (and maybe even too) for 2K to realise what they did to the name Civilisation with 5.

Do you really think it'll work that way, though? Isn't it more likely that if the next one doesn't do well, they'll figure "this isn't profitable" and not bother with more?

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Do you really think it'll work that way, though? Isn't it more likely that if the next one doesn't do well, they'll figure "this isn't profitable" and not bother with more?

Stupid people generally need more than one lesson to realise their stupidity. Of course the company could go under between 6 and 7 (but I discounted that scenario).

Sid Meier's Civ is a big enough name that one bad selling edition won't sink it.

 

[Dasphios]

Stupid people generally need more than one lesson to realise their stupidity. Of course the company could go under between 6 and 7 (but I discounted that scenario).

Sid Meier's Civ is a big enough name that one bad selling edition won't sink it.

I'm not talking about the company going under; I'm talking about the project making so little money that the owners decide it's not worth it and make the team do something else.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

I'm not talking about the company going under; I'm talking about the project making so little money that the owners decide it's not worth it and make the team do something else.

As I said the series is strong enough that the company will probably consider that bad sales from 6 are a blip on the road, rather than something to drop the series over. If 6 doesn't sell (long term, a good game with a strong name will sell heavily eventually) then the next game's sales will probably be a killing factor.

 

[gps]

As I said the series is strong enough that the company will probably consider that bad sales from 6 are a blip on the road, rather than something to drop the series over.

You mean 5? But do we really have confirmation that 5 sold so badly? The fact that they started giving away 5 for almost free before G&K came out is a strong hint from my point of view and could be interpreted as desperation to sell G&K by all means possible - but we don't really know..?
Also I think it all comes down to a question of self-awareness on th epublishers side. Did they realize they did something wrong with 5 - and try to make up for it with 6? Or do they still think they created a groundbraking game - but the nerd fraction is unable to recognize the true gem they disdain, so there's just no market any more for a deeply complex (attention: sarcasm alarm ) turn based strategy game.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

You mean 5? But do we really have confirmation that 5 sold so badly? The fact that they started giving away 5 for almost free before G&K came out is a strong hint from my point of view and could be interpreted as desperation to sell G&K by all means possible - but we don't really know..?
Also I think it all comes down to a question of self-awareness on th epublishers side. Did they realize they did something wrong with 5 - and try to make up for it with 6? Or do they still think they created a groundbraking game - but the nerd fraction is unable to recognize the true gem they disdain, so there's just no market any more for a deeply complex (attention: sarcasm alarm ) turn based strategy game.

I'm talking about a hypothetical 6 selling badly, because of the negative impact of the real 5.

If they continue the series to 6 it would take another turkey in 7 for them to realise that sales won't recover (obviously leaving aside that a good 6 will eventually sell well, no matter how bad the start).

Also who you calling a nerd, I'm a jock, I play Gaelic Football, and when in school also played Soccer and Rugby.

Spoiler :

Actually I'm a combination of both, so you could call me a nerock (or something). Most of my school were that way, the best performers on the sports field also being scholars.

 

[Lordleoz]

I am also disappointed with Civ V. I played one whole game and didn't touch the game again for a long time, until I bought Civ V - Gods & Kings. I found G&K much better than the vanilla and it worths a try. Religion, espionage are returned in the new version and overall, the game has become more balanced and interesting.

 

[Funky]

I just finished reading Sulla's ideas for Civ 6, or "New Civ" as he calls it. Sulla's articles have received a lot of attention in this forum and I wouldn't feel the need to promote this writing of his if I didn't think it contained many innovative and inspiring ideas for a future civ game. Naturally there are several things I disagree with and would do differently, but these are mainly minor aspects. I really like the overall concept he presents, and it's a fun read.

Anyway, for whoever is interested, here is the link.

 

[calibur]

Nice. I'm a bit dubious about the tactical minigame, as it would require a lot of time... but it still seems awesome. Overall pretty great. I had something to add, but I forgot what over the long period of reading...

 

[GHalfrunt]

How could it not be profitable to have your existing fanbase still saying good things about your company?

Because one of the more insane practices of American capitalism is to always attempt to increase profitability, even if it's very risky and/or you already have a reliable source of profits in front of you. It's the same reason that you'll occasionally see stores close because they "weren't profitable enough"... mind you, not because they were unprofitable, but because they were insufficiently profitable to satisfy their investors. That kind of thinking is not very friendly towards niches, and, if what previous posters are saying is true, it's what's happening to Firaxis.

 

[King Flevance]

There were clues that this would happen to 5 when 4 was released. Back in Civ4's launch a lot of people vowed not to get Civ 5 due to really shoddy practices. I don't know how many people stuck true to it but I did and boy am I glad. Civ 5 was the first Civ game released that I didn't pre-order or buy on day 1. (Excluding CivCity:Rome/CivRev but including CTP I & II) I actually just got a free copy for buying X-Com on Steam and still haven't played it. X-Com is pretty cool though.

Kickstarter is a bad idea for this type of approach. You may as well send your money to me and pretend it went to Firaxis. Firaxis is going to do whatever 2K allows them to do. 2K owns them and the rights to the Civ IP. Throwing money at a publisher out of hope, will do no good. Negative economical feedback is the quickest way to get them to do a 180. Unfortunately, the market decides that, not us. Sure, we are part of the market - but how large a part? If Civ 5 type games make more money then Civ 4 type games - then you send in free money out of "hope", why wouldn't 2K just keep the money as a nice one time bonus? Making thier already upset fans upset again? They could easily claim it as a gift or good faith money. This idea for a kickstarter is way too vague and actually could easily serve to give 2K more money as a reward for making Civ 5 than to curb it.

I understand your frustration, I have been playing Civ since 92. I still play Civ 4. With 5, I feel like either I was discarded or they let someone without a clue take the reigns. I think it is a bit of both honestly. But they are going to do what they are going to do. SO I am going to do what I am going to do too, over there... with my money.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

SO I am going to do what I am going to do too, over there... with my money.

Agreed. I will likely never buy another Firaxis or 2K product just for the reasons you mentioned in your post.

BTW, nice to see you back.

 

[King Flevance]

Agreed. I will likely never buy another Firaxis or 2K product just for the reasons you mentioned in your post.

BTW, nice to see you back.

Thanks for the welcome back.

For me, 2K isn't as bad as they could be (EA) but they're on their way. Every once in a while they do something pretty cool, but then they do something asinine just to prove to the world that publishing is about money, not about belief in a product.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Kickstarter is a bad idea for this type of approach. You may as well send your money to me and pretend it went to Firaxis. Firaxis is going to do whatever 2K allows them to do. 2K owns them and the rights to the Civ IP. Throwing money at a publisher out of hope, will do no good. Negative economical feedback is the quickest way to get them to do a 180. Unfortunately, the market decides that, not us. Sure, we are part of the market - but how large a part? If Civ 5 type games make more money then Civ 4 type games - then you send in free money out of "hope", why wouldn't 2K just keep the money as a nice one time bonus? Making thier already upset fans upset again? They could easily claim it as a gift or good faith money. This idea for a kickstarter is way too vague and actually could easily serve to give 2K more money as a reward for making Civ 5 than to curb it.

I think Firaxis have actually soured a lot of their market with Civ 5. You see the Civ market is the kind of people who like this type of strategy game where you plan forward 20, 30, 50 or even 100 turns from now (whether you do it on Noble or Emperor is immaterial). Civ 5 went down the market of trying to appeal to the less cerebral type of gamers (now I'm not saying they're not cerebral, just that they want to disengage their brains a bit while playing, a bit like me watching Pokemon through my University years {well that and the shiny colours}, that they want to relax and not think). However that kind of approach doesn't work for games like Civ, hence the large sales but the even larger plummet in playing numbers on Steam after a short while.

Civ was never going to keep the casual gamers by it's very nature, and trying to adapt it for the casual gamers has alienated a large part of the game's core support.

Unfortunately this won't initiate a rethink, it'll mean a Civ 5 like release for Civ 6 (hey if it sells once...) which will sell far more poorly than Civ 5, and after that when they realise that the direction has killed the goose, 2K will pull the plug on Civ and in all likelihood the whole Firaxis studio. I saw it happen when Sports Interactive and Eidos split the Champ Man brand. SI went off and made FM keeping the feel and ethos of the game, Eidos dumbed down Champ Man (and brought in a bunch of incompetents to make the game, similar to Shafer/Shirk helming Civ 5) and it is the FM series that is going strong, increasing it's market share (at one stage the top two selling PC games in the UK were FMs 2010 and 2011) while Champ Man is a dead product.

 

[gps]

Civ was never going to keep the casual gamers by it's very nature, and trying to adapt it for the casual gamers has alienated a large part of the game's core support.

I am not quite sure I can agree with this. I don't really see why a casual gamer should not be able to get a lot of fun out of Civ (IV). Play it on a lower level and a small map - and if you're overwhelmed with the mass of options in BTS just take Vanilla. From my point of view there was no need to dumb down or "streamline" Civ IV because all the options to scale or adjust it to whatever the player wanted or needed are allready there - and much more so than in any other incarnation of the series. This was no decision to appeal to a more casual kind of gamers - it was either just lazyness or a deliberate management decision to dumb it down to keep costs low. If the game is less complex you can keep the team smaller and save a lot of money developping, (beta-)testing and patching it. Look at how much effort they took for IV on the multiplayer part of the game, look how deeply the community was involved in the development of the Vanilla game and the expansions. I don't see this happening in V and the effect clearly shows: they chose the cheap approach - and the result is a "cheap" game.

 

[xcrissxcrossx]

I've heard Civ 2 was a major disappointment to Civ 1 fans, yet the franchise got revived with Civ 3.

It isn't impossible.

 

[Funky]

You hear odd things.

 

[FramedArchitect]

I've played II - V and I don't understand what all the bellyaching and hand-wringing is all about.

No, it's not the same as previous versions and, no, vanilla was not as good as IV was after years of expansions, patches and amazing mods. Still, it's a good game and it's come a long way since October 2010 (I wish I could say the same thing about the disastrous sequel to SimCity4!).

These days there are regularly over 30,000 people in-game, new mods coming out daily, and probably a final expansion to look forward to. You may not like it, but V is not bad.

Finally, if you're looking for 4X in space, I highly recommend Galactic Civilizations II - $20 on Steam.

 

[TheWilltoAct]

I've played II - V and I don't understand what all the bellyaching and hand-wringing is all about.

<snip>

You may not like it, but V is not bad.

That is a really biased analysis. I think you have to consider both sides, it's not enough to say lots of people play it.

You may like it, but V is not good.