All Quiet on the Civ Front

[BarbarianHunter]

Serious question: how many people who haven't bought the expansion are honestly going to be interested in a DLC?

Seriously, that's why I think they've been duped by #FakeMarketResearch.

 

[Weraptor]

I doesn't have to have the requirement for R&F

 

[DWilson]

Side note, how do we think the scrambled maps DLC packs did in V? They seem an ideal form of DLC- completely unnecessary to a full gameplay, but a luxury option for those who want to and are willing to pay more into the game, which in turn helps feed development.

 

[Leyrann]

Serious question: how many people who haven't bought the expansion are honestly going to be interested in a DLC?

Serious question: How many people who wouldn't buy it are going to complain anyway if a DLC requires another DLC to work?

Yeah, that's why.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Serious question: how many people who haven't bought the expansion are honestly going to be interested in a DLC?

If it includes the Ottomans, all the people on youtube and reddit that want them.

 

[ChocolateShake]

'smoke' branch updated this morning. Interestingly, only the DepotTest depot was changed in this update.

I'm starting to think that maybe we will see a surprise small DLC very soon. Maybe for the two-year anniversary?

I'm thinking they would use the usual 2kqa branches to test the expansion, and that they would announce the expansion before they got to the point of testing on the weekend.

I wonder if there might be a small content update/DLC, similar to what's happening for XCOM 2, while development for the expansion takes place. It would be pretty great as the anniversary comes up. The best case scenario for me would be that, accompanied by an expansion announcement

 

[SammyKhalifa]

If it includes the Ottomans, all the people on youtube and reddit that want them.

Haha, do they want them or do they want to complain about them?

 

[Weraptor]

They want them, so they complain about not getting them

 

[The Kingmaker]

'smoke' branch updated this morning. Interestingly, only the DepotTest depot was changed in this update.

I'm starting to think that maybe we will see a surprise small DLC very soon. Maybe for the two-year anniversary?

I'm thinking they would use the usual 2kqa branches to test the expansion, and that they would announce the expansion before they got to the point of testing on the weekend.

A surprise DLC? Yes, please!

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Haha, do they want them or do they want to complain about them?

I don't think people buy things that they know they will complain about. Anyways there's been a bunch of people that has posted on every new Civ reveal "Where are the Ottomans?" or "I'm not going to buy it if there are no Ottomans!"

 

[RagnorIronpants]

I'm surprised they don't release leader packs, or at least include them with the small DLCs. The number of leaders in IV increased replayability a lot, which has always been a big selling point for civ games, so it's a bit confusing that they're doing nothing with it.

 

[DWilson]

I'm surprised they don't release leader packs, or at least include them with the small DLCs. The number of leaders in IV increased replayability a lot, which has always been a big selling point for civ games, so it's a bit confusing that they're doing nothing with it.

Just remember that it was way, way, way less work for a new leader in IV, which simply required a head model and selection of already designed traits.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Just remember that it was way, way, way less work for a new leader in IV, which simply required a head model and selection of already designed traits.

I've heard this argument a few times, but how expensive can it be in 2018 to render a 3D model at the quality of the Civ 6 leaders? They've already animated 36 leaders. Surely the incremental cost to animate a new one using their existing technique can't be that much?

If there's a reason for them to not release New Leader DLCs right now, I assume it would be that the rule set is not complete, i.e. the final expansion hasn't been released. Once that's complete, then it might be easier to release new leaders who are balanced / make use of the full gamut of game mechanics.

 

[RagnorIronpants]

Just remember that it was way, way, way less work for a new leader in IV, which simply required a head model and selection of already designed traits.

Yeah of course. I wouldn't expect nearly all civs to have two leaders like IV but I'd still expect more than just two (and at this rate, by the final expansion, three) civs to have them - it feels like an incomplete feature that way, and gives a work in progress feel to the game (which obviously it is, but it's weird to feel that in the new game menu).

But also there are clear advantages to releasing new ones: packs would sell pretty well, especially if popular old leaders returned, or they included unusual ones, it would add value to one Civ DLCs, and it would be an easier way of giving certain regions some attention than designing a whole new civ.

 

[Sherlock]

Gosh I hope so.

Give us a Babylon civ/Ancient Near East scenario pack and all is forgiven.

Give us a spin-off game called 'Ancient Civilizations' that focuses on the bronze age and all is forgiven.

 

[AvianBritish]

Give us a spin-off game called 'Ancient Civilizations' that focuses on the bronze age and all is forgiven.

Well there was a panel by Sid Meier a year or more ago where they bounced ideas off the audience about a stone-age to ancient era game concept which I think would be pretty cool. I can imagine that as a game they might make when they have finished Civ6 but want to use the Engine again until they make Civ7.

 

[BarbarianHunter]

I've heard this argument a few times, but how expensive can it be in 2018 to render a 3D model at the quality of the Civ 6 leaders? They've already animated 36 leaders. Surely the incremental cost to animate a new one using their existing technique can't be that much?

If there's a reason for them to not release New Leader DLCs right now, I assume it would be that the rule set is not complete, i.e. the final expansion hasn't been released. Once that's complete, then it might be easier to release new leaders who are balanced / make use of the full gamut of game mechanics.

Or release some now, release some before the expansion, release the expansion, then release more. The rationale behind not releasing any new content because they might have to amend a few lines of code when the new expansion comes out relative to giving the player base more to play with while simultaneously maintaining interest and making a profit simply boggles my mind.

 

[Sherlock]

Well there was a panel by Sid Meier a year or more ago where they bounced ideas off the audience about a stone-age to ancient era game concept which I think would be pretty cool. I can imagine that as a game they might make when they have finished Civ6 but want to use the Engine again until they make Civ7.

That would be my Civ dream come true.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Well there was a panel by Sid Meier a year or more ago where they bounced ideas off the audience about a stone-age to ancient era game concept which I think would be pretty cool. I can imagine that as a game they might make when they have finished Civ6 but want to use the Engine again until they make Civ7.

Except that there would be no cities in that part of history, and the Civ 6 engine is built around cities, districts, buildings, and population working tiles.

It's an interesting part of social evolution to model, but I'm scared to think about how it would be jammed into a system designed to reflect the post-agricultural revolution and the rise of cities (i.e. civilization).

 

[Zaarin]

Except that there would be no cities in that part of history, and the Civ 6 engine is built around cities

Not to say you're wrong, but...you're wrong.