Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Duuk, Jun 6, 2018.
I mean, if the leaders were 2D it'd be much easier to make more of them.
AI aside; VI is brilliant. Leaves V looking like the borefest it too often is.
Yeah, his boardgames are pretty in depth, yet popular still.
This analogy is bad: you put pumpkin spice and milk in your coffee to cover up the fact that you're selling bad coffee. If your coffee is good, you don't put crap in it.
I play offline. A subscription model probably requires me to be online to play. Firaxis goes that route, they've lost my business. Plus Steam is bad enough; charging me monthly to use something crosses the line for me.
I quite agree. Civ6 has its own set of problems, but I'd still call it a major improvement over Civ5 in many ways (not least of all aesthetically--Civ5 is extremely ugly to look at).
IMO making good games would be a good method.
I've been a long-time proponent of the DLC model being applied to the Civ franchise. It's practically begging for the $8-10 semi-monthly DLC cash cows like Sims-style games. Civ-packs, map packs, scenario packs. The way that Civ6 has R+F bundled as a "Rule Set" even suggests that it was built on the idea of Paradox-style expansion ideas.
They just never did it. I really have no idea how 2K can be so eager to exploit the daylights out of 99% of their properties, even ones that they have to bolt on stupid extras that seem to make no sense whatsoever, but a franchise that is SCREAMING for obvious optional add-ons they leave without them. It literally boggles my mind.
2K. Leaving money on the table. Think that thought through for a moment.
I'm lost. Civ's publisher is 2k and not EA...?
I’d be very supportive of more dlc after the next expansion. I think it would be profitable for FXS, and a great way to support further development of the game.
That said. I don’t think FXS can sensibly go down the dlc route until the rules (including balance) of the base game are more sorted. They need to have a more or less “complete” game they can build of, particularly if various dlc are intended to be optional, so players will be using am inconsistent mix of dlc.
Likewise, I think there is probably a limit to how much dlc there can be. I’d really like the game to be really fleshed out and expanded, and then balanced so the game is really “tight”. But there inevitably be a point where if you kept adding to the game it would become a mess and or you’d exhaust potential ideas.
The downside to this structure is maybe the game would get so good at some point that FXS wouldn’t be able to successfully bring out a new version, and at the same time, they’d have sold as many copies of Civ VI as they could and wouldn’t really have anywhere else to go with the franchise... But, I don’t think it’d actually play out like that. They’d probably be able to continue the game for quite some time, and even if it did get “that good”, well they could just make other stuff. They could also maybe take the game at that point and repackage / rework the various expansions to create a new version if they really needed to.
So, anyway. In my dream scenario, the game would look like this...
We get another expansion. The game is basically “complete” as is (maybe needing a few more patches, but that’s it).
FXS repackage Vanilla and Expansions as the “complete” version / bundle. They’d have to figure out how this works with costs short to medium term, but eventually you’d offer this bundle at a bit of a discount versus buying everything separately. You’d maybe offer some free dlc (eg maps) to smooth over anyone that’s bought the game in stages from the beginning (Vanilla).
About 6 to 12 months after the last Expansion, and just as the game has been rebundled as a complete version, you start offering thematic dlc. They pick a topic like “colonization”, “espionage”, etc, and then these bundles come with (1) exclusive leaders or Civs connected with that theme, (2) some exclusive units and or buildings and or wonders, policy cards etc - cool stuff, but modular so it’s not “essential”, (3) some new mechanics related to that theme, but these would be fairly narrow so again they could remain fairly modular. These dlc come out every 6 months or so, along with patches to the base game as needed.
You eventually re-bundle these dlc into a third expansion. This expansion would maybe have a little extra unique content just to sweeten the deal. If you’d been buying the previous dlc, you upgrade to the “expansion”. You’d need to warn people ahead of time you were doing this, and really think through the pricing, but I think it could be done.
Then, rinse repeat with more thematic dlc and rebundling as an expansion, possibly even introducing some “mega” scenario dlc focused on colonization, other worlds, near future, whatever.
Oh, they don't call him Doom-Sayer for nothing. He sees into the future, but sometimes just mixes up what have already happened, and what... is yet to happen... *shudder* *shudder*
Pay no attention to my sleep-deprived typo/brainfart. It's open enrollment season (I own a Medicare-focused insurance agency) which means I haven't had a coherent thought in like 3 weeks.
I obviously meant 2K and typed EA because I typed "Sims-style" and was thinking of EA. Which means, of course, than next week there will be an announcement that EA acquired 2K.
Ugh, I still twitch when I think about what they did to SimCity.
There's absolutely no doubt Extraordinary Avarice is that avaricious.
I can see Firaxis taking the Frontier approach: a combination of free and paid DLC, with free DLC introducing new mechanics. This approach would also work well on the iOS and Switch versions.
That is my concern. Not that the devs are starting with a non-PC platform here, but I do think many design decisions (UI anyone) were limited to allow for multi-platform release.
For me, Civ 6 is at the minimum desired threshhold of complexity desired for this game. I personally would like to see more complexity -- more units, technologies, and strategies. However, with R&F, it is at a good level. But it is less than V, which was in turn less (far less) than IV. A continued trend of "simplification" here, whether for inclusion of new players, or compatibility for other platforms, would not likely be what I would want to see.
As crazy as this sounds, I would likely pay 90$ right now to simply -continue- playing Civ VI -- so I would pay a 90$ price tag for Civ VII (assuming it is as complex as Civ VI).
I'm (just) in the 2000h club, tho probably actually maybe 800 real hours and 1200 idle hours. Let's say 900 "real hours" -- which would mean I am would be paying $.10 an hour for Civ VI. Most players are probably at <100 hours, but even then, it is less than $1/hr, which is great entertainment value.
I have thought about this very thing a lot -- 2k is leaving a lot of money on the table. But I also believe that there is a certain "communal" feel about Civilization as a whole -- and by having too much DLC, it will just alienate and/or upset many players that cannot or choose not to afford it. I'm blessed to be able to buy DLC on announcement and it is no big deal if it is any good or not. But I wasn't that way all of my life, and had Civilization I had this model, it might be likely that I abandoned it.
As someone that has owned every iteration of the franchise (and all related except (gasp!), Alpha Centauri), I know I will get value for $ and as such, am very willing to purchase. In fact, my first experience with Civilization was from a software rental house -- where the guy running the desk suggested the game to me and my friends. We installed it, and I think we ran the game continuously until the rental expired and we had to return. 4 of us chipped in to buy it outright at $19. (those were the days, huh) Since, every Civilization release I purchased on or near day of release without hesitation. Including some duds.
Relaizing this, I am still likely very much in the minority of the install base -- and by having too much DLC, they risk alienating folks that don't want to constantly pay an extra $5-$10 to have a groovy new civilization or wonder. As much as I would -WANT- Firaxis to do more, I think the model of limited DLC and expansions is likely a more sane approach for the majority of the install base.
While I think I get where you're coming from, I do think that equally people don't want to get cycling through new versions of the game - at least judging from the way people seem to have been reluctant moving from IV to V, and from V to VI. I can't say I'm thrilled at the idea of going through this who palaver again for Civ VII.
A dlc model would be tricky. EUIV's dlc model has allowed for continuous development, but has its own problems. For example, it's not clear what is in the "base game" (to the extent that's meaningful), and although not everyone plays with every expansion, the game is balanced against all expansions. The result is that if you don't have certain particular expansions, the game is severely unbalanced. EU IV is also set up in a way that allows more content to be added more easily (eg no real overall victory condition, and greater tolerance for different power levels between factions), so Civ couldn't quite take the same model.
My thinking is DLC could work, but it would have to be very focused (at least in terms of new mechanics), and FXS would need to periodically "reset" by combining various DLC into an bundled expansion. I think that really is the only way to continue supporting and developing Civ VI.
I think Civ VI might need to be tweaked a little if it was going to get expanded out further. For example, I think it would be very hard for FXS to expand religion much given the possibility of a Religious Victory. They might need to get rid of Religious victory - perhaps just rolling it up into a wider "Cultural" or "Diplomatic" victory condition (that maybe also rolls up the existing Culture Victory), just so there was more room to work with and less need for such careful balancing.
My guess is that FXS won't go down either a EUIV or EUIV "lite" approach, and will instead just move away from Civ VI in the near future / shortly after the next expansion, work on some spin off or something entirely new, and then eventually just circle back to a Civ VII ... but I think that would be a real shame.
[edit: clarify a few points; + religion comments.]
Civ 5 is more straightforward and streamlined than Civ 6 so they havent "simplified for consoles" anything. Even with lacking world congress, Civ 6 has deeper mechanics than 5.
And remember how Civ 5 was when released? Ugh... now THAT was dumbed down!
It doesn’t make sense to port the game to all these brand new platforms only to cut off any more support or new content.
People have different tastes and that is good. I for instance love Civilization 6 and 4 but find Civilization 5 boring and simple.
ATM I love Civilization 6 as much as Civilization 4 but Civilization 6 might get ahead for me after the next expansion.
Only 2 things I miss from CIV V is ability to play tall and Vox Populi.
I love every single features added in Civilization VI.Just need DLL access and maybe also better modding tools, then I will definitely have hard time migrating from 6 to 7 unless it will be spectacular.
Agreed. Civ 6 launch was not reaching my standard of what a civ launch should be. But Civ 5 was much worse. Winning as Japan on a 6 player map by middle ages using domination on deity. Made me not touching the game again for a year. I went straight back to civ 4. It took civ 5 a very long time to become enjoyable. I prefer civ 6 to civ 5 in current live cycle even do it is not good enough at the moment. I could play civ 6 and enjoy myself with quo, more units and ui mods
Actually it makes MORE sense to cut off any new content and support to the PC version once the console versions come out. No further development on the base game means that the console versions will catch up and everything becomes "equal" so you have unified marketing and no more "this feature doesn't exist in your version".
As a sales and marketing guy, console ports are what originally made me become the Doom-Sayer and think there wouldn't be a 2nd expansion.
I'd agree with this if it was the same development team working on new content and the console ports. I don't think it is, so it's possible there's both new content coming and porting of existing content to other platforms.
I do agree, however, that it argues for slower development and release of new content. The new platforms create a source of revenues and something for marketing to flog during the holiday season. There's no need to rush an expansion or new DLC.
However, a patch with a some little addition thrown in would make sense, possibly for release on the same week the Switch version goes live.
Separate names with a comma.