All Quiet on the Civ Front

Status
Not open for further replies.
As much as we want more DLC but the pattern is telling us otherwise.
I am almost 100% sure that there won't be a single expansion after the second one.
I really hope I am wrong :/
But let's be real Civilization 5 had about 4 times more sale than Civilization 6 based on the steam leak few months back(post RandF) and they didn't do the third expansion for it.Civilization VI sold only 1M more than BE at that time l.
I know that CIV VI has a lot of sales potential and the more expansions it will get the harder it would be for the newcomers.
Realistically only thing I expect is something like a small DLC in any of the upcoming CIV VI anniversary.
 
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As a sales and marketing guy, console ports are what originally made me become the Doom-Sayer and think there wouldn't be a 2nd expansion.

If we look at this from a two axis perspective, where producing more content is the y axis and expanding to more platforms is the x-axis, they are moving in both directions. Very ambitious.
 
I think those of us who bought Civ6 were ready to move on from Civ5, which had a lot of issues.

For the same reasons we were ready to move on from Civ5, I think we are NOT ready to move on to Civ7.

Civ6 was already a more complete experience at vanilla than Civ5. Those of us who loved old Civ4 really just want a solid, complete version of the game we can sink our teeth into for a while.

The prospect of Civ7 just means another several years with an incomplete game. They shouldn’t move on to a sequel until they can really wow us.

Instead, they should work to make Civ6 the most satisfying, long-lasting experience in the franchise.

#MoarExpansions
#MoarDLC
 
I think VI's sales will really take off when you start seeing the crazy sales V has had (~$7.50 base game, ~$12.50 complete). It's a lot easier to bite the bullet on a complete game at a discount.

But that'll be long ways off. We still need time after the next expansion (which should boost sales as people deem the game reaching 'complete' status).
 
Yeah Civ 6 has only been out for short whike compared to 5 that was released in 2010.

But Civ 6 has outsold Civ 5 every month after it's release and has been one of the Steam top sellers (platinum level) every year so definately it has been a success. Ipad and Switch sales will give even more profit that hopefully makes 2k very happy with Firaxis!
 
Yeah Civ 6 has only been out for short whike compared to 5 that was released in 2010.

But Civ 6 has outsold Civ 5 every month after it's release and has been one of the Steam top sellers (platinum level) every year so definately it has been a success. Ipad and Switch sales will give even more profit that hopefully makes 2k very happy with Firaxis!
You are totally right about everything except Civilization 6 was gold level in 2017.Which is still impressive.
I didn't mean that it is doing bad but instead what I meant was it makes sense to do an expansion for a game that has more total sale number and low number of new people getting into the game.So that they can get more money out of the game and not create more obstructions for newcomers.
In the case of Civilization V, most people who would buy the game probably have already bought it.
 
Last edited:
I think those of us who bought Civ6 were ready to move on from Civ5, which had a lot of issues.

For the same reasons we were ready to move on from Civ5, I think we are NOT ready to move on to Civ7.

Civ6 was already a more complete experience at vanilla than Civ5. Those of us who loved old Civ4 really just want a solid, complete version of the game we can sink our teeth into for a while.

The prospect of Civ7 just means another several years with an incomplete game. They shouldn’t move on to a sequel until they can really wow us.

Instead, they should work to make Civ6 the most satisfying, long-lasting experience in the franchise.

#MoarExpansions
#MoarDLC

I think that's the perspective of roughly one-third of the available civ market, i.e. the approximately one-third who think Civ 6 has enough potential to be worth keeping around for a while. Then there's the one third who've gone back to Civ 5, disappointed by the direction Civ 6 is going in. And the one-third still on Civ 4 because neither of the later two games provide the civ-experience they're looking for.

I have no idea if the actual break down is one third one third one third, or some other percentages. 2k will have a bit better idea, and they'll presumably construct their future releases around that. But I will say that continuing to put effort into new Civ 6 content (as opposed to new Civ 6 platforms), means Firaxis will be selling to a smaller and smaller market compared to launching a new base game.
 
I think that's the perspective of roughly one-third of the available civ market, i.e. the approximately one-third who think Civ 6 has enough potential to be worth keeping around for a while. Then there's the one third who've gone back to Civ 5, disappointed by the direction Civ 6 is going in. And the one-third still on Civ 4 because neither of the later two games provide the civ-experience they're looking for.

I have no idea if the actual break down is one third one third one third, or some other percentages. 2k will have a bit better idea, and they'll presumably construct their future releases around that. But I will say that continuing to put effort into new Civ 6 content (as opposed to new Civ 6 platforms), means Firaxis will be selling to a smaller and smaller market compared to launching a new base game.
I agree, guessing they see value in another offshoot using the same engine before moving on. Read somewhere on here about a prehistoric megascenario, which could be pretty cool if done right.
 
Er... on other news... has anyone's games' been reset? As in... all of their settings set to default and their saves games wiped?

That appears to have happened to me and a friend of mine about to continue a multiplayer game that we played 2 days ago (I think) where both of our single-player, multiplayer and settings have been wiped.

I can't see that there has been an update or anything though...

I hope that didn't happen to me. I haven't been playing Civ6 since this summer, but I have a bunch of unfinished saved games which I would like to return to (as the pre-R&F Civs). :(
 
2kqa_g and ltest also got updated.
No clue what these means though, our prophet above me or any of his disciples can explain that. :p

The g update didn't have LTest or DepotTest, but it has every depot for vanilla, DLCs, and R&F for PC, Mac, and Linux all at once. It might have something to do with the problematic situation with the Linux version.
 
But let's be real Civilization 5 had about 4 times more sale than Civilization 6 based on the steam leak few months back(post RandF) and they didn't do the third expansion for it.Civilization VI sold only 1M more than BE at that time l.
I know that CIV VI has a lot of sales potential and the more expansions it will get the harder it would be for the newcomers.
Realistically only thing I expect is something like a small DLC in any of the upcoming CIV VI anniversary.

These are the numbers that scare me. I worry the market will change and there will be no demand for Civ like games in the future. I worry the market is getting dumber, and people only want dumb games. Surely not everyone can be playing shooters can they? You would think as the population keeps getting higher, that the game should at least be able to maintain equilibrium. I worry in the future that people will only want shooters or shooters masquerading as rpg's (Fallout 4,76).

but I have a bunch of unfinished saved games which I would like to return to (as the pre-R&F Civs).

For whatever reason I can never return to save games that have been inactive for over a week. I have quite a few unfinished games. But as long as it's only been a few days since I last played, I can finish games. Although ideally I just prefer to play the game in back to back days and finish in 2 days.
 
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.

As long as PC gets both the 2nd expansion and the DLL source, that's what matters.
 
I think that's the perspective of roughly one-third of the available civ market, i.e. the approximately one-third who think Civ 6 has enough potential to be worth keeping around for a while. Then there's the one third who've gone back to Civ 5, disappointed by the direction Civ 6 is going in. And the one-third still on Civ 4 because neither of the later two games provide the civ-experience they're looking for.

I have no idea if the actual break down is one third one third one third, or some other percentages. 2k will have a bit better idea, and they'll presumably construct their future releases around that. But I will say that continuing to put effort into new Civ 6 content (as opposed to new Civ 6 platforms), means Firaxis will be selling to a smaller and smaller market compared to launching a new base game.

Or would another version just lead to the Civ market being even more fractured?

Civ VI seems to me like it was deliberately intended to be a better version of Civ V, one that got rid of the flaws of Civ V, and then expanded on what was good about Civ V. I think Civ VI could ultimately win over Civ V players as a result - it is, or will be eventually, the better game.

I can’t say the same for Civ IV v VI. Civ IV seems to have a very different philosophy and or design (specifically, “not a board game “). I can’t see FXS supporting that type of game in the near or medium future, but could definitely see another developer taking up the mantle - retro graphics, an explicitly “Sim” approach instead of “Boardgame” approach, much darker elements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rup
I can’t say the same for Civ IV v VI. Civ IV seems to have a very different philosophy and or design (specifically, “not a board game “). I can’t see FXS supporting that type of game in the near or medium future, but could definitely see another developer taking up the mantle - retro graphics, an explicitly “Sim” approach instead of “Boardgame” approach, much darker elements.
FXS certainly needs to think hard about this! The Civilization community is indeed fractured. If they are only going for new customers, then they can continue down the road they are going. Imnsho, they need to try to find a way to bring Civ3 and Civ4 players into a new version as well as Civ5 and Civ6 players.

Both the Civ3 and Civ4 communities are still active here and playing on mods to keep the game somewhat fresh. These folks are looking for a new experience and FXS better find a way to meet that need or they stand to lose a lot of folks. Not many Civ3 and Civ4 folks have made the transition to Civ5 or Civ6, not good for the future of the franchise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom