Are we being too greedy in regards to future content?

[AriochIV]

New civs are what the main selling point of expansions to most people. Features have always been secondary. Go back and look at past discussions on these forums for evidence. Whenever there is new expansion speculation, the vast majority of the discussion is about what new civs will be added. You may find paying for new civs to be unacceptable, but I am certain that a feature-filled expansion with 0 new civs would not sell nearly as well as a civ filled expansion with 0 new features. Damn them for giving the customer what they want the most. Damn them.

I don't have a problem with only getting new civilizations and not new features. I have a problem with paying the price of a full expansion without any new features.

 

[Gedemon]

New civs are what the main selling point of expansions to most people. Features have always been secondary. Go back and look at past discussions on these forums for evidence. Whenever there is new expansion speculation, the vast majority of the discussion is about what new civs will be added. You may find paying for new civs to be unacceptable, but I am certain that a feature-filled expansion with 0 new civs would not sell nearly as well as a civ filled expansion with 0 new features. Damn them for giving the customer what they want the most. Damn them.

I'm afraid you're right that new civs are the selling point, and that by being in the minority I'm the one damned to a modding hell (ie with tools tailored for civilizations-making and limited for features-making)

Yet if the majority was so overwhelming, they wouldn't bother with the game's modes or expansion's features at all and just sell the usual DLCs during the whole lifespan of the game.

 

[oSiyeza]

I kind of agree that a montly update system is not really working.

Firaxis is clearly not puting enough resources to deliver meaningful one-month upgrades, and I dont think there is a real benefit of having small inconsecuential or poorly balanced monthly updates instead of bigger-better balanced less frecuent ones.

That said, we did not propose the model. So there is no point is asking if we are too greedy.

If someone is underdelivering, and dismissing balance and quality for profit, is not the players, but Firaxis.

 

[kaspergm]

I'm afraid you're right that new civs are the selling point, and that by being in the minority I'm the one damned to a modding hell (ie with tools tailored for civilizations-making and limited for features-making).

You're not alone on that front. Personally, I don't care too much about new civs. Sure, there were some staples I was really sad had not made it before (well one: Maya), and there are the occasional civ that really stands out in terms of gameplay, but in general, I've grown to like new features that go across the civs more than new features that's locked into one particular civ. Take for instance something like the Hacienda improvement: This is an addition to the game, that will only ever be relevant for me when I play as Gran Colombia. So all those games where I don't feel like playing with this particular civ, that is new content that has zero value for me. Same with all the unique districts, buildings, units and civ abilities.

On the other hand, stuff like new city states, new wonders, new districts etc. is something I can benefit from every game. The same goes for new game modes, which would actually be a really good idea if not for the poor realization imo. Ironically, the DLC from the first cycle that's probably given me the most fun was the Viking DLC, which at first I was really disappointed with because it "only" offered a new scenario (which I never play) and not a new civ.

 

[Linklite]

Doesn’t the game already have game options? Like difficulty, how many Civs, how many city states, maps?

Seems like you’re splitting hairs. Game modes are a bit more than just options. And really, they do fundamentally change the game (indeed, in some ways I don’t actually like tbh).

No offence, but I have no other way of phrasing it coming to mind, but I think your standards of "fundamentally change" is rather low. Fundamentally change is Red Death (although that is somewhat overkill). Another fundamental change would perhaps be the various victories - how I would play to win a cultural victory would be different to how I would go about doing a domination victory. A fundamental change alters how you think, how you approach things, and your objectives.
For example, in Age of Empires, the normal objective was to wipe everyone else out (from what I remember). You had to harvest resources, but your focus was wiping out enemy armies and destroying cities. There was a game mode called wonder race where you had to be the first to build a wonder, something that you never usually even bothered build. As a result, the entire game became being focused on balancing having villagers harvesting resources and building this wonder. Armies were very much relegated to "maybe". While the base mechanics were the same, the change in objectives completely altered the game.

Civ VI "game modes", though?

• Apocalypse mode - disasters, which already present in the game, are locked to max intensity, with a couple of new ones. A new unit that causes disasters. I don't really feel it is massively different to having it without. I have disasters anyway, and so it just adds a couple of new ones.
• SS - I'm more likely to build a harbour and a commercial in the same city if I'm with the Owls, for example, but that is about the level of change we're talking about here, not fundamentally different.
• Tech/civic shuffle - maybe? I haven't tried it yet, I could see it going either way. If you really plan ahead meticulously, I could see it altering your game plan on a substantial level. If you just play things as they come or just play things loosely, it wouldn't.

Honestly, I see them generally being a lot more like "How many city-states do you want?" than Red Death or what victories you have on. Indeed, I see having city states or not as being more influential on gameplay than the "game modes", certainly individually, despite the former being described as an option.

Anyway, I think calling the game modes game options when there are already game options in the game would have made the game modes more confusing;

Point taken that there might be a better term for them than "game options", however, they are better described by that than "game modes". My point is that "game modes" was misleading as to the nature what they were, which is mostly a concern when weighing up whether to buy it or not.

I'm happy with the amount of content in NFP. I would be happy with the same amount of content over an equal period of time (12 months), but with less frequent updates. So 6 chunkier updates. Imo it gives players time to digest the update, play and enjoy the game, then hit us with a new update.

I could probably get behind that.

 

[Linklite]

New civs are what the main selling point of expansions to most people. Features have always been secondary. Go back and look at past discussions on these forums for evidence. Whenever there is new expansion speculation, the vast majority of the discussion is about what new civs will be added. You may find paying for new civs to be unacceptable, but I am certain that a feature-filled expansion with 0 new civs would not sell nearly as well as a civ filled expansion with 0 new features. Damn them for giving the customer what they want the most. Damn them.

Civs are far easier to "predict" and speculate about, so they get a lot more discussion and hype than features. However, I notice individual features get more discussion after release than individual Civs. There are a lot more nuances and so on. Now that we have so many Civs, I think individual features have a greater influence on gameplay and therefore replay value than Civs - we'll have 50 Civs, so the chances of it being in a game at all is only, at best, 1 in 5, let alone have a substantial effect on how the game goes. Features will likely have an effect on most games.

While I want new Civs, and I'm excited about Gaul and Byzantium, features are what will make or break an XP/SP for me now. I think it's the same for many, if not a majority of people.

 

[WillowBrook]

If Firaxis wants me to be playing civ as much as possible, they'd move away from monthly updates. I finished a game late last week and would have started another one this weekend if it weren't for the new content coming this week.

As for my personal preference? I like the continued hype of monthly updates. And I have plenty of other things to do with my time while waiting for the next update. But I wouldn't argue with every two months, either.

 

[acluewithout]

No offence

None taken.

I was having a bit of fun with my post. Hope you didn’t mind.

I agree the game modes probably don’t “fundamentally” change the game in the sense you mean the word. They lean into existing mechanics, but that’s no bad thing to me. But equally I think they’re more than something like the number of City States.

I think what you’re describing eg “wonder races” is more like the scenarios, although not quite because the Civs you can play in a Scenario are more limited.

Anyway. I do get your point, and it’s a fair point at that. In short, the modes don’t change the game enough for you. I think a few of us have mixed feelings about NFP, albeit maybe for different reasons.

 

[Victoria]

From famine we feast now heartily depending on our tastes.
I agree all the stuff together is a lot but for me personally the valid stuff is good but limited, however I am hoping for something promised to be more eventful before I am sated.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

It has been said from the beginning. NFP will ad small changes that should be considered as the cherry on top not a new mechanics. That;s why we cannot consider NFP as a expansion divided into 6 small DLC's. For devs adding new Civs is a main way to add assymetry to the game. It is always the factor that dives the sale of the game.

 

[DeckerdJames]

So after some time I'm now of the opinion that the sweet spot for updates might be two months.

Monthly updates are great for this forum. But personally I've been having trouble finishing games. Not enough time. And clearly nobody wants to endure 6-8 months without news.

There's too much noise. Not enough time to fully experience new content before more comes out. It's harder to identify what needs balancing in the new content. The conversation inevitably changes to the new stuff coming up, so imbalances introduced in previous patches stop being discussed. Misconceptions about Civs or new game elements may persist because players change too quickly to the shiny new stuff. Complaints about lack of content are common because the monthly packs are naturally smaller, even if they end up amounting to a full season worth of content.
---

This means we could have new info being dropped a month before release. E.g. Firaxis tweets the next DLC will be Byzantium and Gaul. Fans speculate for two weeks, then Firaxis drops a small video update. Then first looks in the next two weeks before the release.

That means we'd change focus to the new content after a month. Right now it's two-three weeks!

So a sizeable DLC/free update every two months, with a possible monthly hotfix in-between to fix some bugs, might be a better approach imo.

"Always be closing" -

 

[Ezumiyr]

When it comes to games, people live to feel overwhelmed with content.
But that feeling is purely a marketing construction. It mostly comes from building hype through a lot of vague explanations and promises. There's high risk to overhype too, which is bad for sales.

That's why I like the approach that gives all informations like they are doing. Sure, it feels a bit dry and plain. But if I want to know I just need to read a few lines that give details, or watch a short video. Or I can just avoid all that and discover the new stuff when it's released. IMO strategy games don't really have an alternative.
For some reason, a lot of players still expect enormous batches of content and complex features. They just don't realize how costly that is. I really don't know what they are coming from, since it's the same story for all major strategy games - Total War, Paradox games, Civ. They always make the assumption they'll get enough content to fill all their expectations, and they are always disappointed. You'd think that they would learn eventually... But no, they always need to overhype themselves.

 

[Nerevatar]

For some reason, a lot of players still expect enormous batches of content and complex features. They just don't realize how costly that is.

I would agree with this if NFP cost less then an expansion. But when the price is identical, and the number of civs is identical, then why should the features not be comparable to those of an expansion?

 

[Karmah]

I would agree with this if NFP cost less then an expansion. But when the price is identical, and the number of civs is identical, then why should the features not be comparable to those of an expansion?

Even more so in this delayed release setting ! People should expect complex features as the expansion is released over a year's time !

 

[AntSou]

Even more so in this delayed release setting ! People should expect complex features as the expansion is released over a year's time !

Well, people shouldn't expect that because they make it clear 15 seconds into the announcement of the pass that they are happy with the current level of systems and complexity in Civ.

 

[Casworon]

The game modes are the right approach too adding new mechanics too the game because of that complexity problem. I am very excited about dramatic ages but I did find some of the other game modes a bit lackluster. Still very much looking forward to seeing what new ones are added

 

[Nerevatar]

I agree we cant expect new, complex features for the reasons AntSou mentions. But given the time spend and money taken, it is fair to assume something equivalent when it comes to the features of the pass. Is the game modes and misc paid changes, such as DQ, currently on track to provide an equivalent experience as that of an expansion (less complexity and same "game value", however that is defined)? That is subjective of course.

Had you asked me before this update I would say 'no', but with dramatic ages it seems to be more leaning heavier on the 'yes' side, but let's see where we end up.

 

[sonicmyst]

I am not sure if greedy is the proper term but I think some of us have expectations that were not met.

Personally I like the monthly updates, big or small, but hopefully they minimize breaking things on each update. That, I think, contributes to some dissatisfaction especially those who play on other platforms.

 

[GenyaArikado]

Ofc the whole thing could have been done in one batch, that's literally how xpacks work...

Ultimately the monthly upgrades thing is meaningless if they aren't bothering to properly bugfix/balance the game.

 

[acluewithout]

How good NFP will be is going to ultimately turn on two things.

First, do FXS go back a tweak / rework the existing game modes a bit. eg Secret Societies, nerf the free Governor Titles a little and add a bit more intrigue; Apoc Mod, add some other ways to screw with disasters and or may Soothsayers a bit more interesting; Dynamic Ages, maybe add back normal ages.

Second, do FXS release any more content after NFP that hits more of the points / mechanics some people feel is missing from the game.

Like I’ve said, NFP feels a bit like RnF - it had some great ideas and new mechanics, but the execution is a bit off, and it mostly didn’t have stuff in it people were looking for. Post GS the old RnF has ended up pretty good, with various patches and additional mechanics making all the RnF stuff work better, and GS filling in key gaps so the game felt more complete. NFP feels like it’s in exactly the same place.