Are we being too greedy in regards to future content?

[AntSou]

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.

 

[Haig]

I like how there is civ-related content every month to experience, of course the DLC ones are highlight but its good to get the free community update too.

Everyone has different tastes, I like this approach. I would like to know what civs are in the rest of the packs though.

 

[japanesesamurai]

It is pretty obvious their main focus is Civ 7. The new little add-ons are money makers. Some of the new leader animations and artwork appear to be done by an intern. Although the upcoming Byzantium looks beter/more professional. I don’t think there’s a third expansion coming

 

[AntSou]

It is pretty obvious their main focus is Civ 7

I'm talking about an approach for future DLC content, including any which might come after the release of Civ 7.

Which bits of animation / artwork do you consider "intern level"? Lady Six Sky is one of the most detailed leaders, and I can't really tell how Bolivar or Menelik are worse than other leaders.

Edit: The new Teddy does look a bit less polished.

 

[japanesesamurai]

The Bolivar especially has a different object shader and is rendered differently. The “lack of polish” you mentioned on Teddy: same thing. The hair on Bolivar even I could model. Either it is done by a different person with less skills or they used a dofferent render engine or perhaps they lost their Maya (or other) shader/lighting/render settings and didn’t really care that much.
The Maya model indeed is done pretty good and is consistent with the previous ones. I assume they already modeled and rendered her much earlier. Same with upcoming Byzantium

 

[crewealex]

It's not pretty obvious to me that this is all about Civ 7. Whilst some of the recent content may not be to everyone's taste,
I'm enjoying the new modes, the new civs and other improvements. What's not to like in a four year old game? I'm impressed
with the effort being put in to the game

 

[Linklite]

If the updates were bulkier, I'd agree. If the game modes were actual game modes, for example, rather than being options, then yes, I'd agree that more pacing would be beneficial.

As it is, I don't think the pacing is necessary, not on the consumer side, at least. Everything that's come out thus far with NFP could easily have been done in a single batch without harm. There is a lot of discussion, more than with other XPs (from what I've seen, being new to Civ I could easily be wrong on that point), but most of it isn't quality discussion. It seems very frequent that mods are having to intervene because people go off on tangents.

Personally, I'm not an avid Civ gamer (certainly not compared to the regulars here) and I just had a little one, but I'm still easily keeping up with content. The only NFP content I haven't tried is the tech/civic shuffle, and that has been mostly by choice.

At the current rate, NFP won't match GS and R&F in terms of content, in my opinion, despite it costing the same. If the game modes were actual modes, then the pacing would be better slowed down. But as is, it's a bit slow, if anything.

 

[AntSou]

If the updates were bulkier, I'd agree. If the game modes were actual game modes, for example, rather than being options, then yes, I'd agree that more pacing would be beneficial.

As it is, I don't think the pacing is necessary, not on the consumer side, at least. Everything that's come out thus far with NFP could easily have been done in a single batch without harm. There is a lot of discussion, more than with other XPs (from what I've seen, being new to Civ I could easily be wrong on that point), but most of it isn't quality discussion. It seems very frequent that mods are having to intervene because people go off on tangents.

Personally, I'm not an avid Civ gamer (certainly not compared to the regulars here) and I just had a little one, but I'm still easily keeping up with content. The only NFP content I haven't tried is the tech/civic shuffle, and that has been mostly by choice.

At the current rate, NFP won't match GS and R&F in terms of content, in my opinion, despite it costing the same. If the game modes were actual modes, then the pacing would be better slowed down. But as is, it's a bit slow, if anything.

Patches break mods and saves. If you think "NFP could easily have been done in a single batch without harm", then what's the point of frequent patches?

My point is I'm not really seeing the benefit of having the DLC update and the free update in separate months. In hindsight I feel these could have been bundled together into 6 bi-monthly updates rather than 12.

I can play about one game per month currently. With two months I could probably play up to three. That's because I'm not starting a new Civ game one week before a new patch because I won't have time to finish it. Naturally with 12 patches the likelihood of finding myself in this "idle" week is much greater, so I actually end up playing less Civ, despite wanting to play Civ.

 

[Sostratus]

Why did we invent economics?

Because There are Limited firaxis resources trying to satisfy Unlimited CivFanatics wants and needs.

No group of consumers in the history of the universe has said “you know what, this is good enough. We don’t more more product, more features, or more efficiency.”
We are par for the course.

 

[lotrmith]

Why did we invent economics?

Because There are Limited firaxis resources trying to satisfy Unlimited CivFanatics wants and needs.

No group of consumers in the history of the universe has said “you know what, this is good enough. We don’t more more product, more features, or more efficiency.”
We are par for the course.

I want everything but would be happy with nothing. This series has driven my gaming habits since Civ 1 and I am nothing but satisfied and grateful. The games to me, like all games, can certainly be viewed as having flaws but are nothing short of great coming out of the box, and additional content/expansions just give me more to do and to play.

In the grand scheme of things I don't really care if the AI is kinda dumb or the barbs are or aren't out of control, or whatever. I just want to play one more turn.

 

[Aurelesk]

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.

I don't know. They do more frequent updates, so all imbalances could be patched more quickly and effectively. So far, this is not the case, but I can only hope.
I do think, on the contrary, that testing the Season Pass bit by bit give us more room to truly understand how powerful each new additions are. Or how it synergises to each other game mechanic, instead of testing a whole expansion all at once. Nobody is saying that Work Ethic is not a really powerful belief now, nor that Gran Colombia is not a beast. We all agree, silently, that they change the game. We all tested it, saw it, and talk about it and there is no need to repeat it again and again, because almost all were already said. Maybe we should all end our message with "Gran Colombia delenda est" to never forget?

If the updates were bulkier, I'd agree. If the game modes were actual game modes, for example, rather than being options, then yes, I'd agree that more pacing would be beneficial.

Even in some extent I agree, in retrospective, the Frontier Pass gave us so far:

Novelties:

• 5 Civilizations: Maya, Gran Golombia, Ethiopia, Byzantium and Gaul.
• 2 Leaders: Catherine 'Magnificent' and Theodore 'Rough Rider'.
• 4 game modes: Apocalypse, Secret Societies, Tech and Civ Shuffle, Dramatic Age.
• 6 city-states: Caguana, Singapore, Lahore, Vatican City, Taruga and Hunza.
• 3 natural wonders: Bermuda Triangle, Païtiti and the Fountain of Youth.
• 2 world wonders: Biosphère and the Statue of Zeus.
• 1 district: Diplomatic Quarter (and his buildings)
• 1 map: the Highlands.

Updates, balance or polish (from what I recall):

• Diplomatic victory: +2/-3 resolution is now +2/-2, -5 DF per capital, faster DF penalty for pollution...
• Trade screen improved
• AI being less awful and making less stupid choice
• Better worldbuilder
• Red Death season 2
• Some natural wonders balance
• Religious beliefs balance
• Natural wonder picker
• Amenity balance
• Tier2 Gov. Plaza building balance / affordable Naturalist

If we compare to the last expansion pack that gave us major stuff (RNG disasters, Power, Canal/Tunnel, Diplomatic Victory, Future era, 8 civilizations, Eleanor, 2 scenarios, 7 world wonders, 7 natural wonders, Grievances system, GDR and Rock Band), I don't think we will end up be that far from content when we will get all the content from the Season Pass.
But I agree: they exchanged new imposed game mechanic (disaster, diplomatic, future era, GDR/rock band ...) to new optional game mode (apocalypse, secret societies, shuffle, dramatic ages...). We all feel the downgrading from a game-changing expansion to game-enhancing season pass with less polish (due to some pandemic). But somehow, I am okay with this.

I almost forgot: Gran Colombia delenda est.

 

[Cagarustus]

I almost forgot: Gran Colombia delenda est.

Does that mean ‘Columbia is broken’ or ‘let Columbia be broken?’

 

[acluewithout]

The current release schedule is fine. I’d pay for another pass quite happily.

DLCs every two months is a good pace. Patch every two months is perfect, better than what we had. I’d be equally fine with the DLC and patch coming out at the same time, so you had drops every two months instead of every month, but I don’t care either way.

If FXS do a second pass or something similar, I’d make two suggestions. First, perhaps combine it with one bigger or “plus sized” DLC at the start or end of the season pass, which adds a bit more base content. I think a bit more for the base game (even if short of an “expansion”) and something a bit chunkier would have garnered a lot more good will. As it is, it’s felt like quite a few months before NFP had some momentum in terms of content,

Second, and I know this is hard, but the game modes need to be a bit better. Not lots better. Just a bit better. The pass is basically built around new Civs and game modes. The Civs have been uniformly strong, maybe some of the best designed Civs we’ve had so far. But the game modes haven’t clicked, and that really hurts the value proposition - particularly when there is otherwise basically not base game / expansion-like content - and I think has been what’s generated most frustration.

Basically, game modes are an excellent idea. I really like the optionality, and the way FXS can add stuff that’s more challenging or more out there or less balanced, without worrying they’ll screw up or over complicate the base game. And the current game modes all have excellent ideas and mechanics. But so far, they’ve all been “near misses” and so somewhat underwhelming, because they’ve been too OP (SSM Governor titles), or lacked some depth / too RNG (AM and SSM), or buggy (SM) or just ditched too much stuff people like (DAM). I don’t doubt nailing these sorts of Alt mechanics is hard, and overall the modes have been pretty good. But yeah, so far there haven’t been any modes I want to leave on or play more than once or twice, and that’s really undercut the value.

So, TL;DR. Season pass model is fine. Maybe just do it together with a bigger dlc / mini-expansion release, and better luck next time with the game modes.

 

[Pfeffersack]

Novelties:

• 5 Civilizations: Maya, Gran Golombia, Ethiopia, Byzantium and Gaul.
• 2 Leaders: Catherine 'Magnificent' and Theodore 'Rough Rider'.
• 4 game modes: Apocalypse, Secret Societies, Tech and Civ Shuffle, Dramatic Age.
• 6 city-states: Caguana, Singapore, Lahore, Vatican City, Taruga and Hunza.
• 3 natural wonders: Bermuda Triangle, Païtiti and the Fountain of Youth.
• 2 world wonders: Biosphère and the Statue of Zeus.
• 1 district: Diplomatic Quarter (and his buildings)
• 1 map: the Highlands..

• 2 new ressources (Honey and Maize)

 

[Linklite]

Does that mean ‘Columbia is broken’ or ‘let Columbia be broken?’

From Carthago delenda est, Carthage must be destroyed.

Patches break mods and saves. If you think "NFP could easily have been done in a single batch without harm", then what's the point of frequent patches?

That is a concern that wasn't in your original post and therefore isn't a context for my quote. I saw no harm in terms of digesting gameplay.

In terms of bugs, if they can keep up with the fixes, this frequent updates might actually help get them out quicker. As for mods, people are running unofficial third party add ones, it comes with the territory. This is a complaint with the season pass nature really; I find that in terms of content, it could be sped up. I'd be even happier with an XP.

My point is I'm not really seeing the benefit of having the DLC update and the free update in separate months. In hindsight I feel these could have been bundled together into 6 bi-monthly updates rather than 12.

Maybe, your original post implied (to me) that you wanted the same model but spread over longer period. If this makes things easier, then sure. Personally, I'd prefer the paid content in an XP, then the unpaid content on a similar schedule to now (bi monthly).

I can play about one game per month currently. With two months I could probably play up to three. That's because I'm not starting a new Civ game one week before a new patch because I won't have time to finish it. Naturally with 12 patches the likelihood of finding myself in this "idle" week is much greater, so I actually end up playing less Civ, despite wanting to play Civ.

Fair point. I've postponed my next game until B & G comes out.

I don't know. They do more frequent updates, so all imbalances could be patched more quickly and effectively. So far, this is not the case, but I can only hope.
I do think, on the contrary, that testing the Season Pass bit by bit give us more room to truly understand how powerful each new additions are. Or how it synergises to each other game mechanic, instead of testing a whole expansion all at once. Nobody is saying that Work Ethic is not a really powerful belief now, nor that Gran Colombia is not a beast. We all agree, silently, that they change the game. We all tested it, saw it, and talk about it and there is no need to repeat it again and again, because almost all were already said. Maybe we should all end our message with "Gran Colombia delenda est" to never forget?



Even in some extent I agree, in retrospective, the Frontier Pass gave us so far:

Novelties:

• 5 Civilizations: Maya, Gran Golombia, Ethiopia, Byzantium and Gaul.
• 2 Leaders: Catherine 'Magnificent' and Theodore 'Rough Rider'.
• 4 game modes: Apocalypse, Secret Societies, Tech and Civ Shuffle, Dramatic Age.
• 6 city-states: Caguana, Singapore, Lahore, Vatican City, Taruga and Hunza.
• 3 natural wonders: Bermuda Triangle, Païtiti and the Fountain of Youth.
• 2 world wonders: Biosphère and the Statue of Zeus.
• 1 district: Diplomatic Quarter (and his buildings)
• 1 map: the Highlands.

Updates, balance or polish (from what I recall):

• Diplomatic victory: +2/-3 resolution is now +2/-2, -5 DF per capital, faster DF penalty for pollution...
• Trade screen improved
• AI being less awful and making less stupid choice
• Better worldbuilder
• Red Death season 2
• Some natural wonders balance
• Religious beliefs balance
• Natural wonder picker
• Amenity balance
• Tier2 Gov. Plaza building balance / affordable Naturalist

If we compare to the last expansion pack that gave us major stuff (RNG disasters, Power, Canal/Tunnel, Diplomatic Victory, Future era, 8 civilizations, Eleanor, 2 scenarios, 7 world wonders, 7 natural wonders, Grievances system, GDR and Rock Band), I don't think we will end up be that far from content when we will get all the content from the Season Pass.
But I agree: they exchanged new imposed game mechanic (disaster, diplomatic, future era, GDR/rock band ...) to new optional game mode (apocalypse, secret societies, shuffle, dramatic ages...). We all feel the downgrading from a game-changing expansion to game-enhancing season pass with less polish (due to some pandemic). But somehow, I am okay with this.

I almost forgot: Gran Colombia delenda est.

I'd add that we got a new resource system as part of GS, too.

Personally, I don't count the free stuff because it's not paid for. It's a grey area, I know (would they have done it if NFP wasn't a thing? Or is it a ploy to keep us from getting as excited about Humankind/show how amazing their support is, so people have more reason to go Civ?), but it smarts a bit. Disclosure; I got both XPs in a bundle for about £20, while I paid £33 for NFP. I also don't appreciate the game options being called game modes (they aren't the same thing, and what we got was definitely the former, not the latter), I'd have felt happier had they called them options since I paid expecting there to be fundamental changes to the game.

I wouldn't say that NFP was terrible, and I hope no one misconstrues my intent/feelings to be saying such, but I paid more for NFP than anything else regarding Civ, and it seems to be the smallest one.

Anyway, we're heading off on a tangent. Slightly more on track, I think I would have preferred it if perhaps they had released a proper game mode as part of one of the packs. If they did that, I think the season pass would be easier to accept. It's possible they still will, I guess.

 

[AriochIV]

The release schedule is set by Firaxis, not by us.

Are we being "greedy" in expecting valuable content (that we paid for) every other month? I can't see how.

Are some folks being "greedy" in expecting the free patches in the off months to contain significant content? Well, yes.

 

[Bibor]

satisfy Unlimited CivFanatics wants and needs

Well, maybe, but let us not forget Beyond the Sword was a limited resource that provided almost unlimited civfanatics entertainment and research.

 

[acluewithout]

I also don't appreciate the game options being called game modes (they aren't the same thing, and what we got was definitely the former, not the latter), I'd have felt happier had they called them options since I paid expecting there to be fundamental changes to the game.

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).

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; although, that said, the game modes are optional so also calling them game options admittedly makes some sense, and I do understand the frustration that these optional game modes were not called optional game options and that had you had the option you would have called the optional game modes game options to avoid confusion, but FXS’s mode of thinking was that these options were better described as game modes not game options to distinguish them from the existing game options, and well if you’re unhappy about that then you did always have the option, if your were game, of not buy the optional game options although of course no choice about the actual existing game options because they come with the game anyway and so aren’t really optional. If you see what mean.

Are we being "greedy" in expecting valuable content (that we paid for) every other month? I can't see how.

Are some folks being "greedy" in expecting the free patches in the off months to contain significant content? Well, yes.

Again, I think the root of the problem is just (1) it’s not really an expansion, and some people wanted an expansion or something like an, and (2) the game modes have ended up a bit underwhelming for some people.

I think NFP could very easily end up like RnF, where people were pretty underwhelmed when it came out, but after some tweaks and some other new content it’s ended up being pretty awesome. Although, that somewhat hinges on FXS being willing to revisit the game modes a little and also doing something a bit more like an “expansion” down the road. Don’t know about that...

 

[blackcatatonic]

When the New Frontier Pass was announced, I was excited - not just because it was great to be getting new content after so long, but because I really liked the modular approach and I hoped it would give them more scope to be creative, especially with the game modes.

While this has been true to an extent, I think on balance I would have preferred a traditional third expansion with new mechanics and systems that ran across all of the new Civs, a revamped religion system with a reformation mechanic, better interactions with Free Cities (other than just flip or annex - what if they could become new City States?), maybe an Economic Victory (I know we're likely getting this anyway). I like the new Civs and some of the game modes are really great ideas, but they all feel a little shallow, somehow - I guess they have to be so you can switch them all on at once, but so far they mostly feel like wacky ways to play once or twice and then disable again.

To borrow Anton's ice cream toppings analogy, I think I wanted a chocolate fudge sundae rather than some vanilla ice cream with my choice of six or more different toppings.

 

[LMT]

Before NFP was announced, we went months without any significant changes/enhancements to VI, or even any news about potential changes/enhancements. Now, it's basically monthly with the new content and patches (and announcements).

Personally, I prefer this season pass approach to nothing for about a year then a full expansion. There's very little for me to complain about.

Something to look forward to each month...really, what's not to like?