Civ Switching - Will it prevent you from buying Civ 7?

[Siptah]

In my opinion it would have been much better to put a system of evolution of Culture with the civilization that gradually develops traits (either positive or even negative) with the possibility that these traits open up the possibility of particular buildings, particular types of units with unique characteristics of the civilization , particular forms of government etc... a bit like religion was in Civ 5 (or doing something better) instead of being forced to go from Egypt to Mongolia just because you have 3 Horses

Would have been possible, but it would lack the great thrill of the crisis. Non-MP civ-like games are usually decided pretty early on, and then it's just a question of whether you want to click a few thousand times to play it out or not. You don't need to capture all capitals to know that you've won when you already have 1/2 of the map. There is/was a need to shake things up. And the idea that after such a "traumatic event", you continue with something new, is very appealing to me. As is having contemporary civs (I don't care fore the immortal leaders, I would gladly get rid of them).

So, for me, and this is surely very personal, just stacking some bonuses and playing on is a more boring variant. I know it is not everyone's cup of tea to create these kind of dramatic narratives with foreseeable outcomes. People and play styles differ. But I'm sure we can all get behind: rather a dramatic and effective crisis than dark ages with are actually not a penalty but make you stronger...

I've heard that the crises of Stellaris were a great inspiration for this, but that's the one PDX GS that I haven't actually played. I would be happy to hear some Stellaris players report if they actually are that good as a disruptive and rewarding element.

 

[lt22677]

Would have been possible, but it would lack the great thrill of the crisis. Non-MP civ-like games are usually decided pretty early on, and then it's just a question of whether you want to click a few thousand times to play it out or not. You don't need to capture all capitals to know that you've won when you already have 1/2 of the map. There is/was a need to shake things up. And the idea that after such a "traumatic event", you continue with something new, is very appealing to me. As is having contemporary civs (I don't care fore the immortal leaders, I would gladly get rid of them).

So, for me, and this is surely very personal, just stacking some bonuses and playing on is a more boring variant. I know it is not everyone's cup of tea to create these kind of dramatic narratives with foreseeable outcomes. People and play styles differ. But I'm sure we can all get behind: rather a dramatic and effective crisis than dark ages with are actually not a penalty but make you stronger...

I've heard that the crises of Stellaris were a great inspiration for this, but that's the one PDX GS that I haven't actually played. I would be happy to hear some Stellaris players report if they actually are that good as a disruptive and rewarding element.

Stellaris player with all the expansions, note that there are end game crises, the Midgame Crisis and the wars in paradise (I won't go into details to avoid spoilers), but be careful that Stellaris in the meantime has no eras and is also in real-time , in addition obviously to the different setting and no it doesn't force you to change your Race (it has a mechanic in which at a certain point due to an event you can choose whether to lead the rioters or the race you were leading, but in fact it is an event that does not It's supposed to happen and I won't give any further spoilers about it)

 

[Kev1916]

Sorry for the tangent, but what news was this?

From a youtube Dude Marbozir - with the new "civ" game having a major cash grab with customisations (boke) like WTH fog of war skin and 6 ! DLC in the first 7 months - and the all platforms release

Mods are dead or at least IMHO severely restricted for years .

PC gamers are best IMHO to look to another game or stick with Civ 6

 

[Arent11]

I have little doubt there will be more or less reasonable progressions for Europe and East Asia from the start; other regions will hopefully get better over time...

Yes, I just fear it might force me down a road that I don't want to play.

Basically, I like science & warrior civs. Now, Rome will probably a good start for war, but if the only sane route for them forces me to adopt some weird civs that go completely against my preferred playstyle or force me to switch to Korea or something strange, this would be really annoying.

Again, there are so many games I have to play, I can also buy civ later in a sale or just wait for player feedback on the civ switching.

 

[Zaarin]

6 ! DLC

Once again, where are you getting 6 DLC? I only know of Crossroads of the World and Right to Rule, each of which include 6 leaders and civs. Think there might be a misunderstanding there...

customisations (boke) like WTH fog of war skin

What does that have to do with modding? If you don't want them, don't buy them. That seems pretty simple.

Mods are dead or at least IMHO severely restricted for years .

This feels like hyperbolic overreaction based on zero information. Less than zero information because Civ has always supported modding so it's based on ignoring information.

 

[Siptah]

Once again, where are you getting 6 DLC? I only know of Crossroads of the World and Right to Rule, each of which include 6 leaders and civs. Think there might be a misunderstanding there...

There are these two packs, the pre-oder bonus (Tecumseh), two leader personas (part of the deluxe pack) and the deluxe cosmetic pack. Maybe that's how they got to 6?

 

[Zaarin]

There are these two packs, the pre-oder bonus (Tecumseh), two leader personas (part of the deluxe pack) and the deluxe cosmetic pack. Maybe that's how they got to 6?

I wasn't counting Tecumseh/Shawnee or the deluxe/founder packs, but I guess that would add up.

 

[Kev1916]

Once again, where are you getting 6 DLC? I only know of Crossroads of the World and Right to Rule, each of which include 6 leaders and civs. Think there might be a misunderstanding there...


What does that have to do with modding? If you don't want them, don't buy them. That seems pretty simple.


This feels like hyperbolic overreaction based on zero information. Less than zero information because Civ has always supported modding so it's based on ignoring information.

? it's on the offical site
"
The Right To Rule Collection contains 6 DLCs, all of which will be available on or by September 2025 (subject to change). Each DLC will be delivered automatically in-game on release.

6 DLC'S In 6 months lol no chance any modder is going to design a new leader, skin , whtever


No Mods you can sell skins to the fortnight fans ands other fans who like skins - "civ" 7 is a major cash grab and its the first "civ" game lauched on all platforms

 

[Siptah]

? it's on the offical site
"
The Right To Rule Collection contains 6 DLCs, all of which will be available on or by September 2025 (subject to change). Each DLC will be delivered automatically in-game on release.


No Mods you can sell skins to the fortnight fans ands other fans who like skins

The worst part is the sentence before imho, not the fact that there are 6 DLC: "The Right to Rule Collection adds 2 new leaders, 4 new civilizations, 4 new wonders, a special cosmetic bonus, and more to Sid Meier's Civilization VII." So, this content is split over 6 DLC? Should be 4 at max...

 

[Zaarin]

? it's on the offical site
"
The Right To Rule Collection contains 6 DLCs, all of which will be available on or by September 2025 (subject to change). Each DLC will be delivered automatically in-game on release.

Pretty sure that's a delivery method for the four civs and two leaders. Nice to know they can be enabled and disabled individually. But it's reasonable to assume based on Steam that it will be a single DLC.

No Mods you can sell skins to the fortnight fans ands other fans who like skins

Thanks for confirming it's just Boomer hyperbole. DLC hasn't prevented Civ5, Civ6, or thousands of other games from being moddable.

 

[pokiehl]

From a youtube Dude Marbozir - with the new "civ" game having a major cash grab with customisations (boke) like WTH fog of war skin and 6 ! DLC in the first 7 months - and the all platforms release

Mods are dead or at least IMHO severely restricted for years .

PC gamers are best IMHO to look to another game or stick with Civ 6

Paradox games have a metric ton of DLC and all have very open modding. This hysteria doesn’t check out. You shouldn’t spread random rumors with the confidence that they’re the truth.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I will provide a bit of a nuanced answer: I don't particularly care about switching civ id/names but I like the idea of changing civ bonuses per era. I also love many of the other new features like army commanders. So I plan to buy the game.

 

[Kev1916]

Pretty sure that's a delivery method for the four civs and two leaders. Nice to know they can be enabled and disabled individually. But it's reasonable to assume based on Steam that it will be a single DLC.


Thanks for confirming it's just Boomer hyperbole. DLC hasn't prevented Civ5, Civ6, or thousands of other games from being moddable.

The decision to release on so many platforms at once is very ambitious... but I get the feeling the mod support and UI choices are going to be very restricted, and updates/fixes will be slow, just my opinion.
Check any officical update's or interview's and there is ZERO mention of mods

 

[pokiehl]

To be fair, modding is pretty damn confusing for paradox games, but that's as much to do with the major patches that change core game mechanics as the expansion packs. In fact, because the two are released together, the patches are basically bits of an expansion pack that everyone gets for free. But knowing what mod is compatible with which version of the game and which combination of expansions does limit the modding scene there IMO - both in terms of development and popular uptake.

Yeah; I just mentioned it as an example that directly contradicts the idea that more DLC = bad for modding.

 

[pokiehl]

Also, I have to add that some people REALLY overstate the impact of modding. The idea that "Firaxis is gonna lose DLC sales to mods so they want to limit modding" is pretty silly to me, and I think it's a really egotistical claim to make if any modder truly believes this. (No modders in the Civ 6 community have this belief, as far as I know).

Mod users of Civ games are a pretty small portion of the player base, especially when you consider the proliferation of Civ 6 and Civ 7 on console and mobile platforms that don't have modding support.

I am a modder myself, and I absolutely love mods. They're what draw me to Civ. I haven't played Civ 6 unmodded since they released the modding tools in 2017.

But even I will tell you that, given the choice between official Firaxis content and modded content, I will pick official Firaxis content every time. There are great modders out there to be sure, but no modder has the resources of a AAA game development studio. Official content will generally be of higher quality (ESPECIALLY graphics and music), be more likely to better fit with the game's balance and just work properly, and be guaranteed support. Truly, I want as much DLC as possible. I hope Firaxis builds on this game for a long time.

 

[Professor Phobo]

\

Also, I have to add that some people REALLY overstate the impact of modding. The idea that "Firaxis is gonna lose DLC sales to mods so they want to limit modding" is pretty silly to me, and I think it's a really egotistical claim to make if any modder truly believes this. (No modders in the Civ 6 community have this belief, as far as I know).

Mod users of Civ games are a pretty small portion of the player base, especially when you consider the proliferation of Civ 6 and Civ 7 on console and mobile platforms that don't have modding support.

I am a modder myself, and I absolutely love mods. They're what draw me to Civ. I haven't played Civ 6 unmodded since they released the modding tools in 2017.

But even I will tell you that, given the choice between official Firaxis content and modded content, I will pick official Firaxis content every time. There are great modders out there to be sure, but no modder has the resources of a AAA game development studio. Official content will generally be of higher quality, be more likely to better fit with the game's balance and just work properly, and be guaranteed support. Truly, I want as much DLC as possible. I hope Firaxis builds on this game for a long time.

I'm genuinely hoping they might support it long enough we see the fabled "third expansion" come out.

 

[xphantomx]

Poor set of polling options.

I really am interested in the focus of Ages and morphing civs, but I’m not buying Civ 7 because of it.

 

[Zaarin]

\


I'm genuinely hoping they might support it long enough we see the fabled "third expansion" come out.

This does seem to be the trend in the industry lately.

 

[pokiehl]

Lies, my minor rebalancing mod was so good that it completely tanked sales of Rise and Fall and Gathering Storm. It was so good that not even not a single one of the 64,898 unique subscribers went on to buy either expansion. If it wasn't for me, they'd have doubled their sales!
</sarcasm> in case it wasn't obvious, but looking at it, it does look like I had as many unique subscribers as estimated sales for Rise and Fall, which I wasn't expecting

8 Ages of Pace was a great mod with a very impressive subscriber number and inspired a lot of similar mods (including from me!), but that estimate for the sales of Rise and Fall is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off.

Civ 6 has sold over 11,000,000 copies total (it breached 11,000,000 copies in 2021; official figures after that aren't available. Clearly more by now). There's no way that one of the major expansions only had like 0.5% penetration of the total userbase--especially considering all the bundle deals over the years.

 

[pokiehl]

Other websites give estimates in the same ballpark which also surprised me. Maybe they're not counting bundles at all? Or their algorithms are broken? Maybe they're not counting the fact that review rates for an expansion are much lower (I presume) than for the base game? I'd expect an XP pack to get ~10% of the sales of base game, not <0.5%

I can’t see how they’d have access to the information.

If 2k doesn’t disclose the sales numbers (for example, the 11,000,000 copies sold is from a call with investors which is public), then no one knows. So my guess is they’re just scraping some flawed info from somewhere and making incorrect assumptions.

I guess I can't complain about the flattery when I fished for it lol

It’s the truth. Civ 6 suffered from awful pacing issues, and your approach of staggered cost increases was very smart and worked well.

We can only hope pacing in Civ 7 is far better…