jtb1127
Deity
I might be happier if someone else took over the series. Maybe Firaxis can still make it but I wish 2k would sell Firaxis.
Expansion Packs
- Thread starter 00konichiwa00
- Start date
anandus
Errorist
Watch out what you wish for. 2K Games isn't the best publisher, but it isn't the worst either.
Imagine Civ being in the hands of EA or Ubisoft. Horrible DRM and real worthless overpriced DLC instead of Steam and decent DLC.
turtlefang
Warlord
- Joined
- May 9, 2011
- Messages
- 155
to agoodfella:
Eh, don't kid yourself. I'm no fan of the publishers, but the Civ series is one of the best (if not THE best) known PC game franchises in history (and certainly the most beloved).
I've followed Civ from II to V - and enjoyed all of them, some more than others. I am definely in the camp of wanting another in the series.
But business decisions are made based on $$, not on love. If Civ 5 doesn't perform to expectations (and I hope it has), then I see a business decision getting made that:
1) Not do another series
2) Radically change the game to appeal to another audience (such as a FPS type using the Civ name)
3) A really long wait until some decides to try it one more time
Having been in business for much longer than I like to admit, its just the way it is. And there always other projects demanding resources.
Now, if CiV has done well, then you will see CiVI - and hopefully, it will be better than CiV.
Eh, don't kid yourself. I'm no fan of the publishers, but the Civ series is one of the best (if not THE best) known PC game franchises in history (and certainly the most beloved).
I've followed Civ from II to V - and enjoyed all of them, some more than others. I am definely in the camp of wanting another in the series.
But business decisions are made based on $$, not on love. If Civ 5 doesn't perform to expectations (and I hope it has), then I see a business decision getting made that:
1) Not do another series
2) Radically change the game to appeal to another audience (such as a FPS type using the Civ name)
3) A really long wait until some decides to try it one more time
Having been in business for much longer than I like to admit, its just the way it is. And there always other projects demanding resources.
Now, if CiV has done well, then you will see CiVI - and hopefully, it will be better than CiV.
Civsassin
Immortal
I happen to be a big fan of CiV. I enjoyed CIV. It is a mature product with a lot of features. However, I particularly like being on the ground floor for a radically different game, which CiV is. Many players preferred the CIV mechanics, but I think that CiV's are more interesting. Give CiV two expansions as CIV had, and it will be as good if not better.
I could see how it would take the developers time to make this game right. With all of the changes, the game mechanics were complicated, requiring player feedback to give them a sense of them where the games stood. They've listened, and the game has evolved into a wonderful experience. I look forward to a CiVI, but I am in no hurry. Evolve CiV to its full potential and then worry about sequels. CiV is a GREAT game.
Considering Civ5 will never get A expansion, we'll never see that come to pass.
Because those who do play it never turn it off because of the long load times, they leave in between turns to do other stuff, or alt tab out of the game and leave it run in the background. I know several people who did this.
Yah.. and it would probably closer to Civ-Facebook then Civ4. In which case its better if the series just died now and saved itself further embarassment.
The only way I see the series saving itself is 2K giving the series to another set of developers who are fans of the earlier games and cutting Sid and Firaxis out compeletly.
Thoughtful Thug
Deity
No one here has any proof, nor do I, that the DLCs were made after the official game was released.
The truth is that if a expansion pack is to be released sometime at the end of the year, then you have to at least consider whether or not you are willing to pay possibly 30 US dollars along with all of the DLCs that you had bought as well as the game (60 US dollars if you didn't wait for some Steam deals).
The truth is that if a expansion pack is to be released sometime at the end of the year, then you have to at least consider whether or not you are willing to pay possibly 30 US dollars along with all of the DLCs that you had bought as well as the game (60 US dollars if you didn't wait for some Steam deals).
I am sorry you don't like the game! But there are plenty of people on the other side like me who love the game!
So I would say since the sales are good civ will be around for the next iteration.
I never have really had problems with load times, but I play on smaller maps and have a beefy rig
anandus
Errorist
I don't know anyone who does this. The people I know play the game instead.
The amount played on Steam is an indicator of the game's succes, but also the amount of sales, which is about 0.9 million in America and Europe alone. Which is one thing, but even more interesting is the fact that it still sells quote good every month and it's still a rising line (so it aren't all disgruntled pre-order people
)First of, Civworld is a different branch of the series, just like Civilization Revolution is.
And secondly you could face the fact that for a lot of people Civ 5 is really enjoyable. And even Civworld is really enjoyable for some people (not me, though).
Like the above poster, I'm sorry that you don't like the game, but there are a lot of people that do like the game and it isn't a bad game at all.
Maybe not the game you (or any other of the Civ 5-complainers, I'm not specifically talking to you) would want to see, but that doesn't make it a bad game.
I also love CiV, and don't have any turn-time problems, but I hardly play huge maps (I only experience long loading times in the late game on huge maps).
Neither does anyone have any proof the expansion packs (for Civ4 or possibly Civ5) were made after the official game was launched
If the expansion is worth it I wouldn't have any trouble paying more money. I've bought CiV, and all the DLC (outside the sales) and it was worth every penny. So I wouldn't mind paying some more, if the expansion is worth it. And otherwise I'd wait for a 66% or 75% off sale.
And no other gamers leave the game open when playing other games, when their AFK for a little while..?
Though agreed, load times are long.
Lance of Llanwy
King
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2006
- Messages
- 710
They are, but, ultimately, when I start-up Civ V, I tend to play it for at least a few hours at a time, so it isn't actually much loading time at all versus how much time I play.
I honestly have no idea why they wouldn't release an expansion pack. Or, indeed, why they couldn't. The game is obviously doing well for itself. The user-base is there, the interest is there(they wouldn't still be cranking out DLC if people weren't buying it), it just seems like a no-brainer to me.
Besides, there's no reason it would need to disrupt future DLC. It even gives them an excuse to push a lot more DLC, including the already-existing DLC.
That settles the case, you can't argue with that.
Civsassin
Immortal
And to make a statement like this, I assume you have some proof or insider knowledge. Or is it just an hunch? I suspect it's the latter.
turtlefang
Warlord
- Joined
- May 9, 2011
- Messages
- 155
To Civsassin
I'm actually a big fan of CiV too. I didn't care much for CiIV - don't know why, it just didn't much for me. I played it a while but it was never a favorite of mine.
I'm hoping for an expansion or two of CiV - but my comment regarding CiVI was just that I hope the game continues to improve. It wasn't intended as a knock.
No game has ever come out perfect. My favorite games usually have three or four major patches and one or two expansions before they get to where I really think they have reached thier limit. But in each of the series of follow and spend my money on, I expect the newest game to be better than the last.
In CiV, I think the designer's made a great deal of improvements. The biggest one - again, in my opinion - was getting rid of the Stacks of Doom. Now, we can argue whether one unit per tile or two units per tile is correct - or maybe even three where you get combat bonuses if you have a melee unit, a range unit, and a mobile (CAV/TANK) rather than the current style - but that's a "minor" issue relative to unlimited stacks of units who can attack everything in thier path.
I'm actually a big fan of CiV too. I didn't care much for CiIV - don't know why, it just didn't much for me. I played it a while but it was never a favorite of mine.
I'm hoping for an expansion or two of CiV - but my comment regarding CiVI was just that I hope the game continues to improve. It wasn't intended as a knock.
No game has ever come out perfect. My favorite games usually have three or four major patches and one or two expansions before they get to where I really think they have reached thier limit. But in each of the series of follow and spend my money on, I expect the newest game to be better than the last.
In CiV, I think the designer's made a great deal of improvements. The biggest one - again, in my opinion - was getting rid of the Stacks of Doom. Now, we can argue whether one unit per tile or two units per tile is correct - or maybe even three where you get combat bonuses if you have a melee unit, a range unit, and a mobile (CAV/TANK) rather than the current style - but that's a "minor" issue relative to unlimited stacks of units who can attack everything in thier path.
Civsassin
Immortal
As I stated, I think they've done a great job with CiV. I don't want to think about CiVI with so much left with CiV. They will definitely have a couple of expansions while continuing with the DLC model to add content. I am looking forward to watching the game continue to develop into a game comparable to BTS. We have a long way to go.
I don't know. It's been eight years since Simcity 4 came out (the pinnacle of that series), and there's still no Simcity 5 in sight.
Skwink
FRIIIIIIIIIITZ
- Joined
- May 14, 2010
- Messages
- 5,688
And many called Civ IV the pinnacle of the series, but there is a Civ V.
True, it's not a perfect comparison. I'm just pointing out that even franchises that look healthy can suddenly stop due to the developers wanting to go in different directions.
00konichiwa00
Prince
It added a lot more than that. vassal was a nice thing, also other things I don't remember now. but both civ 4 exp. added lots of features, especially BtS did add nice thing
Sorry people but I wouldn't hold your breath on getting a meaningful expansion pack.
Firaxis has their hands full with Civ world and their Multi-platform RTS using the Unreal Engine, not to mention the Civilization 5 mobile project.
http://www.vg247.com/2011/04/27/firaxis-working-on-unannounced-strategy-title-civilization-revolution-ii-canned/
With all that on their plate, I doubt they have many resources for Civilization 5. At least they canned Civ Rev 2 anyway. Not contemporary enough I guess.
What is this rts I hear mentioned? I'd like to look into it.
Well I think the way things are going with the massive sales (you're a plum if you spend much more than 10 on Civ5 vanilla nowadays) they are approaching the Steam classic Free2Play DLC model.
Maybe they just realise that this is the most profitable. Whether this means an expansion is planned or not I don't know. If they can push new content and earn as much as a boxed expansion (and reach as many people) then why wouldn't they. Cuts out a lot of advertising and production costs.
If they make enough on DLCs to give us some big extra content in patches, I think that's a model we should praise. If, of course.
