Fireside chat with Andrew Frederiksen

[GeneralZift]

I'm not going to disagree with the fact that 10 civs per age does feel kind of empty when it comes to switching, especially when Humankind launched with 60, though to be fair civs are more in depth than the different cultures in Humankind.
But to say that Firaxis outright lied about the actual number of civs on launch seems disingenuous to me. They said they'd launch with 30 civs, and they did that.

By all means they did not strictly lie, but for veterans '30 Civs' brought something else to mind than '10 Civs per age'

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

It's not the 30 Civs I think they lied about, or that even bothers me most. It's that they had to gall to say it's the most Civs ever on launch after redefining and reducing what a Civ was, and admitting in this interview that they need to triple the number of Civs to get to the same level.

They know they have short changed their fans

 

[Skojardu]

This sort of chicanery is why there is the term baker's dozen (eg 13), because bakers engaged in shrinkflation :,( Firaxis, take note

 

[stealth_nsk]

It's not the 30 Civs I think they lied about, or that even bothers me most. It's that they had to gall to say it's the most Civs ever on launch after redefining and reducing what a Civ was, and admitting in this interview that they need to triple the number of Civs to get to the same level.

They know they have short changed their fans

I think Firaxis did it in completely honest way. First, they announce that they will release most Civs on launch, but after they saw speculations based on this, they told the actual number really quickly.

I don't know why people clutch so tightly on word about "triple". As I understand, the person didn't say anything about "triple than in Civ6", it just meant that in terms of gameplay it will be "civ per age" that matter.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I think Firaxis did it in completely honest way. First, they announce that they will release most Civs on launch, but after they saw speculations based on this, they told the actual number really quickly.

I don't know why people clutch so tightly on word about "triple". As I understand, the person didn't say anything about "triple than in Civ6", it just meant that in terms of gameplay it will be "civ per age" that matter.

civ V launched with 18 Civs

Civ VI launched with 18 Civs

Firaxis have themselves admitted that because of the changes they've made to Civs they need triple as many.

Civ VII launches with 30 nucivs (10 in old money acknowledged by Firaxis in this interview by the triple acknowledgement they laid out). Firaxis simultaneously claim they've launched with the most Civs ever, after redefining what a Civ is and acknowledging they need triple as many to meet the same need / expectations

Thats why I'm clinging to it. That's why I think it's dishonest and crappy politician speak.

 

[UWHabs]

civ V launched with 18 Civs

Civ VI launched with 18 Civs

Firaxis have themselves admitted that because of the changes they've made to Civs they need triple as many.

Civ VII launches with 30 nucivs (10 in old money acknowledged by Firaxis in this interview by the triple acknowledgement they laid out). Firaxis simultaneously claim they've launched with the most Civs ever, after redefining what a Civ is and acknowledging they need triple as many to meet the same need / expectations

Thats why I'm clinging to it. That's why I think it's dishonest and crappy politician speak.

I don't know if I would describe it as dishonest, but it's definitely politician speak. What they've said is technically true, but it feels a little empty. When they first announced the eras system, my initial feel is that they should have launched with about 15 civs per era. So maybe a little less than we had in previous games following the 3x rule, but still in raw numbers a substantial number. That to me feels like an amount that means you're not getting the same civs over and over again in each game, but not so many that you can't make your way through them if you play regularly.

So yeah, despite paying for the expensive pack at launch, only getting 13x3 civs does feel like a letdown. I'm still a little hopeful that they might give a few free civs out in the fall as a little goodwill gesture to get some improved reviews.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I'm still a little hopeful that they might give a few free civs out in the fall as a little goodwill gesture to get some improved reviews.

After reading some number of reviews, I really doubt free civs would improve reviews:

1. Small number of civilizations almost never appear as a reason for negative reviews. Some time ago we had ChatGPT analysis of reviews and this point just wasn't there
2. Top reason for bad reviews was UI, but for some reason despite UI being massively improved, reviews didn't become better. It's pretty hard to say what's in people heads

 

[GeneralZift]

After reading some number of reviews, I really doubt free civs would improve reviews:

1. Small number of civilizations almost never appear as a reason for negative reviews. Some time ago we had ChatGPT analysis of reviews and this point just wasn't there
2. Top reason for bad reviews was UI, but for some reason despite UI being massively improved, reviews didn't become better. It's pretty hard to say what's in people heads

Bad reviews come from a combination of bad impressions, and then the one that floats to the top is the most obvious, which was the half-finished UI.
I think you find more in-depth reviews (like from YTers, game review channels and websites etc.) tend to also complain about the mechanics, and lack of game options (map size), which includes Civ or Leader variety.

I recall some comments on this forum about how euro-centric the Civ choices are for this game.
Plus, we are missing a black male Leader, and also a lot of classic Civ leads - Elizabeth, Genghis, Montezuma, Alexander.

Free Civs could change minds for sure. But they don't need to be free - as long as they came in a big combination pack (NOT sold separately to milk them) - they could then market it as a big comeback for Civ7.

We have 13 right now right?
So let's say they release another 3 per age for a big pack - with 3 new leaders?

Imagine:
Genghis (rep for existing Mongols), Montezuma (classic Rep, paired with Aztecs), and one new Leader.
Antiquity: Goths (Germanic), Huns (Asian), Aztecs (American)
Exploration: Byzantines, Ottomans, and (one American or African Civ)
Modern: Italy, Korea OR South-East Asian Rep, Morocco or Ethiopia.

If you charged £14.99 for that, you'd make a mean profit, and I wouldn't personally say that it's overkill.
People would love heavy hitters and representation from all corners of the world. Plus more militaristic gameplay.
If you had 1 free option for each category additionally then that would appease the remaining people.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Free Civs could change minds for sure. But they don't need to be free - as long as they came in a big combination pack (NOT sold separately to milk them) - they could then market it as a big comeback for Civ7.

They surely, could, but it's hard to predict.

We have 13 right now right?
So let's say they release another 3 per age for a big pack - with 3 new leaders?

If you charged £14.99 for that, you'd make a mean profit, and I wouldn't personally say that it's overkill.

I'd expect a full expansion with some new gameplay. Previous standard was for expansions to have around half of the original game civs, so at least 15 with 5 civs per age looks logical. Although it's unlikely to cost that low. First, you need to look at the expansions, second, you need to compare it with initial packs, which costed $30 each (otherwise that would totally ruin reviews instead of improving them). I'd expect expansion to cost around $50.

Regarding profits, that's another complex topics, because companies count profit from the whole product including all DLCs, so in many cases original game is planned to make less than its production cost and only with DLCs it makes profits.

 

[UWHabs]

Bad reviews come from a combination of bad impressions, and then the one that floats to the top is the most obvious, which was the half-finished UI.
I think you find more in-depth reviews (like from YTers, game review channels and websites etc.) tend to also complain about the mechanics, and lack of game options (map size), which includes Civ or Leader variety.

I recall some comments on this forum about how euro-centric the Civ choices are for this game.
Plus, we are missing a black male Leader, and also a lot of classic Civ leads - Elizabeth, Genghis, Montezuma, Alexander.

Free Civs could change minds for sure. But they don't need to be free - as long as they came in a big combination pack (NOT sold separately to milk them) - they could then market it as a big comeback for Civ7.

We have 13 right now right?
So let's say they release another 3 per age for a big pack - with 3 new leaders?

Imagine:
Genghis (rep for existing Mongols), Montezuma (classic Rep, paired with Aztecs), and one new Leader.
Antiquity: Goths (Germanic), Huns (Asian), Aztecs (American)
Exploration: Byzantines, Ottomans, and (one American or African Civ)
Modern: Italy, Korea OR South-East Asian Rep, Morocco or Ethiopia.

If you charged £14.99 for that, you'd make a mean profit, and I wouldn't personally say that it's overkill.
People would love heavy hitters and representation from all corners of the world. Plus more militaristic gameplay.
If you had 1 free option for each category additionally then that would appease the remaining people.

Yeah, free civs wouldn't necessarily directly turn people's opinion, but would be a way to get a few people back into the game, give people nice vibes, and maybe people will change their mind on some of the other launch problems (like the UI, which is way better than at launch).

It's probably not going to happen. And I certainly wouldn't expect any of the big "name" civs (like Aztecs or Byzantines). But a few bonus civs (would love 2 each for base game and each of the Deluxe/Founders) could help fill a bunch of gaps, make people feel better about their purchases, and just give a better feel and impression to the game.

 

[GeneralZift]

They surely, could, but it's hard to predict.


I'd expect a full expansion with some new gameplay. Previous standard was for expansions to have around half of the original game civs, so at least 15 with 5 civs per age looks logical. Although it's unlikely to cost that low. First, you need to look at the expansions, second, you need to compare it with initial packs, which costed $30 each (otherwise that would totally ruin reviews instead of improving them). I'd expect expansion to cost around $50.

Regarding profits, that's another complex topics, because companies count profit from the whole product including all DLCs, so in many cases original game is planned to make less than its production cost and only with DLCs it makes profits.

$30 sounds 'reasonable' for the pack instead of $15 - but I don't think anyone is paying $50 for an expansion.

If they took the pack I suggested and made it into an expansion via adding new mechanics then I would naturally agree with you that it would be quite good for them.
Priced too high will do the opposite effect though.
I think Rise and Fall cost 30$ on release?

 

[stealth_nsk]

$30 sounds 'reasonable' for the pack instead of $15 - but I don't think anyone is paying $50 for an expansion.

If they took the pack I suggested and made it into an expansion via adding new mechanics then I would naturally agree with you that it would be quite good for them.
Priced too high will do the opposite effect though.
I think Rise and Fall cost 30$ on release?

Yes, but the concept of fair price comes from comparison. We have the following comparison points:

1. Two initial DLC packs, containing 4 civs, 2 leaders and some more content cost $30 each. This means expansion should cost noticeably more, otherwise owners of those packs will be very unhappy
2. Civ7 costs $70 vs. Civ6 cost of $60, which means DLC and expansions could be slightly more expensive
3. Civ6 expansions were $30 and $40

So, expected price for Civ7 expansion would be $40-50. I agree that $50 could cause additional negativity, but $40 looks pretty reasonable.

 

[Krikkit1]

civ V launched with 18 Civs

Civ VI launched with 18 Civs

Firaxis have themselves admitted that because of the changes they've made to Civs they need triple as many.

Civ VII launches with 30 nucivs (10 in old money acknowledged by Firaxis in this interview by the triple acknowledgement they laid out). Firaxis simultaneously claim they've launched with the most Civs ever, after redefining what a Civ is and acknowledging they need triple as many to meet the same need / expectations

Thats why I'm clinging to it. That's why I think it's dishonest and crappy politician speak.

Saying 1 civ in Civ VII is 1/3 civ in Civ1-6 ignores the level of uniqueness in Civ7 civs... you only get them for 1/3 of the game, but they have ~7-12 abilities (UA +Civics+Traditions) as well as having 2 UUs and 1 or 2 UIs

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Saying 1 civ in Civ VII is 1/3 civ in Civ1-6 ignores the level of uniqueness in Civ7 civs... you only get them for 1/3 of the game, but they have ~7-12 abilities (UA +Civics+Traditions) as well as having 2 UUs and 1 or 2 UIs

Then I don't know what to tell you because that means the premise of this thread is Andrew Frederiksen ignoring the uniqueness in Civ 7 Civs.

This is a firaxis producer telling an audience in October last year that the known consequence of their decision making is the requirement to triple the. Umber of Civs, and then they didn't do that for launch.

Maybe Civs have more uniqueness is a good enough trade off for you, but the firaxis producer has not made that argument. He has simply straight up conceded they needed to triple the number of Civs. Then for launch they did not.

 

[evonannoredars]

Then I don't know what to tell you because that means the premise of this thread is Andrew Frederiksen ignoring the uniqueness in Civ 7 Civs.

This is a firaxis producer telling an audience in October last year that the known consequence of their decision making is the requirement to triple the. Umber of Civs, and then they didn't do that for launch.

Maybe Civs have more uniqueness is a good enough trade off for you, but the firaxis producer has not made that argument. He has simply straight up conceded they needed to triple the number of Civs. Then for launch they did not.

Yes, he said they needed to triple the number. However, what value that number is is something you have come up with yourself. He never said the number that needed tripling was 18.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Yes, he said they needed to triple the number. However, what value that number is is something you have come up with yourself. He never said the number that needed tripling was 18.

I've not come up with 18 myself. Firaxis have come up with it consistently for the last 2 releases

 

[Xefjord]

After reading some number of reviews, I really doubt free civs would improve reviews:

1. Small number of civilizations almost never appear as a reason for negative reviews. Some time ago we had ChatGPT analysis of reviews and this point just wasn't there
2. Top reason for bad reviews was UI, but for some reason despite UI being massively improved, reviews didn't become better. It's pretty hard to say what's in people heads

Small number of civs was my primary complaint after I got over my angst about Civ switching. I ended up liking civ switching more than I expected. But it became abundantly clear it was gonna need a lot more civs than it has now to really feel good for the roleplayer in me.

 

[evonannoredars]

I've not come up with 18 myself. Firaxis have come up with it consistently for the last 2 releases

Sure, you have reasoning behind why you picked that number, but the fact you chose 18 civs to be the number that you think should've been tripled remains.

I think 10 is a reasonable minimum number to triple, but likewise I'm just speculating since he did not indicate what number they should have three times as many as.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

Yes, he said they needed to triple the number. However, what value that number is is something you have come up with yourself. He never said the number that needed tripling was 18.

Oh come on....

The dev in question was talking generally about needing to triple amount of Civs, the 18 number is just the bare minimum that past Civilizations launched with.. No matter how you try to explain it away, Firaxis failed to provide us with an adaquet amount of civs per age

 

[Civinator]

It is like saying this is the biggest box of chcolate ever, but you have only increased the box but with less chocolate in it.

That is a nice description of the current poor situation of Civ 7.