Future of Major DLC for Civilization VII: Expansion or Pass?

[canadamufc]

While there may be two upcoming patches for VI, we can safely assume VI has run its course for the most part. VI received lots of DLC, including two expansion packs, a lengthy pass, and multiple small scale DLC's. We began with smaller packs, then in 2 years we received Rise and Fall and Gathering Storm, two major expansions. A year later again, we received NFP, a year-long pass with content drip fed throughout the year on a monthly basis.

So now, we have the question of how will VII proceed with its DLC. Should future large-scale DLC be like GS and RF, or should they resemble NFP's type? Ignoring small scale DLC, which would you prefer?

 

[Arcaian]

I feel pretty strongly on this one - I'd much rather all the mechanics be released together, as that allows the mechanics to meaningfully interact with each other. A large collection of smaller DLC makes it difficult to have interconnected mechanics which play off of each other. It also means there are more combinations of possible DLC to take into account for patches and mod requirements. If it's just new content without new mechanics - new leaders, new art, etc - I don't have an issue with that being released separately.

 

[Leucarum]

There's advantages and disadvantages to each.

A myriad of smaller packs, with a more regular release schedule keeps the game fresher for longer, but at the same time it becomes tough to incorporate far-reaching mechanics if every pack has to be stand-alone. It is a nice way to slowly drip-feed new civs though!

On the other hand, having bigger expansion packs let's you get a more cohesive set of mechanics and civs which follow along with the expansion's theme.

I think I'd prefer a mix of the two. One works better for civs, one for mechanics I think...

 

[reddishrecue]

All large scale DLCs should be done so that it would make players more interested in upcoming content in the expansion. This builds suspense, it really does and when the date of release finally comes it just feels right.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I say there should be both. The regular DLCs can be assembled into something that resembles the NFP or sold piecemeal, while expansions are released that provide solid new game mechanics.

 

[Kaan Boztepe]

game publisher are looking exclusively on how those units sold and are less interested in best practice. if the NFP performed better then GS you can bet that they will tell the devs to make it work with new mechanics in that format.

 

[reddishrecue]

game publisher are looking exclusively on how those units sold and are less interested in best practice. if the NFP performed better then GS you can bet that they will tell the devs to make it work with new mechanics in that format.

or who knows what new thing they might figure out. A combination of both or something totally different. Civ 7 just might be bigger than civ 6.

 

[kaspergm]

I feel pretty strongly on this one - I'd much rather all the mechanics be released together, as that allows the mechanics to meaningfully interact with each other. A large collection of smaller DLC makes it difficult to have interconnected mechanics which play off of each other. It also means there are more combinations of possible DLC to take into account for patches and mod requirements. If it's just new content without new mechanics - new leaders, new art, etc - I don't have an issue with that being released separately.

I agree very much, from a gameplay perspective, big coherent expansions seems the clear way to go. Unfortunately, from a marketing pov., the answer may be a different one, so I may have my fears in which direction the development and publishing companies are leaning.

 

[UWHabs]

I'll probably buy all the features anyways, so in that sense, it doesn't matter as much to me. I do think the schedule on NFP was a little tight to get good QA on those pieces or to be able to integrate them in more, so I wouldn't terribly mind if they spaced them out a little more. Like if you split the expansion into maybe 4 pieces instead of 6, with like 3 months between releases rather than 2 months, I think that could work.

But I do think having the full expansion is still necessary for some pieces. The problem with the piecemeal versions is you can't really do major overhauls. Like it would have been really hard to completely change the resource model in a small optional DLC and not have that completely break other pieces around. So in the end, I think doing it basically like 6 seems reasonable - you have a few spots with some major changes and overhauls to basically reset things, and then perhaps there's other parts coming in in smaller optional pieces.

 

[Abaxial]

Irrespective of personal perspective, I think a drip feed of DLC is more likely to be badly handled by the AI.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'd say a mixture of both. However, leave the new mechanics to the big expansions. NFP style DLC should have more of a focus on new civs, new leaders, new wonders, new resources, new city-states etc.

 

[Zegangani]

if the NFP performed better then GS you can bet that they will tell the devs to make it work with new mechanics in that format.

Although that might be true, but it doesn't mean that NFP would have been successful regardless of GS/RnF. In fact, I believe NFP wouldn't have been half as successful, if Civ6 didn't have any Expansions. Yes, most NFP stuff don't require any Expansion, but they are so much less interesting without them. So IMO, the success of NFP is built on the Expansions, not surprising given that they are "Icing on the Cake".

to anwer OP's question; I think a formular similar to Civ6 would be fine. And I would accept an NFP style like DLC Pass if done well (like without breaking the Game with Bugs), though ideally for me would be :
- an NFP style release of 3-4 small DLCs (No Game Modes, but Scenarios - with a 3 Months Gap like others have mentioned) in the first Year (to keep Fans engaged before 1st EXP).
>> 1st big Expansion.
>> 2-3 small DLCs/Scenarios before 2nd Expansion (so there won't be a Year of silence like between RnF and GS, or GS and NFP).
>> 2nd big Expansion.
>> 4-6 NFP Style DLCs.
>> Final Game Update Patch.

An Example on how that would look like:
- let's say Civ7 releases on October 2023 (with 18 base Civs)
3 Month Gap
- Jan 2024 DLC Pack 1 (2 Civs)
3 Month Gap
- Apr 2024 DLC Pack 2 (1 Civ)
3 Month Gap
- Jul 2024 DLC Pack 3 (2 Civs)
6 Month Gap
- Jan 2025 1st Big Expansion (7 Civs)
6 Month Gap
- Jul 2025 DLC Pack 4 (1 Civ)
3 Month Gap
- October 2025 DLC Pack 5 (2 Civs)
6 Month Gap
- Apr 2026 2nd Big Expansion (7 Civs)
9 Month Gap
- Dec 2025 DLC Pack 6 (2 Civs)
3 Month Gap
- Mar 2026 DLC Pack 7 (1 Civ)
3 Month Gap
- Jun 2026 DLC Pack 8 (2 Civs)
3 Month Gap
- September 2026 DLC Pack 9 (2 Civ) (celebrating Civ's 35th Anniversary)
3 Month Gap
- Dec 2026 DLC Pack 10 (1 Civ)
3 Month Gap
- Mar 2027 DLC Pack 11 (2 Civs)

Total Civs: 50 Civs (same as Civ6 has)
Total small DLCs: 11
Expansions: 2

 

[Aurelesk]

NFP was kind of weird to me. Because it was neither a big expansion as R&F or GS: no big mechanic introduced, but neither the small DLC as expansion Pack. It was kind of in between.

The NFP gave us more than new Civilizations and Game Modes. It introduced new mechanics like the 12 City-States, new resources (Honey, Maize), districts (Diplomatic Quarter, Preserve), Natural Wonders (Bermuda Triangle,Paititi, Fountain of Youth), World Wonders (Biosphère, Statue of Zeus, Torre de Belém, Etemenanki), Great People (strong one).

There were some small mechanic changes. For example, the Ethiopia pack changed the yields from City-States. Instead of being 2, 2 and 2 to the District, tier1 and tier2 building, it is now 1, 2 and 3 to tier1, tier2 and tier3 building. It isn't a small change.

The frontier between what is "small DLC" worthy and "big Expansion" worthy is up to you. I believe nobody will have the same answer. Yet, the way it was handled, I believe the NFP defeated the idea of "pick the one you one".
For example, you kind of need to buy them all if you want to build the Diplomatic Quarter for extra Envoys, counting on Chinguetti and Hunza to power up your trade routes, and use that faith on Naturalist that will get have National Parks around Preserve, counting on the Biosphère to power-up the Appeal of Marsh on the Wetlands map.
This is highly specific,I know.

The New Frontier Pass was a great idea to keep the players spellbound. It allowed the players to fully integrate the new Civilizations, Game Modes and mechanics before the next wave coming. It was more successful than the C&S Pack. Yet, in retrospective, I am more doubtful. The NFP had its own limitations (have to work on standard rules), which limited the creative process but not much: sure NFP isn't really balanced, but feels unique. But it left us with some frustrations: Barbarian Clans mode and Corporations and Monopolies mode are worthy to be base mechanic, but they were not well-thought enough to be a staple.

In short: NFP was a neat idea but left me with a bitter taste. Yet, I don't know how they could have changed the formula without ending into a new C&S pack that felt underwhelming.

 

[canadamufc]

>> 1st big Expansion.
>> 2-3 small DLCs/Scenarios before 2nd Expansion (so there won't be a Year of silence like between RnF and GS, or GS and NFP).
>> 2nd big Expansion.
>> 4-6 NFP Style DLCs.
>> Final Game Update Patch.

Overall, this is a good and realistic roadmap. I do think Civ VII will hit 55+ Civs but that is another discussion. (Most likely a 3rd expansion before the final patch seems to be the right place.)

I echo a lot of statements from others here: NFP was heavily restricted in civ design and that took its toll on the quality of it. This leads me to want something else, that all future major expansions should incorporate mechanics from previous expansions. (Such as what GS did with Rise and Fall). Would be very disappointing if they went the same route as they did with NFP on that front.

From my POV, the corporate front is worrying. Not only do I believe it is somewhat dubious to not tell players what they are completely buying (if they do keep the mystery aspect apart of it), but also putting strict time limits on these things leads to heavily rushed design and the creation of bugs (ie initial M&C release). I personally think they should just do with this drip feed content model, as going full one-drop expansions allows for a more coherent mechanics for the rest of the game and a more polished release.

 

[Abaxial]

Another question is this - given the number of people posting about still playing Civ 5, how many are going to switch right away to a Civ 7 that only has 18 civs?

 

[LMT]

Doesn't really matter to me, though if they stick with some of the fantasy-themed mechanics, I hope they will be game options that can be turned off.

But as others have mentioned, passes seem to work well with releasing new civs, expansions for new game mechanics/overhauls.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Another question is this - given the number of people posting about still playing Civ 5, how many are going to switch right away to a Civ 7 that only has 18 civs?

That seems like a non-issue considering the amount of people that went to play vanilla Civ 6 with only 19 civs, after coming from Civ 5's 43 civs.

I'm sure if vanilla Civ VII came with corporations and barbarian clans in the base game, along with the other stuff such as trade and religion, I'm sure many will jump straight in. The civ roster will fill out eventually.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

That seems like a non-issue considering the amount of people that went to play vanilla Civ 6 with only 19 civs, after coming from Civ 5's 43 civs.

I'm sure if vanilla Civ VII came with corporations and barbarian clans in the base game, along with the other stuff such as trade and religion, I'm sure many will jump straight in. The civ roster will fill out eventually.

Agreed, it entirely depends what third of systems are going to be kept, what third of systems discarded, and what third of systems improved.

Had Civ 6 released without Great Works and Trade Routes I don't think I'd be as popular on launch.

Especially considering how much Civ 5 lacked before the first expansion pack.

 

[UWHabs]

Agreed, it entirely depends what third of systems are going to be kept, what third of systems discarded, and what third of systems improved.

Had Civ 6 released without Great Works and Trade Routes I don't think I'd be as popular on launch.

Especially considering how much Civ 5 lacked before the first expansion pack.

Yeah, if you have good game mechanisms, and enough shiny new pieces, people will try out the new version even with only 1/3 of the roster. Especially since with a new game comes new leaders and abilities, so it's not like we're losing 35+ civs, it's more like we're simply gaining 18 or 19 or whatever new ones. Yes, Rome will still have Legions, but England in Civ 7 is going to be different from any of the 7 flavours of England we got this time around.

But the key is to make sure that the changes are worth it. Yes, if it's just Civ 6.5, and doesn't feel like a new game, then it's going to be a lot tougher to draw in new players.

 

[Jeppetto]

I am greedy I want it all. Start of season, an Expansion with heavily intertwined mechanics. Over the course of the Season, smaller DLCs with disconnected small bites fo content.