Hint at 3rd expansion from Firaxis??

[awesome]

Don't remember seeing this. Are you referring to where he says he thinks there will be "two more expansions"? Because at the time GS hadn't been announced, so I assumed he meant GS and one other.

To be honest, I just saw the quote today, so maybe.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Didn’t the person on here who showed up for handful of posts and leak the leader list including world congress and saying Elenor would lead two civs say there was a third expansion and list the civs as well?

I would like to believe that his list wasn't accurate for two reasons:

1. Expack 3, although slated for production, probably hadn't undergone much development yet. Things change. Spontaneity happens. Georgia happens. Civs get pushed back or dropped for better ideas.


2. There might be a longer master list of planned or wanted civs that he only listed returning civs from. Planned or wanted does not mean guaranteed. Furthermore, planned or wanted does not mean guaranteed to appear *in expack 3*. Just because Ethiopia is on the table does not mean it would necessarily fit in expack 3, or would not necessarily be better saved for smaller DLC.

So, I do not put much faith in all of the listed civs appearing, at least in expack 3. Though the absence of Siam gives me hope for Burma. Paya porn please.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

He also said there's going to be a 4th expansion pack, so I don't know. I think that was his own wishlist.

I don't think any civ has gotten 4 expansions so I would be highly skeptical. More likely, he meant 3, GS plus one more. That would be in line with what we've gotten in the past.

 

[God of Kings]

In the GS cinematic video, there was a fairly superfluous scene of what appeared to be a doge of Venice scrambling from and getting splattered by an earthquake.

Earthquakes and tsunamis for the third expansion pack!

 

[Aristos]

Nahhhh... Anton is already working on Civ 7. You'll see.

 

[acluewithout]

Agree that an expansion needs a 'hook' - without that we might be left with new/alt leader + map/scenario DLCs.

Ideology is such a hook. Underdeveloped in Civ6 to date, and could work in interesting ways with the loyalty system (also underdeveloped IMO). Would jazz up end game as well.

Economics is such a hook. Resource monopolies and corporations could play into the loyalty system and the GS resource stockpile/depletion system.

Add a few more tweaks and we could have Civ 6: Time and Treasure (terrible name but all I could think of at the moment)

If they did Ideologies then they could easily fold into that mechanics around economics and trade.

 

[PhilBowles]

I'm not so sure of this. I see a much more calculated bias toward adding new civs which appeal to large demographics. The Cree are the largest (or the Ojibwe? Either way largest or second largest) tribe in Canada, maximizing appeal to those of native heritage or native adjacence in Canada.

I doubt Canadian First Nations are a major gaming demographic. For a civ to have marketing appeal it needs to be of interest to the global Civ audience - targeting even a large single-nation market with a civ that has limited appeal anywhere else is not sound marketing. For large groups like this, it seems more likely that their size makes them more recognisable in pop culture than other societies from that region or represents genuine regional importance, as well as more accessible linguistically and in terms of their history. I doubt the fact that Quechua is the largest indigenous language group in the Andes was a factor in including the Inca - rather, they were chosen because they were recognisable and regionally significant, and the fact that members of their language group are widespread today is partly a consequence of that, not the reason for their inclusion.

The same for Mapuche being the largest native ethnic group in Chile/Argentina.

Only in Chile, I think.

These are the most marketable tribes in their respective region and hit a pretty good balance of representing native Amerindians, but also representing Canada/Argentina/Chile in a way they hadn't been in a civ game before; thus casual players in/from those regions are more likely to buy the game.

Firaxis had a stated goal in Civ VI of filling out areas that had no TSL representation in past games. I don't see anything more to adding the Cree and the Mapuche than that they were in civ-poor areas on the TSL map and had at least some name recognition compared with alternative groups from those areas.

Then take into account other additions. When considering replacing the Celts with a modern polity, between Scotland and Ireland Scotland won out. Scotland happens to have the larger population.

Scotland probably was chosen for popularity, but not because of the size of Scotland. There's a reasonably sized American demographic that claims links to Scotland - moreso than Ireland.

Between Austria, Hungary, and Bulgaria, Hungary has the larger population. Between Denmark and Sweden, Sweden has the larger population.

Denmark didn't compete with Sweden, it competed with Norway, which has a somewhat smaller population. Sweden isn't a Viking civ. Either way appealing to the gamers within a country of fewer than 6 million is not a good sales pitch.

Granted, these are all marginal differences, but in totality it gives the appearance of Firaxis' wanting to maximize appeal in order to eek out more profits. And the numbers don't lie; regardless of whether casuals care about these choices, they love the design, think the civs are fun, and VI is selling better than V did.

I haven't seen anything that suggests Civ VI is selling at anything close to the level Civ V did. It outsold Civ V in 2018, which is not altogether surprising - but Civ V itself still sold well enough so long after release to be in Steam's 'bronze' category. Even now its player numbers on Steam are only 3,000 higher than Civ V's and it wasn't until after the last major patch that it overtook Civ V's playerbase at all, so unless a lot of people bought in and aren't playing it's performing well below Civ V when that game was current. Civ V spent years within the Steam top 10 - Civ VI is currently putting up what might be its best performance, at no. 10 exactly.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Only in Chile, I think.

I believe the Mapuche are the largest indigenous group in Argentina, at least according to the last census, which is quite interesting as they didn't originate from there. Although I'm still under the impression that Argentina could still have a chance of appearing even alongside the Mapuche now that we have both the Cree and Canada.

Scotland probably was chosen for popularity, but not because of the size of Scotland. There's a reasonably sized American demographic that claims links to Scotland - moreso than Ireland.

I agree on this one. The one thing that Scotland has over Ireland is the fact that you can field a bunch of Highlanders wearing kilts fighting for "FREEDOM!" and having bagpipes playing in the background.

 

[steveg700]

Denmark didn't compete with Sweden, it competed with Norway, which has a somewhat smaller population. Sweden isn't a Viking civ.

Yeah, they're a ski infantry civ, right?

I'm just mildly surprised that they didn't get a Cheap Furniture & Meatball Store UI to parallel the hockey rink and golf course.

 

[Giskler]

I don't think any civ has gotten 4 expansions so I would be highly skeptical. More likely, he meant 3, GS plus one more. That would be in line with what we've gotten in the past.

No civ game has received 3 let alone 4 expansions so let's just hope for a 3rd.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I wonder if we could see what is mostly a spinoff (like colonization) but also had some things packaged that you could use in the base game.

 

[Cerilis]

I wonder if we could see what is mostly a spinoff (like colonization) but also had some things packaged that you could use in the base game.

Beyond Earth 2 - Done right this time

 

[DWilson]

Beyond Earth 2 - Done right this time

Ehh, I want them to hold off for a generation on that. Especially if they plan to leave it incomplete, with only one expansion (which, while expected, broke my heart with BE).

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Ehh, I want them to hold off for a generation on that. Especially if they plan to leave it incomplete, with only one expansion (which, while expected, broke my heart with BE).

I'm hoping for a prehistoric>classical game

 

[AmazonQueen]

I'm hoping for a prehistoric>classical game

I'd really like an ancient fertile crescent game, something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariots_of_War but more civ-like and less wargamey than that was.

 

[ChocolateShake]

I'd really like an ancient fertile crescent game, something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariots_of_War but more civ-like and less wargamey than that was.

Would love a game from that time period. The narrower focus should allow for more trade and city development mechanics too.

I think a third expansion could add a bunch of civs, rework some main mechanics, and maybe add a couple of features. I'm not sure there's a need for another big expansion.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I'd really like an ancient fertile crescent game, something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariots_of_War but more civ-like and less wargamey than that was.

Either that or nomadic tribes developing new tools and first learning to settle down. Sid Meier's Dawn of Civilization or something like that.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I doubt Canadian First Nations are a major gaming demographic. For a civ to have marketing appeal it needs to be of interest to the global Civ audience - targeting even a large single-nation market with a civ that has limited appeal anywhere else is not sound marketing. For large groups like this, it seems more likely that their size makes them more recognisable in pop culture than other societies from that region or represents genuine regional importance, as well as more accessible linguistically and in terms of their history. I doubt the fact that Quechua is the largest indigenous language group in the Andes was a factor in including the Inca - rather, they were chosen because they were recognisable and regionally significant, and the fact that members of their language group are widespread today is partly a consequence of that, not the reason for their inclusion.

I believe it was probably a combination of several things:

1. Testing the waters for a Canada civ and trusting that any Canadian representation would like sell copies in that region.

2. Hoping that there might be players of Cree descent who identify with the civ enough to buy the game.

3. Hoping that there would be a greater chance of players being personally familiar with the Cree enough to be an "ally," even if they are not Cree themselves.

And I think this mentality could explain a lot of why they have chosen rather populous tribes.

Only in Chile, I think.

Nope, also in Argentina.

Firaxis had a stated goal in Civ VI of filling out areas that had no TSL representation in past games. I don't see anything more to adding the Cree and the Mapuche than that they were in civ-poor areas on the TSL map and had at least some name recognition compared with alternative groups from those areas.

I think it's multifaceted. Obviously the devs have been focusing on filling out the map. But then they could have also just used Canada or Argentina. So I think there are other factors at play, including in the Mapuche's case how to best represent both Chile and Argentina with one civ.

Scotland probably was chosen for popularity, but not because of the size of Scotland. There's a reasonably sized American demographic that claims links to Scotland - moreso than Ireland.

Okay I will grant you this, but it still kind of supports my point. The fact that Scotland had a mini overseas empire for a short time ultimately paid off more for it than Ireland because there are people in Nova Scotia and American who self identify.

But I will say that everyone in American is Irish on St. Patrick's day, so the race between the two was always very close.

Denmark didn't compete with Sweden, it competed with Norway, which has a somewhat smaller population. Sweden isn't a Viking civ. Either way appealing to the gamers within a country of fewer than 6 million is not a good sales pitch.

Mmmmm kind of. Denmark has the luxury of having been not only a Viking power but also a Scandinavian power. In that respect it has two different periods with different identities. It could either be competing with Norway ala Cnut. Or it could be competing with Sweden ala Margaret. The fact that Norway was already in the game all but removed Denmark from the first race, so it only had a horse running against Sweden.

I haven't seen anything that suggests Civ VI is selling at anything close to the level Civ V did. It outsold Civ V in 2018, which is not altogether surprising - but Civ V itself still sold well enough so long after release to be in Steam's 'bronze' category. Even now its player numbers on Steam are only 3,000 higher than Civ V's and it wasn't until after the last major patch that it overtook Civ V's playerbase at all, so unless a lot of people bought in and aren't playing it's performing well below Civ V when that game was current. Civ V spent years within the Steam top 10 - Civ VI is currently putting up what might be its best performance, at no. 10 exactly.

That's just it though. People haven't been buying into VI. They've either been veterans who are sticking with V until VI gets good. Or they've been noobs who didn't even know they wanted civ until it released on iPad and Switch. On top of that, VI is killing it with respect to diversity representation, and I absolutely bet that more female gamers are hopping on board, as well as more casuals who wouldn't have bought the game but for gimmicky identitarian civs like Canada and Scotland. For some people, just being able to build a hockey rink was the tipping point, and I would bet that demographic is not insubstantial.

It will remain to be seen, but everything about VI indicates that they are attempting to maximize appeal. Modern relatable civs alongside ancient pedantic civs. Greater cultural authenticity and diversity. Greater gender, age, and body type diversity. Piggybacking on the Disney aesthetic. Everything indicates this should sell better because it is not only more fun and simulating by design than V, but more inclusive. It is poised to be the tentpole V could have been, and will continue snowballing for as long as Firaxis wants to support it.

So, of course V is the standard to be beaten. But to my mind VI is doing everything right to so even better.

 

[PhilBowles]

I think it's multifaceted. Obviously the devs have been focusing on filling out the map. But then they could have also just used Canada or Argentina.

Yes, they could. And these would have had a larger fanbase - which rather undercuts your argument. To Firaxis, it seems that factors such as indigenous representation trump using civs to sell to the largest audience. And, once again, whatever their motives the objectively verifiable fact is that they are not using civ identity to sell their expansions. Even once revealed few of the civs are being namechecked in articles presumably written based on Firaxis' press releases, and they're shoved aside and forgotten after each weekly reveal while Firaxis continues to heavily advertise the volcano-dominated cover art and the natural disaster hook.

Okay I will grant you this, but it still kind of supports my point. The fact that Scotland had a mini overseas empire for a short time ultimately paid off more for it than Ireland because there are people in Nova Scotia and American who self identify.

It's nothing to do with the Darien colony or Nova Scotia. Scotland just has a romantic image in the US, much as descent from nobility used to in the UK - it's at least as often invented as a cultural background as it represents genuine descent. Americans make films like Highlander and Braveheart, while Irish history is celebrated in ... Gangs of New York. Claimed descent from Scottish lairds or fierce highland clansmen, and a legacy of resistance to the English, has more romantic appeal than descent from Irishmen who immigrated to work as labourers or fled the potato famine. Wearing green and getting drunk once a year doesn't come close.

Mmmmm kind of. Denmark has the luxury of having been not only a Viking power but also a Scandinavian power. In that respect it has two different periods with different identities. It could either be competing with Norway ala Cnut. Or it could be competing with Sweden ala Margaret. The fact that Norway was already in the game all but removed Denmark from the first race, so it only had a horse running against Sweden.

If Denmark were in at all it would only ever be as the Viking civ. Denmark was the principal exporter of Vikings, to the extent that contemporary chronicles by their English victims called all Norse raiders 'Danes' even when they came from other territories. Having Denmark in the game alongside a Viking civ that isn't Denmark wouldn't feel correct to a lot of players.

That's just it though. People haven't been buying into VI. They've either been veterans who are sticking with V until VI gets good. Or they've been noobs who didn't even know they wanted civ until it released on iPad and Switch. On top of that, VI is killing it with respect to diversity representation, and I absolutely bet that more female gamers are hopping on board, as well as more casuals who wouldn't have bought the game but for gimmicky identitarian civs like Canada and Scotland. For some people, just being able to build a hockey rink was the tipping point, and I would bet that demographic is not insubstantial.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Nothing here suggests Civ VI is outselling Civ V or is likely to. For all the publicity it generates, I would expect that when it comes down to something as pragmatic as game sales "diversity representation" is at best a niche interest. I can't imagine gamers who aren't otherwise in the market for day-plus long strategy games, whatever their sex, are suddenly going to leap into buying Civ games because of Aminatore of Nubia or because they can play as either of two female leaders for France and England. This is just a Firaxis effort to keep up with the Joneses because everyone else in the industry makes a fuss about representing diversity as well. It's not going to push the female Assassin's Creed demographic into playing Civ rather than a female protagonist in their existing game, let alone bring in women who simply don't play games at all.

It will remain to be seen, but everything about VI indicates that they are attempting to maximize appeal. Modern relatable civs alongside ancient pedantic civs. Greater cultural authenticity and diversity. Greater gender, age, and body type diversity. Piggybacking on the Disney aesthetic. Everything indicates this should sell better because it is not only more fun and simulating by design than V, but more inclusive.

And yet, so far as anyone can tell, it isn't selling better.

It is poised to be the tentpole V could have been, and will continue snowballing for as long as Firaxis wants to support it..

I think the echo chamber around here doesn't appreciate quite how significant Civilization V will prove to be in the history of gaming. Multiple strategy games across multiple subgenres now rush to add Civ V mechanics to their games - from the Endless games to Stellaris practically every 4x now has to have an equivalent of city states, and most staple on thinly-disguised clones of Civ V's policy tree - including Civ 6 Governors and Stellaris Traditions. Now Civ 6 is going back and adopting a Civ V innovation it originally scrapped, in consumable strategic resources. The combat system in Endless Legend - while decoupled from the movement system, unlike Civ V itself, bears a suspicious resemblance to Civ V's incarnation of 1UPT. Ironically, some of these are features that were roundly disliked here.

The reasons for this are easy to guess: Civ V's success was absolutely phenomenal and went against all received wisdom about the sorts of games people want to play these days. A strategy game with long sessions and that could be set to reasonably high difficulty (by modern standards) put up comparable or better performance than most shooter franchises over a period of more than 5 years. Eight and a half years on from release it remains a strong enough seller to make Steam's annual high sales lists and is in the top 15 games played on Steam even when it has a sequel that is itself widely-played. Civ V didn't spawn a new strategy genre in the way X-COM did so this can go underappreciated, but it's an amazingly successful and amazingly influential game that I can't see Civ VI approaching, let alone topping.

 

[DWilson]

The reasons for this are easy to guess: Civ V's success was absolutely phenomenal and went against all received wisdom about the sorts of games people want to play these days. A strategy game with long sessions and that could be set to reasonably high difficulty (by modern standards) put up comparable or better performance than most shooter franchises over a period of more than 5 years. Eight and a half years on from release it remains a strong enough seller to make Steam's annual high sales lists and is in the top 15 games played on Steam even when it has a sequel that is itself widely-played. Civ V didn't spawn a new strategy genre in the way X-COM did so this can go underappreciated, but it's an amazingly successful and amazingly influential game that I can't see Civ VI approaching, let alone topping.

I'm not sure I buy the implication that Civ VI is underselling compared to Civ (especially considering the growth in the PC gaming market). Even if it were, however, Civ VI has faced many challenges that V did not (at least to the same extent)- e.g., backlash against Red Shell, backlash about DLC (which has been notably more pronounced, despite similar or greater value per dollar compared to Civ V DLC and a half decade of inflation), backlash about the Deluxe Edition (because it didn't include expansions , 2K messed up the currency conversions, and people were mad that the contents were based initially on what they said it would be in the description (rather than some other imagined larger amounts of content)), a major portion of the Steam audience mad that it was not as good as Civ V Complete on initial release despite being two expansions and more patches behind (while V had some of this from IV, the Steam audience coming in on V was much less experienced with the franchise at it's completed state than the Steam audience for VI), and V's availability at ridiculous discounts by the time of VI's launch (7.25 for base V, 12.50 for complete IIRC) on Steam. All of this lead to waves of bad reviews hurting it's Steam reputation, and that has probably prevented it from selling at proportional rates (with regard to the relevant size of the Steam audiences at the time of launch through the first two years of availability) to V.

Despite all this, most here have recognized that the quality of VI is and was superior to V at it's corresponding point in development and post-release time passed.

Meanwhile, the amount of people using Steam has massively grown, to the point that I would expect VI has probably outsold V in terms of sheer numbers per time since initial release.