Hint at 3rd expansion from Firaxis??

[PhilBowles]

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.

Excuses for Civ VI underperforming don't alter the observation that it has underperformed (relative to Civ V at the same point in its release cycle - relative to Steam as a whole it's doing very well). It outsells Civ V at present, so the argument that Civ V was bolstered by extra sales at a discount holds little water and I doubt Civ VI sales were significantly impacted by people refusing to buy Australia or Nubia DLC. There's no widespread boycott of products that use DLC and you can't simultaneously argue that Steam has grown and so sales are likely to be greater, and that it's underselling because people are refusing to buy it for whatever reason.

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.

If people here are any guide, difficulty and AI performance are a significant component of what they judge to be 'quality', and on both metrics Civ VI is well below where Civ V was by the release of Gods & Kings, with no indication so far that the expansion will change this. But either way the opinions of a community of 200-odd veteran players is unlikely to affect market shares.

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.

Civ V's playerbase kept pace with Steam's growth, it's still in the top 15 most-played games on Steam, and was ahead of Civ VI on players (with the exception of Rise & Fall's release week) until the autumn patch last year. Exceeding Civ V's players - and even now not by much - for fewer than 6 months is not going to overcome almost a decade of being a bestseller.

 

[Aristos]

Only in Chile, I think.

If one is to take all minor tribes within a general ethnic group, that would be the Guarani by far.

Mapuche were all but wiped out in Argentina, famous were the Pampa wars that the just born Argentinian "Confederation" (basically Buenos Aires proper) unleashed on the Mapuche to exterminate them... and they did.

 

[God of Kings]

Sales figures for Civ VI on the iOS and the Switch may be negligible as compared with sales on Steam, but at least Civ VI is expanding to new platforms. Civ V is not available on any iOS device and not available on any dedicated home or portable video game console. More choice is good (and the cost to expand to new platforms is negligible in comparison).

Who knows if Civ VI would become available on Android devices (even if it's only the base game)?

 

[Balerune]

I only play with one mod which changes the game quite a bit. The base game I don't like very much.

 

[acluewithout]

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.

So much this.

Something like Beyond Earth would work so much better as a spin off. Its own game, building on existing mechanics, with maybe some of the mechanics leaking into Civ VI if you own that too. Sort of like a Super-Plus sized expansion.

A bit like the computer game version of Ravensloft for D&D. (Yeah. I went there. I’m so geek, you don’t even know it.)

 

[Xefjord]

I would like to point out that Eleanor uses both Paris and London as her capitals. Meaning she is represents the first time any leader or civ overlaps capitals with another leader or civ.

This brings us slightly closer to getting something like Italy, Mexico, or (*spits*) Byzantium.

I am going to continue pushing for Burma over Vietnam and Swahili over Ethiopia. I'd rather the last few long shots make a big expack and the sure sellers be saved for DLC.

And in the meantime, we can campaign for the devs to just overhaul the Nubia expansion to replace it with Ethiopia.

If we are guaranteed Vietnam in a DLC, then yes by all means add Burma. If we are getting Burma over Vietnam though than I can't support that idea. As cool of a place as Burma is, Vietnam has and equally rich history and culture and more importantly, demographics that could potentially play Civ and that could act as a strong marketing tool.

 

[DWilson]

Civ V's playerbase kept pace with Steam's growth, it's still in the top 15 most-played games on Steam, and was ahead of Civ VI on players (with the exception of Rise & Fall's release week) until the autumn patch last year. Exceeding Civ V's players - and even now not by much - for fewer than 6 months is not going to overcome almost a decade of being a bestseller.

Spoiler :

Data from Steam DB

If you compare their performance over a similar time frame since release, you should find near identical number of players (both games having initial release cut off here, to keep the charts reasonably close in scale- if you are concerned, Civ VI had far more players on release than Civ V has ever had). This is despite the number of users that we know were choosing to play V at the same time since VI's release, a number of whom can be assumed to own both.

Since we don't have numbers pointing to the number of owners of both at the same relative time in their respective release cycles, I am unsure how you know that V outsold VI based on the evidence we have.

With that in mind, I also don't know how you can claim it has under-performed.

(Also, note that my "excuses" were simply explaining the non-gameplay reasons that VI has review issues that V did not have, which we can reasonably presume have played a role in sales).

What we can note is that R&F has seemingly failed to maintain interest at the same level G&K did, which is significant. If GS sees the same results compared to BNW, Firaxis and 2K might potential nix a full expansion (any developed content could be released as smaller DLC to wrap up this release cycle).

 

[PhoenicianGold]

If we are guaranteed Vietnam in a DLC, then yes by all means add Burma. If we are getting Burma over Vietnam though than I can't support that idea. As cool of a place as Burma is, Vietnam has and equally rich history and culture and more importantly, demographics that could potentially play Civ and that could act as a strong marketing tool.

Vietnam is for militaristic people. Burma is for cultural people. So there's little distinction either way there, although I would say that no Vietnamese military unit is as iconic and prolific as the paya.

As far as iconography, the Burmese peacock doesn't need to do anything to stand out. The best modders could come up with for Vietnam's icon in V was another dragon. Small distinction I know but that's one more thing Vietnam needs to work at to catch up.

Half of Vietnam, particularly the half that tended to retain independence, shares quite a lot of territory with Khmer. Burma doesn't have the problem of geographically overlapping with anyone else in the region, so Burmese territory is distinctly Burmese.

To balance that out, fine, Vietnam has a higher population and would sell well. Fine.

But given that Vietnam doesn't have a particularly resonant UI, coupled with all of these other small things, makes it all the harder to design, and all so we can have a really cramped East Asian coastline on TSL maps.

I mean I get it. It definitely has a much stronger case for it than Siam and I think a trifecta of Burma, Khmer, and Vietnam is very appealing. But it also strikes me as one of those last civs they would add that would be included on principle, but the civ itself would be aesthetically/mechanically very shaky and incoherent. And anything that puts gameplay second should be saved for a final hurrah, not released earlier and risking loss of goodwill.

 

[acluewithout]

What we can note is that R&F has seemingly failed to maintain interest at the same level G&K did, which is significant. If GS sees the same results compared to BNW, Firaxis and 2K might potential nix a full expansion (any developed content could be released as smaller DLC to wrap up this release cycle).

Yeah. This is what worries me, particularly given some early reviews of GS aren’t that great (which is nuts, because it so far looks so much better than RnF).

In fairness, I think maybe FXS had intended RnF to have to World Congress, which would have then meant maybe one big idea across three expansions: WC for RnF, Power and Climate Change for GS and (my guess) Ideologies for Shroedingers Third Expansion.

I really want this game to keep being supported. It’s really the best in the franchise, and still has room to grow.

 

[Stilgar08]

Beyond Earth 2 - Done right this time

So much this.

Something like Beyond Earth would work so much better as a spin off. Its own game, building on existing mechanics, with maybe some of the mechanics leaking into Civ VI if you own that too. Sort of like a Super-Plus sized expansion.

A bit like the computer game version of Ravensloft for D&D. (Yeah. I went there. I’m so geek, you don’t even know it.)

Please no. No please. No.
P. S.: Ravensloft was great!

 

[Siptah]

Since it‘s getting on to a spin-off discussion as well, I just want to remind that FXS announced last year that their next game will be neither Civilization nor XCOM. Most spin-offs would still be considered a civilization game, right?

 

[PhilBowles]

Spoiler :

View attachment 517105
Data from Steam DB

If you compare their performance over a similar time frame since release, you should find near identical number of players (both games having initial release cut off here, to keep the charts reasonably close in scale- if you are concerned, Civ VI had far more players on release than Civ V has ever had). This is despite the number of users that we know were choosing to play V at the same time since VI's release, a number of whom can be assumed to own both.

Since we don't have numbers pointing to the number of owners of both at the same relative time in their respective release cycles, I am unsure how you know that V outsold VI based on the evidence we have.

With that in mind, I also don't know how you can claim it has under-performed.

(Also, note that my "excuses" were simply explaining the non-gameplay reasons that VI has review issues that V did not have, which we can reasonably presume have played a role in sales).

What we can note is that R&F has seemingly failed to maintain interest at the same level G&K did, which is significant. If GS sees the same results compared to BNW, Firaxis and 2K might potential nix a full expansion (any developed content could be released as smaller DLC to wrap up this release cycle).

Interesting - I hadn't realised that data was available for Civ V's early life. I suppose the comparison with Civ V vs. Civ VI player numbers at a time when both were current is confounded to some degree by BNW, generally seen as the better of the CIv V expansions.

I'm not sure the big post-R&F slump is a cause for much concern - it peaked at levels far higher than CIv V ever averaged and then fell to about the same level as before, while G&K doesn't seem to have strongly influenced performance at all. That can probably be explained simply as hype, and as long as all those extra people bought Rise & Fall at release it would be seen as a worthwhile investment by Firaxis even if the expansion didn't live up to expectations.

 

[The Kingmaker]

As much as I want new features... I’d still really like to play with my old favorites again.

We need an XP3 just for the sake of Babylon, the Maya, Byzantium, Portugal, Ethiopia and the Celts.

 

[IdiotStyle]

I agree with kingmaker but i also think the game would need way more alt leaders (I'd really enjoy around 3 for most major countries like france,china, england,rome and others), and a mode where you can pick your leader and your civ just to change mechanics (i think you were able to in civ 4)

 

[acluewithout]

As much as I want new features... I’d still really like to play with my old favorites again.

We need an XP3 just for the sake of Babylon, the Maya, Byzantium, Portugal, Ethiopia and the Celts.

Yup, except I can’t get on board with “Celts”. I prefer FXS’s approach if having specific civilizations rather than “blob” Civs.

I really stumped whether Byzantium should be a Alt Leader for Civ or it’s own Civ. I think it’s different enough to warrant its own Civ, but then you could end up with Rome and Byzantium in the same game and that seems nuts.

One option may be to have Alt Leaders that actually rework base abilities - eg replacing UUs and UDs.

But really, I’m happy to trust FXS to implement Byzantium however they think best.

I’d also really love a dlc that introduced Italy with a few different leaders (including something around Venice) and some additional city states and city state mechanics. Given Maori and Mali, there is clearly room in the game now for Civs with fundamentally different City mechanics. I think FXS could have a lot of fun with Italy.

I agree with kingmaker but i also think the game would need way more alt leaders (I'd really enjoy around 3 for most major countries like france,china, england,rome and others), and a mode where you can pick your leader and your civ just to change mechanics (i think you were able to in civ 4)

Man, totally unrealistic, but I’d love 3 Alt Leaders for all the “major” Civs. China, England, America, France and Rome in particular.

 

[jokii]

I would like to see some new civilizations from diferent parts of the world that did not yet been introduced. I like Hungary a lot in GS. Finaly some very interesting and new civs. Maybe they should visit more civs from south and east europe...

 

[The Kingmaker]

Yup, except I can’t get on board with “Celts”. I prefer FXS’s approach if having specific civilizations rather than “blob” Civs.

That’s why I’m a big advocate for Gaul as a civ. They have yet to do “the Celts” justice, so Gaul is really the only way to go to make that happen properly.

I really stumped whether Byzantium should be a Alt Leader for Civ or it’s own Civ. I think it’s different enough to warrant its own Civ, but then you could end up with Rome and Byzantium in the same game and that seems nuts.

One option may be to have Alt Leaders that actually rework base abilities - eg replacing UUs and UDs.

But really, I’m happy to trust FXS to implement Byzantium however they think best.

In a game with a separate Athens, Sparta and Macedon, I see absolutely no problem with having a separate Byzantium.

If you end up with both Rome and Byzantium in a game, just view it as the western and eastern empires after their split.

I’d also really love a dlc that introduced Italy with a few different leaders (including something around Venice) and some additional city states and city state mechanics. Given Maori and Mali, there is clearly room in the game now for Civs with fundamentally different City mechanics. I think FXS could have a lot of fun with Italy.

There have been lots of ideas re: Italy. I’ve seen people ask for a less eclectic version of Venice. Florence w/ Lorenzo de Medici seems obvious as a renaissance culture powerhouse. Caterina Sforza has lots of fans. A Borgia might be fun—Lucretia might be a bit out there for some folks though. Some people even want the civ to be led by a Pope.

Regardless, it seems like Italy is a perfect civ for multiple leaders. It also seems like they could use a new mechanism that has something to do w/ city-states, perhaps even emulating them.

 

[acluewithout]

I’m fine with the Gauls provided we get Astrix, Oblix and Gettafix.

Given how crazy Maori, Mali and Phoenicia are, I’d love to see what FXS could do with Italy, City States and Trade.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I’m fine with the Gauls provided we get Astrix, Oblix and Gettafix.

Oh you know that’s what the Steam achievement would reference.

 

[pgm123]

As much as I want new features... I’d still really like to play with my old favorites again.

We need an XP3 just for the sake of Babylon, the Maya, Byzantium, Portugal, Ethiopia and the Celts.

My take. I don't mind these being sold as DLC packages. But if you can come up with good new features that fit these civs, then it justifies an expansion. That's how we should think about this.