Long Term Support For Civ 7

[stealth_nsk]

One of the things regarding potential Civ8 is that it's likely development has already started in early ideation phase. It has no connection with the potential Civ7 success, it's just normal approach to have those things in parallel - patches for the current version, prototypes for the expansion and brainstorm for the next version.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Not yet, I wouldn't think.

Well, I think someone at Firaxis might have a piece of paper with Civ 8 on the top line and then just two notes written after it:

NO AGES!
NO CIV SWITCHING!

 

[DefinitelyNotSidMeier]

No it isnt, Civ VI "low player count" was around 30k. 10k is closer to 3k than to 30k

The closest Civilziation launch to Civ VII was definitely BE, and by far

If Civ VII numbers dont go up with the Expansion, they wont be able to sustain the development iof the game with these numbers, just like they couldnt with BE. They probably have even higher costs nowadays

That couldn't be further from the truth. Civ VI had many days where the peak was between 15,000 to 20,000, the lows would've been fewer than 10,000.

As a percentage value of how many active players there are to how many owners of the game there are, VII is performing much closer to VI than BE. This is of course in reference to the same point in the life cycles of each of VI & BE.

 

[DefinitelyNotSidMeier]

NO AGES!
NO CIV SWITCHING!

I'm looking forward to the Ages system and Civ switching eventually becoming mostly liked, and then the release of VII being hated for not having Ages or Civ switching.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Not yet, I wouldn't think.

Well, I think someone at Firaxis might have a piece of paper with Civ 8 on the top line and then just two notes written after it:

NO AGES!
NO CIV SWITCHING!

Actually by the time Civ8 will be released (probably 10 years from now), the topic of ages will be almost as cold as 1UPT now. I mean it will still be discussed, but far from the main theme.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I'm looking forward to the Ages system and Civ switching eventually becoming mostly liked, and then the release of VII being hated for not having Ages or Civ switching.

Possible (though it doesn't seem likely to me). But I think that even those two features become mostly liked, Civiliz8ion won't have them.

Why? The initial strong reaction against them is now burned in to the developers' minds, and they'll be impacted by those feelings during the initial brainstorming for 8: "I'm not going there again!"

 

[socratic]

I'm looking forward to the Ages system and Civ switching eventually becoming mostly liked, and then the release of VII being hated for not having Ages or Civ switching.

That’s the kinda optimism that borders on delusion but I’m here for it. Here’s to civ-switching being successful.

 

[Crashdummy]

I'm looking forward to the Ages system and Civ switching eventually becoming mostly liked, and then the release of VII being hated for not having Ages or Civ switching.

Unlikely when every game that implements it is a failure

Doesnt matter how many times you feed someone with sh.t, it will still be that

 

[Xandinho]

Possible (though it doesn't seem likely to me). But I think that even those two features become mostly liked, Civiliz8ion won't have them.

Why? The initial strong reaction against them is now burned in to the developers' minds, and they'll be impacted by those feelings during the initial brainstorming for 8: "I'm not going there again!"

We’ll probably have both: civilization switching for those who enjoy it (although I’m not a fan of this mechanic, I believe the dislike for it will fade over time), and the classic mode for traditional fans, to avoid any major controversy at launch.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Possible (though it doesn't seem likely to me). But I think that even those two features become mostly liked, Civiliz8ion won't have them.

Why? The initial strong reaction against them is now burned in to the developers' minds, and they'll be impacted by those feelings during the initial brainstorming for 8: "I'm not going there again!"

I don't think it works like this. A lot of early Civ5 problems were linked to its 1UPT implementation, i.e. the infamous Carpet of Doom. Still, developers didn't though about returning to stacks in Civ6.

I could guess that at the moment Firaxis have on their table some "the best of both worlds" approach, where ages are somewhere between their Civ6 and Civ7 implementation, but this could change multiple times, depending on Civ7 future.

 

[Wrenched]

On a positive note if Firaxis wants to move forward with Civ Switching/Ages in Civilization VIII, Take Two and Firaxis now have some rough numbers and telemetry on the percentage of Civ players that like or tolerate those mechanics.

That will allow them to properly scale the budget of VIII to the actual addressable market.

 

[ColtSeavers]

People forget how poorly V was launched at release. Even VI...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they part ways with Jon Shafer, the lead designer of Civ 5, after its troubled launch? Ironically, Ed Beach was then promoted to lead the development of the expansions, which ultimately turned things around.
Given the rocky start of Civ 7, maybe it's time to consider a similar change. Ed Beach has been at the helm for a long time now, and I have serious doubts about whether he’s the right person to steer the franchise in a better direction again. He's been too closely associated with many of the controversial decisions that have frustrated the community. Bringing in a new lead designer could help restore confidence among long-time fans and reunite the Civ community.

 

[Siptah]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they part ways with Jon Shafer, the lead designer of Civ 5, after its troubled launch? Ironically, Ed Beach was then promoted to lead the development of the expansions, which ultimately turned things around.
Given the rocky start of Civ 7, maybe it's time to consider a similar change. Ed Beach has been at the helm for a long time now, and I have serious doubts about whether he’s the right person to steer the franchise in a better direction again. He's been too closely associated with many of the controversial decisions that have frustrated the community. Bringing in a new lead designer could help restore confidence among long-time fans and reunite the Civ community.

I think it has been tradition at FXS to switch the lead after the base game, no? Presumably, it wasn‘t original planned that Ed Beach did Gathering Storm and Civ 7, but the person that did Rise & Fall. I think regardless of the launch success, the expansion is probably led by someone else.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I think it has been tradition at FXS to switch the lead after the base game, no? Presumably, it wasn‘t original planned that Ed Beach did Gathering Storm and Civ 7, but the person that did Rise & Fall. I think regardless of the launch success, the expansion is probably lead by someone else.

Used to be a tradition, that each new iteration gets a new leader designer, too, until they thought it would be a great idea, to put all their money on Ed Beach, although im pretty sure, there are also plenty of other very talented game designers available at FXS.

 

[Xur]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they part ways with Jon Shafer, the lead designer of Civ 5, after its troubled launch? Ironically, Ed Beach was then promoted to lead the development of the expansions, which ultimately turned things around.
Given the rocky start of Civ 7, maybe it's time to consider a similar change. Ed Beach has been at the helm for a long time now, and I have serious doubts about whether he’s the right person to steer the franchise in a better direction again. He's been too closely associated with many of the controversial decisions that have frustrated the community. Bringing in a new lead designer could help restore confidence among long-time fans and reunite the Civ community.

Civ5 was in a different situation than civ7. It was poorly received because it was a barebones shell of a game with poor AI - more content obviously changes that. I dont think that's on Jon Schafer as much as it's on Firaxis or 2K that shipped it early. It certainly wasn't a design problem. To my knowledge civ7 isn't selling because it lacks content like civ5, but because core features are objectively disliked by a majority. More content for civ7 wont change anything. If you want more content, then it's because you like the game. More time before release could have helped civ5. More time before release of civ7 could not have helped civ7, because the problem isn't content. The main problem is the game design. Sure, the UI could be better in civ7, but that's not a giant problem and something even modders can fix.

The AI never got any better since civ5. Coming from civ4 with stacked units to civ5 with carpets of doom made it easier to spot the difference in AI. If you compared any of the games after civ4 to civ4, the AI would be worse. That's the cost of 1UPT. Giving Ed Beach credit for "saving" civ5 is a bit of a stretch. I'm sure content was already planned and it was mostly about getting it out of the door - a team effort. I could be wrong of course, but in my view Ed Beach has been a net negative for the franchise.

Problem is that Firaxis promotes/hires people from within their own little bubble. I doubt anyone at Firaxis right now would be any better than Ed Beach. They need a fresh pair of eyes from someone that isn't obsessed with board games and actually likes computer games.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Problem is that Firaxis promotes/hires people from within their own little bubble. I doubt anyone at Firaxis right now would be any better than Ed Beach. They need a fresh pair of eyes from someone that isn't obsessed with board games and actually likes computer games.

I think so too, Ed's obession with board games is one of the main problems. Ages/ Civ Switching aside, that's what bothers me the most with Civ 7. Policy Cards instead of real governments, Cartoonish looking Leaders, I just can't take it anymore. Would be so refreshing to have someone in charge, who comes up with a different approach and doesn't recycle his own ideas from previous games.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I've been avoiding this thread because I don't feel like I have any skin in the game. But that may be something of a problem for the nature of the thread if there are enough like me.

There is nothing on the horizon convincing me to buy this game yet despite wanting a new version of Civ to play. I'm sure there's a good few in the same position.

I would absolutely not consider buying the game if binning Civ switching is locked behind an expansion. I also would not consider buying the game if I need to spend a metric s-ton on extra Civs to get to the point where Civ switching feels natural.

So I'm in a catch 22 where I'm really struggling to see how firaxis are going to get a sale out of me, because we're 6 months in, they can't just do free patches forever, but $60 is already steep for a base game, it's increasingly looking like I'll need to shell out $60 + expansion $, plus $ for Civ packs, just for what I'd consider the minimum viable version of the game, which is ludicrous.

So I think my conclusion is different to @Siptah - I don't think they will be able to win round the same size audience they had for Civ VI. I think for this game to have long term viability, they need the average spend per consumer to be higher. Either millions of Civ packs and age variants and leader persons that relies on whales spending $000's, or steady consistent spend from a strong base.