Long Term Support For Civ 7

[Xandinho]

It's indeed a bit funny that one thing the game desperately needs to be better is more civs, and more civs depend on more players, and more players depend on the game being better...

Exactly. I’ve always argued that, to temporarily soften the jarring breaks in immersion caused by era transitions, the solution would be to release strategic civs that fill the game’s glaring gaps. I’m certain that if, in order to reach Songhai, we first had to go through another civ from the region in Antiquity that was connected to them, the break in immersion wouldn’t feel nearly as severe as it does now. Another, in my view, foolish decision was adding so many European leaders for so few European civilizations. We end up with French, German, and American leaders everywhere, often leading China, Aksum, Maya, Carthage…

 

[Albertan Civfanatic]

Exactly. I’ve always argued that, to temporarily soften the jarring breaks in immersion caused by era transitions, the solution would be to release strategic civs that fill the game’s glaring gaps. I’m certain that if, in order to reach Songhai, we first had to go through another civ from the region in Antiquity that was connected to them, the break in immersion wouldn’t feel nearly as severe as it does now. Another, in my view, foolish decision was adding so many European leaders for so few European civilizations. We end up with French, German, and American leaders everywhere, often leading China, Aksum, Maya, Carthage…

They can fix this issue by simply adding civs for every leader in the game, but then, why separate leaders from civs in the first place?

 

[Albertan Civfanatic]

Some people compare 7 to BE. Hold your horses. BE was a branch off of the mainline Civ games. BE was clearly a reskin of 5 and was an experiment, science fiction as opposed to historical strategy. I think 7 is a whole other ball game. 7 "isn't Vietnman yet" if you get my drift.

 

[Siptah]

They can fix this issue by simply adding civs for every leader in the game, but then, why separate leaders from civs in the first place?

hm, some civs will never get a leader, while the French Empire already has Napoleon E, Napoleon R, Lafayette, and Charlemagne. So, the solution would be more European civs for the many European leaders. But leaders will also grow, and on huge maps, there will always be a chance of more European leaders than European antiquity civs. Yet, adding 2 European civs per era would lessen the problem a lot. Unfortunately, I think for civ switching, other continents are in more pressing need of civs than Europe, which has some historical paths already. Still, someone like the Goths would be welcome in every regard.

 

[Crashdummy]

Some people compare 7 to BE. Hold your horses. BE was a branch off of the mainline Civ games. BE was clearly a reskin of 5 and was an experiment, science fiction as opposed to historical strategy. I think 7 is a whole other ball game. 7 "isn't Vietnman yet" if you get my drift.

Comparing both is correct, and its even worse that this isnt a "spin off" since it has the be worthy of the franchise (which it isnt)

Civ 7 is follwing the exact same trend as BE, and if the first Expansion doesnt change that direction, it will have the same fate. It all depends on the first Expansion, its success or failure will 100% decide the fate of Civ 7

No other Civ game had a launch as bad as Civ 7, not even close

 

[DeutschDachs]

Comparing both is correct, and its even worse that this isnt a "spin off" since it has the be worthy of the franchise (which it isnt)

Civ 7 is follwing the exact same trend as BE, and if the first Expansion doesnt change that direction, it will have the same fate. It all depends on the first Expansion, its success or failure will 100% decide the fate of Civ 7

No other Civ game had a launch as bad as Civ 7, not even close

Well... Civ V's launch was pretty terrible. It was simultaneously lacking in features, incredibly buggy, and poorly balanced. Civ V might have an advantage over VII though in that it had so few mechanics that fixing the game via expansions may be easier than Civ VII which has mechanics central to its gameplay that a large number of people do not like to begin with

But yeah V and VII are in a league of their own as far as terrible launches.

 

[Crashdummy]

Well... Civ V's launch was pretty terrible. It was simultaneously lacking in features, incredibly buggy, and poorly balanced. Civ V might have an advantage over VII though in that it had so few mechanics that fixing the game via expansions may be easier than Civ VII which has mechanics central to its gameplay that a large number of people do not like to begin with

But yeah V and VII are in a league of their own as far as terrible launches.

Civ V launch was bad, but it wasnt even close to Civ VII one. They are in different leagues

Again, the only Civilization game that had a launch as bad as this one, was BE

 

[Albertan Civfanatic]

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

 

[Porry]

For me, an expansion is already in the works, if not ready: the fourth age. After all, there are various signs that the fourth age was already in the initial version of the game. Just look at the modern age relics that unlock points for a phantom next age...

 

[Xandinho]

If they add a fourth era without first fixing the game’s fundamental issues, it would be a disaster. And if civ transitions are already quite controversial on their own, why on earth add another one? Simply extend the Modern Age, and we would finally have elements of the Cold War and the Information Age included.

They should add more legacy paths for each type of victory to make the game less scripted, while continuing to work on smoothing the transitions or introducing a classic mode.

 

[Haig]

Firaxis/2K definately marketed Beyond Earth as an AAA game, like in the news before it's announcement:

"On Saturday, you won’t want to miss Firaxis Games announce their next big AAA title, so get in line early for the Firaxis Games Mega Panel. The panel starts at 11:30 am at the DragonFly Theatre,” blogged 2K.

 

[Porry]

Of course, they have to fix the game first. However, I think they already have the skeleton of the fourth era ready, but due to early release requirements, they left it aside. Then they discovered that the other three eras needed major fixing, and the fourth will end up in an expansion.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

From their words, they have:

1. Record presales
2. Slow start
3. Projected LTV still go within expectations

If we rule out straight lies, it paints a pretty consistent picture. Presales were exceeding expectations, but the wave of negative reviews greatly affected further sales. However, the sales of the base game were still coming and the DLC sales shown that people who purchased the game don't abandon it.

They need to hire you to talk at the investor calls - I think any reasonable person has accepted that the game hasn’t met expectations, we’ve heard as much from their mouths.

My opinion on the situation is that there will certainly be one major expansion and if that fails to sell well and increase player activity - it may be the end. I doubt these overpriced piecemeal DLC packs sale or lack of sales will impact their long term decision making. If the first expansion bombs - it could spell the end of support.

 

[stealth_nsk]

For me, an expansion is already in the works, if not ready: the fourth age. After all, there are various signs that the fourth age was already in the initial version of the game. Just look at the modern age relics that unlock points for a phantom next age...

Yep, there are many signs that Firaxis started some work on 4th age even before the release, but we need to keep in mind the possibility of changing plans.

If they add a fourth era without first fixing the game’s fundamental issues, it would be a disaster. And if civ transitions are already quite controversial on their own, why on earth add another one? Simply extend the Modern Age, and we would finally have elements of the Cold War and the Information Age included.

Yeah, nobody talks about releasing expansion now. 1+ year from now is more realistic timeframe. Also, there are a lot of people who enjoy age transitions, so I don't think it makes sense to jump back and forth, Firaxis would loose players from both sides.

They should add more legacy paths for each type of victory to make the game less scripted, while continuing to work on smoothing the transitions or introducing a classic mode.

I'm in the camp who don't see any possibility for classic mode other than some scenario later in the game lifecycle, with much less attention than the core game, as usual for scenarios, and more targeted for modders to play around.

They need to hire you to talk at the investor calls - I think any reasonable person has accepted that the game hasn’t met expectations, we’ve heard as much from their mouths.

What I was posting were nearly direct citations from 2K officials.

 

[Porry]

Am I wrong, or were they talking about including victories in eras prior to the modern era? That wouldn't be a bad idea. But first, the legacy paths need to be improved and made more varied.

 

[UWHabs]

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

V was brutal at launch. But thankfully the launch was before some of the modern online culture, and the parts it was brutal in were less integral to the core game. I think the "anger" over 1upt is less than the anger over ages/civ switching.
I mean, I remember being at a place where I got a new computer just as civ 5 was coming out (sort of joking that I bought the new computer for the game), but it was so absolutely dreadful at launch that I just quit and couldn't play it for a solid 6 months or more after launch because it was just so imbalanced, so broken, so terrible. Eventually I did give it another try, and while I never really loved it, I didn't necessarily hate it, but I just stopped playing it after a while and never really went back to pick it up. 700 hours in 5, 2600 hours in 6, 250 hours in 7 for me.


But all in all, I do think this launch will be more polarizing for them, I don't think we'll see the 9 year dev cycle before the next major version like we did for civ 6, if they can't bring people back in. My main hopes at this point:
1. nothing has been too bad in the dev cycle that there are permanent repercussions at FX. There are some games where a bad release could literally cause the studio to fold, or the publisher to break off and not want to put in more.
2. They will find something way to effectively get in a form of a classic mode that is enough to appease some people, while not fully taking a 180 from the initial ages and switching
3. We'll get enough DLC/expansions to have a relatively complete geographic/timeline roster

I think there's enough that they can hopefully bring it back. Maybe it will be time to switch the creative lead on the game for expansions and take a few pieces in another direction. If they can't turn it around commercially, then the questions would become how early they move development focus onto the next version, and what direction they take that.