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.