New DLCs?

[Krajzen]

They did it [free DLC civ] before with Civ V's Mongols!

IIRC that's just because Civ5 launch was a complete disaster and they desperately tried to appease raging fanbase

 

[isau]

I will be shocked if we close out the game without either the Incans or the Mayans showing up, which to me points for sure to another expansion or DLC. I have a feeling one or the other (hopefully both) will make an appearance in the next year and a half. I imagine part of the logic of holding them back is their high desirability and sell-factor.

Then again I never imagined a Khmer/Indonesia or Poland DLC.

 

[Neia]

I hope we'll have more DLCs with new civs, I like to meet new face, with new animations, new musics, etc. I'd like to see new wonders, new resources or new city states too. I wouldn't be interested in DLCs with scenarios or map scripts though.

 

[Karpius]

It's not the fact that they price DLC that irks me so much as the high price of the DLC, comparative to the base game or even expansion. Hence the extremely low ratings on Civ VI DLC.

When the market no longer bears the price, then the price gets lowered...or the product just goes away.

From a marketing standpoint, Firaxis is at the advantage precisely because they are selling software. Its not like they have alot of hard product sitting on the shelves taking up space with some warehouse manager wringing his hands and wondering "how will we move all these units?" After the initial investment in development and advertising, the rest is pretty much gravy. So they can afford to stand pat on prices for the most part.

 

[Phoenix1595]

I will be shocked if we close out the game without either the Incans or the Mayans showing up, which to me points for sure to another expansion or DLC. I have a feeling one or the other (hopefully both) will make an appearance in the next year and a half. I imagine part of the logic of holding them back is their high desirability and sell-factor.

Then again I never imagined a Khmer/Indonesia or Poland DLC.

Me too. I will admit that I was very disappointed the Inca did not make R&F, especially after hearing the Mapuche did. They have been a fan fav for several titles in the Civ series. That said, that is precisely why the designers held them back for later-- it will be an easy sell for a future DLC/xpack. I don't think R&F is the last bit of content for Civ6-- there will be more.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

It's not the fact that they price DLC that irks me so much as the high price of the DLC, comparative to the base game or even expansion. Hence the extremely low ratings on Civ VI DLC.

Those ratings are on a level playing field though. Since a significant portion of players got the DLC via the DD edition they would have been extremely unlikely to give their review. For instance, a happy DD owner is going to post a positive review for the DD but not come back and so the same for each individual DLC. While that doesn't guarantee that the sentiment would change, it does make the validity of the review score much more questionable.

 

[Duckfromstatefarm]

I have a feeling that Isabella of Spain will come as a DLC.

Hopefully She can come at some point, She was in the leader protraits of 2016 so at some point we'll see her. The day she is announced, I'll have plenty of popcorn on standby for all the comments.

There should be more DLCs coming this year as one of the devs said they wanted to add more alternate leaders to the game and Chandragupta was the first step. I also expect to see another expansion next year. Also it'll be a little awkard without the Incans or Mayans in the game and the Ottomans are one of the most requested civs right now as well. I also hope to see some surprising civs I don't see coming.

 

[Securion]

A Custom Civ DLC...? Please?
I dont understand why this haven't already been done. Literally every civ player would buy it. If someone say they wouldn't, they are a liar.

 

[Vahnstad]

We will get DLC but not anytime soon.

 

[Morningcalm]

Those ratings are on a level playing field though. Since a significant portion of players got the DLC via the DD edition they would have been extremely unlikely to give their review. For instance, a happy DD owner is going to post a positive review for the DD but not come back and so the same for each individual DLC. While that doesn't guarantee that the sentiment would change, it does make the validity of the review score much more questionable.

I sincerely doubt the majority of Civ players got the DD. Maybe a significant number of us Civfanatics did, but the ratings at large reflect a far vaster populace than us here.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

I sincerely doubt the majority of Civ players got the DD. Maybe a significant number of us Civfanatics did, but the ratings at large reflect a far vaster populace than us here.

Doesn't have to be the majority, just a significant portion.

Although my thoughts would be that, of the players that do buy DLC, more probably picked up the DD than buying it piecemeal. The season pass model has done very well for a long time, I would expect that most gamers are in for it day one. Again zero data to back that up, but I can't imagine they would keep rolling out a season pass if it wasn't wanted (i.e. bought) by most players.

 

[Morningcalm]

Doesn't have to be the majority, just a significant portion.

Although my thoughts would be that, of the players that do buy DLC, more probably picked up the DD than buying it piecemeal. The season pass model has done very well for a long time, I would expect that most gamers are in for it day one. Again zero data to back that up, but I can't imagine they would keep rolling out a season pass if it wasn't wanted (i.e. bought) by most players.

The season pass was not good value until Firaxis later announced it would cover additional DLC, so the future popularity of such is unclear.

The majority of players most certainly didn't get the DD, hence negative reviews of DLC on Steam. While those getting the DD got "good value" that was on a price basis, not based on value as such--many balked at the prospect of paying $5 for a single Civ and scenario pack.

If you suggest Firaxis might do another season pass for future DLC (if any) for Civ VI, we will have to see. But I (and many others) resent being dollars-and-cents-ed in Civ of all places. DLC in general is a way of making more money per Civ than if Firaxis just released two expansions as they had for Civ IV.

 

[Karpius]

DLC in general is a way of making more money per Civ than if Firaxis just released two expansions as they had for Civ IV.

Now you're catching on! Firaxis wants to make MORE money!

Those greedy devils!

 

[nzcamel]

Now you're catching on! Firaxis wants to make MORE money!

Those greedy devils!

How dare they!
The idea that there's a demand...and they want to meet it!? The horror!

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

How dare they!
The idea that there's a demand...and they want to meet it!? The horror!

Well, they have to take a risk to do that. Pay developers and artists up front for their work and then hope to sell enough of the product to recover their sunk costs plus cost of capital. We certainly shouldn't be encouraging such reckless behaviour. Who knows what sort of innovation it might lead to?

 

[DJ_Tanner]

The season pass was not good value until Firaxis later announced it would cover additional DLC, so the future popularity of such is unclear.

The majority of players most certainly didn't get the DD, hence negative reviews of DLC on Steam. While those getting the DD got "good value" that was on a price basis, not based on value as such--many balked at the prospect of paying $5 for a single Civ and scenario pack.

If you suggest Firaxis might do another season pass for future DLC (if any) for Civ VI, we will have to see. But I (and many others) resent being dollars-and-cents-ed in Civ of all places. DLC in general is a way of making more money per Civ than if Firaxis just released two expansions as they had for Civ IV.

I was speaking about the season pass in general. It is pretty standard operating procedure now, so I was speaking that gamers, in general, are into them. As for more season passes for Civ VI that is doubtful, season passes on expansions are not normal and I would not expect them to happen on this iteration, but for Civ VII, absolutely there will be one, just like there will be one for (if its coming) XCOM 3. I don't see how the negative reviews on Steam would suggest that most players didn't buy the DD. As I mentioned if you got the DD, you are not likely to go back and review each DLC, those DLC reviews are more likely from players that bought them individually.

And the DD for Civ VI was an objective good value even before the additional DLC were added in (at least from a US perspective saving 17% ain't too shabby, but I know there were some issues with the more volatile currency exchanges). For many it also offered a decent subjective value, I have never batted an eye at the prices they set. And while you and others may not enjoy the DLC model it there are plenty more that do, or at least don't mind it as they do sell well enough to continue the practice. I, for one, love it. It adds a breath of fresh air in between long dev times and the prices are all fine to me, as the value I find in Civ makes the base game criminally underpriced.

 

[Vahnstad]

I'm fine with DLC as long they don't remove the second or maybe even third expansions. I still prefer expansions, but i'm also in favour of additional DLC as long they don't scrape content in the form of expansions, especially since the expansions also could add new gameplay mechanics. Lots of DLC could also debalance the game for a bit. Another advantage of expansions is that they could add content in expansions that they couldn't add in DLC's and vice versa (in terms of representation and popularity of civs).

But i'm quite sure and confident that Firaxis is knowing what it is doing.

 

[Phoenix1595]

I'm fine with DLC as long they don't remove the second or maybe even third expansions. I still prefer expansions, but i'm also in favour of additional DLC as long they don't scrape content in the form of expansions, especially since the expansions also could add new gameplay mechanics. Lots of DLC could also debalance the game for a bit. Another advantage of expansions is that they could add content in expansions that they couldn't add in DLC's and vice versa (in terms of representation and popularity of civs).

But i'm quite sure and confident that Firaxis is knowing what it is doing.

Yes, there is still an "unfinished" quality to Civ6 in terms of game mechanics that lends itself to the need of actual expansions, not just DLCs. One could argue that diplomatic victory/World Congress is just one such an example of an expansion-type mechanic that could not fit within a small DLC package, and is in much demand by players.

As much as I would like DLCs peppered between now and the next expansion, I would not like the idea of Firaxis abandoning these broader mechanical changes in exclusive favor of small DLCs that just add new civs and map scripts. A good mixture of DLCs and one or two more expansions would be perfect.

 

[Bitterman]

As others have already stated, I would like to see more leaders added to the game (also civs ofc) since having a multi-leader setup with only two leaders using it seems like a waste for me.

Like with those current leaders (Gorgo and Chandragupta), I'd like the rest to be completely different from their vanilla alternatives. Adding completely new ways of playing the same civ it's always interesting.

Some ideas that come to my mind:

France - Louis XIV - War oriented (or maybe a mix of war and culture)
Spain - Carlos V - War oriented, maybe with a new unit (did someone say Tercios?)
Scotland - William Wallace - War
Germany - William I - Diplomacy territory oriented
Rome - Constantine the Great - Religion oriented
Persia - Darius I - Religion and culture

And so on...

 

[Morningcalm]

Now you're catching on! Firaxis wants to make MORE money!

Those greedy devils!

Ha! I never said making money is a sin. But the DLC are very overpriced. $5 for a single civ means $30 for 6, or $60 for 12. Hence protests, critiques and whining on YouTube, Facebook and in these forums (people complaining about DLC not being on sale being the most recent such thread that I recall). Hence the onslaught of negative Steam reviews. There's nothing wrong with paying developers for their work ruins the original base game. That's why we buy expansions. DLC are another matter since per bite they are pricier.

Well, they have to take a risk to do that. Pay developers and artists up front for their work and then hope to sell enough of the product to recover their sunk costs plus cost of capital. We certainly shouldn't be encouraging such reckless behaviour. Who knows what sort of innovation it might lead to?

The DLCs are generally anything but innovative. How many culture bomb civs do we need to add before that becomes even more apparent?

I was speaking about the season pass in general. It is pretty standard operating procedure now, so I was speaking that gamers, in general, are into them. As for more season passes for Civ VI that is doubtful, season passes on expansions are not normal and I would not expect them to happen on this iteration, but for Civ VII, absolutely there will be one, just like there will be one for (if its coming) XCOM 3. I don't see how the negative reviews on Steam would suggest that most players didn't buy the DD. As I mentioned if you got the DD, you are not likely to go back and review each DLC, those DLC reviews are more likely from players that bought them individually.

And the DD for Civ VI was an objective good value even before the additional DLC were added in (at least from a US perspective saving 17% ain't too shabby, but I know there were some issues with the more volatile currency exchanges). For many it also offered a decent subjective value, I have never batted an eye at the prices they set. And while you and others may not enjoy the DLC model it there are plenty more that do, or at least don't mind it as they do sell well enough to continue the practice. I, for one, love it. It adds a breath of fresh air in between long dev times and the prices are all fine to me, as the value I find in Civ makes the base game criminally underpriced.

Negative reviews alone don't show most players didn't buy the DD, but common sense does. Preorders for most nearly any game are hardly the majority of people who pick up that game (and I suspect even when the DD became available for non-preorders, that was barely 20% of all purchases). The bulk of Civ's fan base lies outside these threads, and not all are fanatics about Civ who love DLC. (And some fanatics like me generally despise the DLC pricing model).

Obviously if you love Civ a HUGE amount then $5 for a Civ and scenario pack isn't a big deal. But in the long run that's a lot of money compared to the value of the base game or any expansion, and the game right now needs improvements to AI and new maps more than it needs new civs, especially in the wake of Rise and Fall's release.