[NFP] POLL: Civilization: historical or fantasy game?

[Xandinho]

I don't mind Bermuda triangle considering it is an actual region of the world. I could have done without the teleporting of ships but I guess that beats them losing all of their health when they enter it.
Paititi I can understand and I wished they would have made that focus more on the Muisca city-state that they added.
The fountain of youth literally looks just lake Okeechobee to me at least though I'm not sure where exactly it is on TSL.

Of the three, Fountain of Youth is the least bothering me, I can only pretend it's a beautiful lake.
Paititi may or may not have existed, I particularly think it didn't exist, or just that designated a city in South America. I would particularly prefer that beautiful design architecture be used in a real pre-Columbian wonder.
Bermuda Triangle teleporting ships is just too distressing for me.
These things I think are interesting in a scenario, but not in the main game. There are real and beautiful natural wonders that they could have chosen to.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm not disagreeing that the bonus is weird but it's at least real unlike the others.

I think the fact that it's real is what makes it less acceptable to me. It's a real patch of completely unremarkable ocean. The Sargasso Sea or a real-life maelstrom like Corryvrecken or Saltstraumen would have made more interesting oceanic wonders.

These things I think are interesting in a scenario, but not in the main game. There are real and beautiful natural wonders that they could have chosen to.

This is my biggest complaint about the three. It's not so much that they're offensive in and of themselves as that there are so many wondrous places in the world that resorting to fiction was completely unnecessary.

 

[oSiyeza]

I don't entirely see how you can hold that position - I see a clear relationship between how they prioritize new content and not addressing some of the serious problems with the game. Like what if, in the Civ 5 era, instead of releasing BnW they released a vampire scenario? For me Civ 5 was a pretty bad game until it was expanded and improved, but they saved it because they prioritized making the core game work rather than adding new bells and whistles.

The thing is, you are assuming that they don't address the problems of the game cause they are doing other things.

The thing is, that idea is untrue. If the developers were not developping new content for the NFP, the game would probably be officially clossed, and Fxs would be developing XCOM3.

The reality is that the NFP is not taking resources from Civ 6. Civ 6 has now resources because the NFP and the new content they are releasing. This is how software and companies work. Your basic assuption in entirely incorrect.

 

[The Civs 6]

The thing is, you are assuming that they don't address the problems of the game cause they are doing other things.

The thing is, that idea is untrue. If the developers were not developping new content for the NFP, the game would probably be officially clossed, and Fxs would be developing XCOM3.

The reality is that, the NFP is not taking resources from Civ 6. Civ 6 has now resources because the NFP. This is how software and companies work. Your basic assuption in entirely incorrect.

I think where we disagree is the amount of selling power that ley lines, soothsayers and vampires have versus making a fundamentally stronger base game. That's part of my point - I think it's a marketing misread by the designers. I suspect that if they branded NFP as "we are fixing Civ 6", they would have made just as much if not more money. I actually have no idea how NFP has done, and no, the optional game modes they promoted had nothing to do with my decision to purchase it.

I guess neither of us really can say whether it was a good business decision, only what we suspect - but at least I can look at the polling data we have as evidence that people don't love the idea of fantasy. I'm sure if you polled people "would you like to see the designers fix Civ 6", you would get a significantly stronger response, perhaps even an overwhelming one. So I think you are making a basic assumption, one that goes against the evidence in this very thread.

 

[Josephias]

I suspect that if they branded NFP as "we are fixing Civ 6", they would have made just as much if not more money.

Well, just a tip from Marketing 101. If you advertise something as "we are fixing something we already delivered to you", you can't expect to make a lot of money. Most of the market will answer "you should give that for free", and a big part of the ones that do not say so, it will be because they go to the, -even worse- "you should pay us interest for the time it has not ben fixed since we paid for full".

We are fans and all, and there is a lot of us in this forum. But what we are in reality? A 1%, maybe a 5%, of their market share?

And even us, we are undecided. And mind I voted option B, even if I have no problem with the secret society of noble warriors and escapists which have certain esteem for red body fluids

 

[The Civs 6]

Well, just a tip from Marketing 101. If you advertise something as "we are fixing something we already delivered to you", you can't expect to make a lot of money. Most of the market will answer "you should give that for free", and a big part of the ones that do not say so, it will be because they go to the, -even worse- "you should pay us interest for the time it has not ben fixed since we paid for full".

We are fans and all, and there is a lot of us in this forum. But what we are in reality? A 1%, maybe a 5%, of their market share?

And even us, we are undecided. And mind I voted option B, even if I have no problem with the secret society of noble warriors and escapists which have certain esteem for red body fluids

Funny because BnW seemed to work alright, and that was the expansion that basically fixed Civ 5. But really, I can only speak for myself - and I've basically purchased every edition of Civ ever produced, and most of the time for the full sticker price.

We'll see how Civ's direction compares with Humankind. It is a competition that I am looking forward to, that this space desperately needs.

 

[oSiyeza]

I think where we disagree is the amount of selling power that ley lines, soothsayers and vampires have versus making a fundamentally stronger base game. That's part of my point - I think it's a marketing misread by the designers. I suspect that if they branded NFP as "we are fixing Civ 6", they would have made just as much if not more money. I actually have no idea how NFP has done, and no, the optional game modes they promoted had nothing to do with my decision to purchase it.

I guess neither of us really can say whether it was a good business decision, only what we suspect - but at least I can look at the polling data we have as evidence that people don't love the idea of fantasy. I'm sure if you polled people "would you like to see the designers fix Civ 6", you would get a significantly stronger response, perhaps even an overwhelming one. So I think you are making a basic assumption, one that goes against the evidence in this very thread.

Its not like we disagree, but there is not a good marketing behind selling the "Old Frontier Season Pass, we are now fixing the problems we put into the game for only 29.99$”. or a “True AI DLC for only 10.99$”. Because that should have been in the game already, we already paid for that content, and Fxs did not deliver.

The fact is the only way I think the game could be fixed is mixing new content with free patches. Selling new content, and use an extended time for support to address old issues. In theory this is what they are doing and could work, but requires a commitment from FXS that they have not shown yet. I think the main developers of civ want to deliver the best game possible, but they are not granted the proper resources.

Thinking that you would get automatically those resources if you just removed the new content, it is beyond unfunded. We know how companies work, and that will not happen, the opposite is what almost always happens.

The fact is that FXS had plenty of time and opportunities to deliver better and more finished content. They had not, and that probably has not hurt their sales much.

 

[The Civs 6]

Its not like we disagree, but there is not a good marketing behind selling the "Old Frontier Season Pass, we are now fixing the problems we put into the game for only 29.99$”. or a “True AI DLC for only 10.99$”. Because that should have been in the game already, we already paid for that content, and Fxs did not deliver.

The fact is the only way I think the game could be fixed is mixing new content with free patches. Selling new content, and use an extended time for support to address old issues. In theory this is what they are doing and could work, but requires a commitment from FXS that they have not shown yet. I think the main developers of civ want to deliver the best game possible, but they are not granted the proper resources.

Thinking that you would get automatically those resources if you just removed the new content, it is beyond unfunded. We know how companies work, and that will not happen, the opposite is what almost always happens.

The fact is that FXS had plenty of time and opportunities to deliver better and more finished content. They had not, and that probably has not hurt their sales much.

Well on the point of it hurting sales, we'll see what happens once a true competitor enters the ring. At some point reputation becomes the cart pulling the horse.

I'm not opposed to new content, but frivolous fantasy content just seems to really twist the knife when it comes to the underlying game. Contrast, again, with BnW where new content like trade routes and ideology ALSO made the underlying game better.

 

[AsH2]

And the spam of off-topic-arguing-just-for-the-sake-of-arguing keeps rolling.

Here's an article about NFP - GameDaily.biz Firaxis Games on Civilization VI's New Frontier pass, and keeping the game fresh four years on

Spoiler excerpts from article :

..
“Since we've completed work on Civilization VI and it's expansion packs, we have a lot of good working knowledge about how long it takes us to develop new leaders, civs, and content for the game,” she explained. “Every time we release something, we have an opportunity to revisit balance and update the game, and so we could start with the question ‘how often do we want to release new material for Civilization VI? What could we do with a monthly cadence?’ And from that we worked backwards into the schedule we have: a release of paid content based around civilizations and leaders, followed by a community update for everyone who owns the game.”

Of course, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to disrupt even the best laid plans. The industry at large has struggled to adjust to office closures and remote working conditions, and we’ve seen some high-profile delays as a result. Luckily, Firaxis’ work hasn’t been disrupted too much..

“We have been fortunate in that we are still on schedule to deliver each DLC as promised in our roadmap,” Bonacorso said. “We're lucky to work in an industry where we can work remotely from our homes. I wouldn't say it's exactly the same as being in the office, and we definitely miss the ability to drop into someone's office to ask a question, but we are still very much on schedule.”

Looking forward, while there are no plans for any more full-fledged expansions like Gathering Storm or Rise and Fall, Bonacorso said that Firaxis has no plans to stop supporting Civilization. Weather that means more leaders and civs or an entirely new numbered sequel she wouldn’t say. All we know for certain is that beyond the New Frontier pass, there is more Civilization on the horizon.

“We're committed to supporting Civilization VI through the next year, and we've shared our plan with our audience,” Bonacorso said. “As we have always told our fans, as long as there is interest in Civilization as a game, we hope to be making more Civilization for them to play.”

 

[oSiyeza]

Well on the point of it hurting sales, we'll see what happens once a true competitor enters the ring. At some point reputation becomes the cart pulling the horse.

I'm not opposed to new content, but frivolous fantasy content just seems to really twist the knife when it comes to the underlying game. Contrast, again, with BnW where new content like trade routes and ideology ALSO made the underlying game better.

They probably felt the game is to bloated with content. Ammount of content is all but lacking in the main game. Also they did a poll in this community asking how we wanted the new content to be released if at all. I dont think there is much room for more suff in the game with a regular expansion model, and the NFP suits the type of content they are releasing. Some historical content, some non historical content that does not integrate with the main game, but provides different flavours.

I don't have any problem with expresing critizism, but it should be reasonable and justified, and should not try to obtain a monopoly of the conversation either. The thing I oppose is the refusal from a part of the community to accept any content that does not fit their taste; and with it, the refusal to accept that the community of players in civ is not uniform, and has different tastes.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

For us, this year is very much about our team learning how to treat Civilization VI as that live service game

Exactly what I was pointing when the information about possible new seasonal content dropped
They explained quite well what is their game design concept. They have figured out that they are in similar territory as online living card games when you must keep shaking the meta to make the game fresh. So they adding asymmetrical Civilizations and game modes. This is the golden goose model for them as long they will keep fans interested but also bad news for those who want polishing existing content.

 

[The Civs 6]

They probably felt the game is to bloated with content. Ammount of content is all but lacking in the main game. Also they did a poll in this community asking how we wanted the new content to be released if at all. I dont think there is much room for more suff in the game with a regular expansion model, and the NFP suits the type of content they are releasing. Some historical content, some non historical content that does not integrate with the main game, but provides different flavours.

I don't have any problem with expresing critizism, but it should be reasonable and justified, and should not try to obtain a monopoly of the conversation either. The thing I oppose is the refusal from a part of the community to accept any content that does not fit their taste; and with it, the refusal to accept that the community of players in civ is not uniform, and has different tastes.

If there isn't room for more content, how can you justify... adding more content? And honestly I have no idea what that second paragraph means...

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

I don't have any problem with expresing critizism, but it should be reasonable and justified, and should not try to obtain a monopoly of the conversation either. The thing I oppose is the refusal from a part of the community to accept any content that does not fit their taste; and with it, the refusal to accept that the community of players in civ is not uniform, and has different tastes.

Agree. But this works for both sides

 

[Bibor]

I don't have any problem with expresing critizism, but it should be reasonable and justified, and should not try to obtain a monopoly of the conversation either. The thing I oppose is the refusal from a part of the community to accept any content that does not fit their taste; and with it, the refusal to accept that the community of players in civ is not uniform, and has different tastes.

This has little to do with taste.

The primary driver behind this the fact that the base game (with expansions) feels unfinished.

Thus, when you see how much graphics design and coding went into adding new game modes, many (myself included) get more irritated than usual. Like... "really, you could add a whole new game mode but you can't make dams easier to plan for?".

To conclude, Vampires, Leylines etc. are a problem because I feel I was given something I might or might not like, in place of something they already know I want. And to be honest, it doesn't feel good at all. I understand their motivations behind this, but it still doesn't feel right. You can't buy just one icecream if you have two kids. It's really that simple.

Give me two long overdue district overhauls for each vampire, and we're good, Firaxis. I'll even settle for one per.

 

[Equilin]

If there isn't room for more content, how can you justify... adding more content? And honestly I have no idea what that second paragraph means...

Because they are aware that "there isn't room for more content" is subjective and vary between players, so they add content that players can turn on and off rather than forcing it down every customer's throat. That's the justification.

 

[The Civs 6]

Because they are aware that "there isn't room for more content" is subjective and vary between players, so they add content that players can turn on and off rather than forcing it down every customer's throat. That's the justification.

If i was a customer and I didn't want anymore content, I would just not pay for more content? Who is paying for NFP and doesn't want more content?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If there isn't room for more content, how can you justify... adding more content? And honestly I have no idea what that second paragraph means...

The developers stated that adding another expansion on top of the previous two would probably make the game really feature bloated if they added in any more new game mechanics. Instead they decided to add additional content that uses the existing mechanics already and make them optional.

The Apocalypse mode expands on the natural disasters of GS, while the Secret Societies expands on the idea of an additional governor not assigned to a specific city.

 

[The Civs 6]

The developers stated that adding another expansion on top of the previous two would probably make the game really feature bloated if they added in any more new game mechanics. Instead they decided to add additional content that uses the existing mechanics already and make them optional.

The Apocalypse mode expands on the natural disasters of GS, while the Secret Societies expands on the idea of an additional governor not assigned to a specific city.

I want to judge the NFP just based on this but I guess I'll reserve judgment. The diplomatic district gives me hope that they haven't totally forsaken substantive changes in favor of superficial ones.

 

[Equilin]

If i was a customer and I didn't want anymore content, I would just not pay for more content? Who is paying for NFP and doesn't want more content?

You ignored people who want some content but less than that of an expansion, or want some content but don't want to bloat the game further than it already is. NFP is the dev answer to that

 

[The Civs 6]

You ignored people who want some content but less than that of an expansion, or want some content but don't want to bloat the game further than it already is. NFP is the dev answer to that

This kind of sounds like a post hoc rationalization for what has come out rather than some sort of dev strategy in response to market research.