This is exactly the apocalyptic language I can't take seriously. What does "horror regarding withheld content" even mean? Why is "Civ" in quotation marks?
Shacknews: Best Strategy Game of 2025 - Sid Meier's Civilization 7
- Thread starter The_J
- Start date
Leucarum
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 3,527
If you'll allow me one piece of hyperbole, Given the state of an average Civ game launch Firaxis do seem to be in need of public interaction to make the game work...
I guess with 7 we'll see how a DLC model pans out. I'm gonna need a lot of convincing that the current DLC is worth buying for Civ7. I might well be an outlier, but if not then I guess the issue is that you need a minimum level of public support to make a DLC model work too.
Leucarum
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 3,527
I think it's not just bugs and UI issues - the sheer complexity of a game like Civ which means you can't get to a finished product until well after you unleash it on the public. I think you're right about how people percieve the game though. The question with early access to me is whether you're transparent that people are buying into a product which is developing, or hoping you have a sufficient product that lets you set up for the long haul. Will Civ7 sell enough DLC or will it have fallen just on the "insufficient" side of the line?
True, though I wasn't necessarily basing it off of stats but aesthetics and nostalgia factor as being one of the most loved. Same goes for Civ games.
Check the steam store page , Check early reviews , check player count that dropped off the scale .
"Horror" - an intense feeling of fear, shock, or disgust:
You can take it seriously or not, check it out yourself, this game had content cut and flogged as a day one DLC.
Said DLC has been reviewed at 88% Negative again check it out yourself .
"Cut content to sell as an overpriced DLC."
"This DLC is overpriced, lacks any substance and feels like cut content. New civ's in this DLC are being added to the game without a leader?? They are literally selling natural world wonders to us piece by piece at extortionate prices.
"Pricing for these is truly nothing short of spitting in player's faces."
"Its absolutely crystal clear why they went with the leader separation and civilization switching, for nothing other than monetization. "
"Major rip off, shocking"
"The value for money when you can only play each Civ for 1/3 of the game is very very poor. "
"This "DLC" is honestly a joke. There’s barely anything here, it's disgusting and what is here feels super lazy or reused. I can’t believe they’re charging for this — it’s a total rip-off."
"this should obviously be included in the base game"
"
I was one of the suckers who bought the Deluxe Edition for 100 EUR. Civ V and Civ VI are some of my favorite games of all time and I have so many fond memories of playing them with friends.
Civ 7 is a pathetic insult to every player who bought it for more than 25 bucks. It's unfinished and this pack is part of the cut content sold to you for $30 more.
"Paid dlc at launch"
"Its kinda rude the way they release an expensive, unfinished, unbalanced game and then lock content (which was def ready to be released months ago) behind a additional paywall. SHAME SHAME SHAME
"Outrageously overpriced for what it is"
ETC Etc there's another 300+ if you like to read
No , peoples opinions are just that there opinions. Please respect that there are opinions that differ from yours and kindly don't be so rude.
Re Early access was never going to be an option for Firaxis, no money in that , anyways as this is going a tad off topic , you enjoy your night
I appreciate the response. Steam reviewers have no insider information. Writing a salty review is not exactly driven by horror. Disliking DLC this close to release is fine, but it's not a new thing with the series, or the gaming industry at large. None of the content was withheld, because it was never promised to be a part of the base game. In fact, the full list of civilizations and leaders was announced in advance. Everything that was not included on that list, was excluded. Everything that was sold as part of the season pass was delivered as part of season pass, within the advertised timeframe. If you don't like what the game offers for the price on release, you put it on a wishlist and wait for a sale or a bundle. That's what most of my steam wishlist is.
You never said why you keep putting "Civ" in quotes.
Leucarum
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 3,527
Firaxis probably expected us to feel better about the contents of expansion packs. Compared to what we'd get in Civ6; 4 civs, 2 leaders and some goodies does seem like a reasonably enticing offer on paper, but it's fair to say there's been a reasonable backlash to the price tag.
For me the first problem with the value proposition has been Civ switching - you can burn through all the new content in 2 games... And that's assuming you find everything interesting, which I personally don't. I generally like about 1/3 the civs added in any Civ XPAC. Only being able to play the 1/3 you like for a fraction of the game is a real value killer.
And then leaders I think were also more important than you might expect as they're the one element which sticks around for the game. Even ones which I was interested in thematically like Lakhshmibai or Sayyida suffered from very underwhelming mechanics (Lakshmibai could have been more interesting if not accompanied by a boost to influence production). Bolivar is extremely underpowered, Blackbeard is more like Blankbeard for the first 1/3 before proper naval gameplay... So that kind of leaves Genghis and Ada, neither of whom are especially mechanically groundbreaking. Ada's the only leader I'd feel happy to spend money on personally.
I want to see how much Civ Continuity will shake things up. If I can have an interesting full game as say, Nepal (picking an XPAC civ I like), I think how much I rate the value of an XPAC will change.
But I also think there's been a philosophy of putting the really unique gameplay elements on Civs, when it might be better to put them on leaders so that folks who do want to civ switch can have more thematically distinct playthroughs. Even if not, leaders have been pretty underwhelming mechanically, when I think they might be the most important element.
Fix those two elements though and I suspect my opinions on Civ7's DLC model could flip.
Also late thought: Leader momentos have also been very unexciting... That's a definite missed opportunity for Firaxis.
For me the first problem with the value proposition has been Civ switching - you can burn through all the new content in 2 games... And that's assuming you find everything interesting, which I personally don't. I generally like about 1/3 the civs added in any Civ XPAC. Only being able to play the 1/3 you like for a fraction of the game is a real value killer.
And then leaders I think were also more important than you might expect as they're the one element which sticks around for the game. Even ones which I was interested in thematically like Lakhshmibai or Sayyida suffered from very underwhelming mechanics (Lakshmibai could have been more interesting if not accompanied by a boost to influence production). Bolivar is extremely underpowered, Blackbeard is more like Blankbeard for the first 1/3 before proper naval gameplay... So that kind of leaves Genghis and Ada, neither of whom are especially mechanically groundbreaking. Ada's the only leader I'd feel happy to spend money on personally.
I want to see how much Civ Continuity will shake things up. If I can have an interesting full game as say, Nepal (picking an XPAC civ I like), I think how much I rate the value of an XPAC will change.
But I also think there's been a philosophy of putting the really unique gameplay elements on Civs, when it might be better to put them on leaders so that folks who do want to civ switch can have more thematically distinct playthroughs. Even if not, leaders have been pretty underwhelming mechanically, when I think they might be the most important element.
Fix those two elements though and I suspect my opinions on Civ7's DLC model could flip.
Also late thought: Leader momentos have also been very unexciting... That's a definite missed opportunity for Firaxis.
That they are. Mine included.
I do.
I wasn't. I understand why you don't think Civilisation VII is a "real" Civilisation game. I don't have to agree with it, of course
There's always money in game sales. But the money tends to be handled by the publisher, and not the developer directly. Thanks, and have a nice night yourself. We've been having some chilly ones!
stealth_nsk
Deity
If the goal is to burn through content - yes. But the variety of strategies is pretty big. For example, Tonga play quite differently, depending on which leader you choose and which civilization you transition to in exploration.
I agree that DLC leaders aren't that great so far. However, I'd say both Blackbeard and Lackshmibi are interesting enough (Ada's abilities are a bit passive to my taste).
Leucarum
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 3,527
What examples would you give here? Tonga were the Civ I was thinking of as the DLC Civ with the least variety based on which leader you picked
stealth_nsk
Deity
Yeah, Tonga is clearly a bad example, but there's at least variety between map types (it plays totally different on shattered lands), plus there are different ways to utilize early map visibility - playing as Isabella to forward settle natural wonders, for example, or befriend city-states you need as one of influence leaders.
Tecumseh and Isabella are two that come to mind. Emperor Napoleon can have a very low stakes game of antagonism with them, too.
Leucarum
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 3,527
I wouldn't say they're dramatically different games though. The play pattern is still going to be exploit having visibility of the new world early.
And I think we're being sidetracked a little bit. My point was that it's very easy to play through all that the XPAC civs have to offer quickly now that Civ switching is in. I think that's more down to the fact that you will play 3 Civs in one full playthrough than anything else, so I'm hoping that'll change once you don't have to switch..
Smegger213
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2024
- Messages
- 362
Except if you wanted a British Leader and Civ. You had to buy either the deluxe edition or the dlc pack.
Now, I am sure that Civilization is very popular in Britain, but locking Britain and a leader behind paid dlc was very scummy behaviour by Firaxis.
You could say that for any leader or civ reserved for DLC. What's so special about Britain? I say this, as a Brit. There are plenty of other important and historic choices to have in the base game. You can't feasibly have them all.
The problem, if there is a problem, is DLC on launch. Not whichever civ or leader was chosen. But at the same time, if there isn't a post-launch plan, resources don't get allotted for it (and this is stuff typically decided pre-release). So game developers are in the unfortunate position where post-launch support and content is expected (by consumers), but consumers at the same time don't want content to be "cut" from the base game, because consumers frequently misunderstand that without the DLC allotment, the content wouldn't be made in the first place.
So you have an equation of "we need leaders and civs for post-launch content", and you have a potential leader pool for the base game, and it's up to the developers to balance interesting and varied base game picks vs. what gets thrown down the road, either as free or paid content.
I think my flaws so far with the content:
-When an XP comes out, you get 4 civs and 2 leaders. But if you don't repeat playing civs, 2 leaders should have you play through 6 civs. If they keep growing at this rate, you basically end up replaying civs a lot more often than leaders. Personally, I've played every civ at least once, some of them now 2 or 3 times. But I still haven't made it through each leader once (and have only played the same leader twice maybe 1 or 2 times)
-Maybe personal preference, but I feel too many of the leaders are basically only getting war bonuses with nothing else. So I find myself sort of treating them interchangeably, which makes it harder to want to play them. Like I'm not really going to want to play Genghis back to back with Bolivar
-Leaders I feel are a little limited in their bonuses. Yeah, they give you something, but you have like a couple things with them, while civs have like 12 unique bonuses in their trees
-And then sort of related to that, civs end up with so many bonuses that I just forget. Like my brain always says "Maya is just the UQ giving you production", but then you forget that they have another ability which gives a burst to culture for each tech, and to techs for each civic. And an ability which gives strength against damaged units.
-And because of the unrestricted leaders, you have almost an over-abundance of choice in games. Like I can play Ada or Franklin or Confucius with Maya to really lean into their science ability. But maybe I should aim for more of a culture leader to give them balance. Or do I pick a more militaristic leader because I'll probably naturally be ahead in tech? I think you get a little overload of choices. Never mind the people who like mementos, where now you can swap in extra bonus abilities too.
Not sure how that's a gotcha. Britain was never promised for the base game. No civ is guaranteed to be included in the baseline version. Civ VI had Persia as post-release DLC. It didn't add Ottomans until the 2nd expansion.
If you need Britain for the game to be playable, and the full price plus the price of the DLC is too much, you wait for a sale.
Leucarum
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 3,527
I'd felt like that a little bit too. There's an abundance of ways to play war. I guess the theme for the XPACs may have been kind of responsible for that though, so maybe this will shift.
It also hurts leaders when their abilities aren't especially flashy as they don't seem as fun as the civs. I like the more in-depth civs, but I think you're right that they're a little more like "here's your main ability, and have a couple of thematic freebies on the side"
There's an overload of choices, but not that many of them dramatically shake up your game. I find it's weird that some of the momentos can shake up your game as much as the leaders TBH...
Similar threads
- Poll
